Barr fakery

#282
#282
Purple Tiger said:
I think you must be high to conflate so many things and make strawman arguments.. No one ever claimed that citizens of Eastern European communist countries enjoyed any kinds of rights. However, in socialist Great Britain and France, citizens still enjoyed full civil rights. See the difference between the two?

In Nazi Germany, private ownership and control of companies remained intact. Krupp was never under government control; neither was BMW, Diamler, Siemans or AG Farber. The only major manufacturing corporation seized by the Nazis was Thyssen, which was because Fritz Thyssen pissed off the wrong people. Fascists do not push for government ownership of corporations - only Socialists do.

Patriotism and nationalism, when taken to an extreme, are indeed dangerous.
Click to expand...

I'm equally puzzled; in which era did either France or Britain declare themselves socialist, or act as a socialist state - ?

Nazis rejected Marxist socialism (international solidarity). Socialism itself predates Marx/Engels, and even Hegel. If you want to argue the Soviet state wasn't actually socialism, I'll take that but counter that is exactly what socialism looks like every time attempted. At some point, we have to conclude the problem is inherent to socialism.

Hitler stated ""Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not" and "Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings" - clearly differing with Marx on a competing brands of socialism.

I didn't contend businesses were nationalized. Junkers Aircraft and Motorwerks is an example; upon refusing to join the rearmament effort, the company's market stock and patents were seized in 1933 under threat of imprisonment for treason. Junkers died under house arrest in 1935, and his wife ceded the company to the government. Your example Krupp, was a willing major arms producer and did not suffer the same fate. Again, you socialize the man; if he refuses, you socialize him forcibly. I think it was Nazi Germany historian Overy that stated hundreds of corporations were either taken or controlled in this manner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1, AM64 and tennvols77
#283
#283
PointGuard said:
1. He lied and mischaracterized the Mueller report before doing a dick dance and stalling its’ release to Congress
2. See #1 that’s all you need to cite and know
Click to expand...

Thanks; "dick dance" lets me know I'm dealing with towering intellect.

"Mr Mueller said the summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of his work, adding: “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”

He called for lengthy executive summaries of his report to be released, which went into detail about around a dozen possible episodes of obstruction by Mr Trump. Mr Barr rejected the proposal."

Because that is not the purpose of a memo summarizing the findings of the two charges of the two volumes; it is an executive summary. I think you forget - if you knew - that Bob Mueller was DOJ's hired hand. He had one job; declare crime or no crime and failed to do his job and punted it back to DOJ.

"But Mr Barr batted away the criticism. He claimed that Mr Mueller made clear in a call that he did not believe the four-page document was inaccurate, instead expressing concern over press coverage.

Asked why he had declined to publish full executive summaries of the report, Mr Barr said: “I wasn’t interested in putting out summaries, period.”

Mr Barr insisted he wanted to get the report out rather than releasing it as a series, saying: “It was my decision how and when to make that public, not Bob Mueller’s.”
Trump's attorney general denies misleading public over Russia report after Robert Mueller criticism

So, Mueller didn't say that, you did. Further, Barr was under no constitutional or governmental rule of obligation to release ANY of the report, but did so anyway. The "stall" was performing the NECESSARY redactions to protect grand jury information (which cannot be released without court order), classified info., and ongoing investigation. Barr made plain that necessary step before Mueller even sent his report to DoJ.

Like the other poster, you're also mute when it comes to knowing what the role of the AG is. Thanks for playing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1, AM64 and vols40
#284
#284
Mick said:
All of this Barr nonsense is because Republicans cannot accept Trump and his Campaign were crooked, dirty , and conspired with the Russians to win an election.
Click to expand...

Which the Someone Probe Bearing Mueller's Name said didn't occur.

But assume he did; how is that different from the DNC/Clinton campaign hiring foreign agents to dig up dirt composed of Russian propaganda, and paying Co-Chair DNC Ethnic Council, pro-Ukrainian activist Chalupa to dig up dirt in Ukraine on nominee Trump?

Either the hypothetical but disproven Trump conspiracy and actual DNC/Clinton conspiracy are both wrong, or neither is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1 and vols40
#286
#286
NCFisher said:
Which the Someone Probe Bearing Mueller's Name said didn't occur.

But assume he did; how is that different from the DNC/Clinton campaign hiring foreign agents to dig up dirt composed of Russian propaganda, and paying Co-Chair DNC Ethnic Council, pro-Ukrainian activist Chalupa to dig up dirt in Ukraine on nominee Trump?

Either the hypothetical but disproven Trump conspiracy and actual DNC/Clinton conspiracy are both wrong, or neither is.
Click to expand...

You are Trump's biggest fan, full of alternative facts and nonsense. It states in the report the campaign coordinated with the release of the emails. Again nobody has time to entertain your denial.
 
#287
#287
"...Legal experts said that by relying on his personal connections rather than the Justice Department’s established review process for finding convicts deserving of clemency, Trump risked politicizing his pardon power.
“It’s a clemency process for the well-connected, and that’s it,” said Rachel Barkow, a professor and clemency expert at the New York University School of Law. “Trump is wielding the power the way you would expect the leader of a banana republic who wants to reward his friends and cronies.”

b354567cae6858acc27f082e69a08f8b.jpg
 
#288
#288
Mick said:
You are Trump's biggest fan, full of alternative facts and nonsense. It states in the report the campaign coordinated with the release of the emails. Again nobody has time to entertain your denial.
Click to expand...

You don't answer the question, but then we knew you wouldn't, right?

You'd know nonsense, Mick. It passes through you like a 4-day old burrito.
The Mueller report says no such thing, which is why no one was charged with coordination or conspiracy, but clearly states the opposite:

In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and
individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to
the Campaign. In some instances , the Campaign was receptive to the offer , while in other instances
the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately , the investigation did not establish that the
Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference
activities.

Did you call Mueller with your "alternative" proof? You're the key, Mick!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1, AM64, W.TN.Orange Blood and 1 other person
#289
#289
luthervol said:
It seems as if Barr is saying that Trump's actions make it impossible for him to do his job.
That sounds like it may be a problem.
Click to expand...

Again, two separate questions:
Does the president have the constitutional power to intervene or request investigations, or end them? - Yes.
Should he? - In the overwhelming majority, no but dependent upon the circumstance of whether justice is being applied fairly or injustice has occurred.

Barr is responding to #2 and clearly stating his preference that the president trust him to do his job and give the rabid left nothing to whine about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#290
#290
The Constitution does not contemplate that he has the power to a) prevent investigations into himself; b) intervene to inhibit investigations into his friends; or c) use the means of government to punish or retaliate against his politic rivals.

Trump has done all three. Barr has helped him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#292
#292
lawgator1 said:
The Constitution does not contemplate that he has the power to a) prevent investigations into himself; b) intervene to inhibit investigations into his friends; or c) use the means of government to punish or retaliate against his politic rivals.

Trump has done all three. Barr has helped him.
Click to expand...

A) He hasn't but gave over a million documents to Mueller and inhibited no one from complying with the investigation b) he didn't intervene in the investigation of a friend; the investigation was over, Stone convicted, and he commented - not intervened - that the sentencing recommendation was grossly excessive c) how so?

Thus, Barr cannot have "helped him" do things he hasn't requested or done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, 37L1, AM64 and 3 others
#293
#293
lawgator1 said:
The Constitution does not contemplate that he has the power to a) prevent investigations into himself; b) intervene to inhibit investigations into his friends; or c) use the means of government to punish or retaliate against his politic rivals.

Trump has done all three. Barr has helped him.
Click to expand...

Wrong........see NC post above ^^^^ You read & think just the opposite of the things that happen. TDS is strong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#295
#295
lawgator1 said:
The Constitution does not contemplate that he has the power to a) prevent investigations into himself; b) intervene to inhibit investigations into his friends; or c) use the means of government to punish or retaliate against his politic rivals.

Trump has done all three. Barr has helped him.
Click to expand...

This. x100.

Well stated LG.
 
#296
#296
NCFisher said:
A) He hasn't but gave over a million documents to Mueller and inhibited no one from complying with the investigation b) he didn't intervene in the investigation of a friend; the investigation was over, Stone convicted, and he commented - not intervened - that the sentencing recommendation was grossly excessive c) how so?

Thus, Barr cannot have "helped him" do things he hasn't requested or done.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts.

(1) Trump's tweets are "official statements of the President" per DOJ;
(2) Trump tweeted, "Everything having to do with this fraudulent investigation [of Roger Stone] is badly tainted and, in my opinion, should be thrown out";
(3) Trump stated publicly, "I'm actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country";

Therefore, Trump's statement that Stone's case should be dismissed should be literally interpreted, in fact, as a direct order to the Executive Branch. Even if one discounted the literal nature of Trump's order, as a practical matter, it is 100% clear that Trump wants and expects Roger Stone's case to be dismissed. As such, the jobs of any Executive Branch employee who take actions counter to this order are subject to termination.

This, my friend, is the basis of a Banana Republic.

Judge, jury and executioner.
 
#297
#297
lawgator1 said:
The Constitution does not contemplate that he has the power to a) prevent investigations into himself; b) intervene to inhibit investigations into his friends; or c) use the means of government to punish or retaliate against his politic rivals.

Trump has done all three. Barr has helped him.
Click to expand...

LOL he hasn't done any of the above but yes the constitution provides a means to remove him, investigate him and prosecute him if he did.

You ought to read it, it's an amazing document.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1 and AM64
#299
#299
Question: If Trump is our nation's Chief Law Enforcement Officer, wtf are we paying Barr for?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top