Barr fakery

[NCFisher]

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.

Utter babble; you don't even know what you're referring to, or the context. Most humorous though, is your Pink Panther misapplication.

1.) Yes, literally interpreted as his opinion. Even if Trump had said "I am requesting William Barr reduce the sentencing recommendation!", it would be an exercise of his plenary power under Art. II.

DOJ also said in the court briefing you refer to, but are ignorant of:

“To be sure, the President’s account identifies his office, and his tweets make official statements about the policies of his administration,” the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment argues. “But the fact that the President may ‘announce the actions of state’ through his Twitter account does not mean that all actions related to that account are attributable to the state.”

"Equally clear is that not all conduct of public officials is state action simply by virtue of their profession; officials routinely engage in personal conduct that is not an exercise of state power..."

2.) Yes, and...? He is expressing his personal opinion, not intervening (which he has the power to do, for the tenth time).

3.) He's wrong in that the AG is chief LEO by legislation. He's right in that AGs are appointed and can be fired by a president, and that the president is constitutionally empowered to ask for an investigation or not, or redress for injustice. DOJ and the AG are legislative constructs not found in the constitution. When the legislature and constitution conflict, the constitution wins.

You didn't think this through. Barr cannot dismiss the case; Stone is convicted. So, no one can or will be terminated since it can't be dismissed.

Thanks for acting as your own firing squad.

 

[MontyPython]

Utter babble; you don't even know what you're referring to, or the context. Most humorous though, is your Pink Panther misapplication.

1.) Yes, literally interpreted as his opinion. Even if Trump had said "I am requesting William Barr reduce the sentencing recommendation!", it would be an exercise of his plenary power under Art. II.

DOJ also said in the court briefing you refer to, but are ignorant of:

“To be sure, the President’s account identifies his office, and his tweets make official statements about the policies of his administration,” the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment argues. “But the fact that the President may ‘announce the actions of state’ through his Twitter account does not mean that all actions related to that account are attributable to the state.”

"Equally clear is that not all conduct of public officials is state action simply by virtue of their profession; officials routinely engage in personal conduct that is not an exercise of state power..."

2.) Yes, and...? He is expressing his personal opinion, not intervening (which he has the power to do, for the tenth time).

3.) He's wrong in that the AG is chief LEO by legislation. He's right in that AGs are appointed and can be fired by a president, and that the president is constitutionally empowered to ask for an investigation or not, or redress for injustice. DOJ and the AG are legislative constructs not found in the constitution. When the legislature and constitution conflict, the constitution wins.

You didn't think this through. Barr cannot dismiss the case; Stone is convicted. So, no one can or will be terminated since it can't be dismissed.

Thanks for acting as your own firing squad.

Lawdy.

Well, I guess you know more than the 2,500 former Justice Department officials who submitted a letter calling on Barr to resign for ignoring the “long-standing practice” of not allowing political influence in legal decisions.

Please, by all means though, continue to grace us with your musings.

 

[NCFisher]

Lawdy.

Well, I guess you know more than the 2,500 former Justice Department officials who submitted a letter calling on Barr to resign for ignoring the “long-standing practice” of not allowing political influence in legal decisions.

Please, by all means though, continue to grace us with your musings.

Yes, I do know more because Barr did not ignore "long-standing practice" nor was influenced since the decision was made prior to Trump opining. DOJ's Kupec made the public statement that DOJ leadership had decided it prior, and Barr confirmed.

Even then - let's say Barr is water-skiing in Fiji, doesn't hear about it until Trump tweets. If Barr say "hey, that's not the sentence were briefed on and is grossly excessive" it is then HIS duty to rescind the recommendation. You don't allow an unjust doubling of sentence that doesn't match the crime because the optics aren't' good, right?

It's good they're "former", because we don't need reactionary-wipes who don't understand innocent until proven guilty. They only had to wait until next month for his congressional testimony. These are not people who should be prosecuting anyone.

 

[MontyPython]

Yes, I do know more because Barr did not ignore "long-standing practice" nor was influenced since the decision was made prior to Trump opining. DOJ's Kupec made the public statement that DOJ leadership had decided it prior, and Barr confirmed.

Even then - let's say Barr is water-skiing in Fiji, doesn't hear about it until Trump tweets. If Barr say "hey, that's not the sentence were briefed on and is grossly excessive" it is then HIS duty to rescind the recommendation. You don't allow an unjust doubling of sentence that doesn't match the crime because the optics aren't' good, right?

It's good they're "former", because we don't need reactionary-wipes who don't understand innocent until proven guilty. They only had to wait until next month for his congressional testimony. These are not people who should be prosecuting anyone.

So, didn't make it past your statement, "Yes, I do know more..."

Please don't waste your knowledge and wisdom here... just go fix the world for all us little folk! Thanks.

 

[AM64]

The AG is the head of the Department of Justice. I take issue with calling that a political position. The agenda of the AG should never involve settling personal scores and carrying out vendettas for the president, much less trying to lighten sentences for his convicted felon friends.

Did you ever ask yourself why Comey played judge and jury and said there wasn't enough on Hiliary's security issues to prosecute rather than letting the AG and tie DOJ make that determination? You don't think Obama brokered that decision to keep the AG from having to make the real decision based on supposedly stiffer criteria?

So if you don't put the DOJ under the Executive Branch, then where do you put it? It doesn't fit under the legislative umbrella. Putting in the Judicial Branch allocates way too much power to that branch. It's an "action" type agency, and those belong under the Executive Branch if you think about the organization of responsibilities. Congress can always impeach the Chief Executive if they think he has acted improperly and broken the law. Face it, you work for somebody; he/she controls what you do within corporate limits ... kinda prevents chaos in the workplace. It's hard to see how government could do all it's administering without a similar approach.

 

[Orange defense]

It’s called payback. Knowledge is power. They’re running for the hills. If the law don’t getem, we the people will. WWG1WGA.

 

[AM64]

And tens of thousands of former and current prosecutors, etc. don't. Only you would be "wow'ed" by the same group of partisan and/or constitutionally ignorant retreads who said Trump committed obstruction. You're rabid; Trump or Barr couldn't pass gas without 'peach him!'

Probably a lot of pent up prosecutorial butt hurt in the DOJ as dim prosecutors are quickly learning they have no chance as a lifetime federal judge like their old role models in the 9th circuit court.

 

[AM64]

Don't recall Obama interfering via the atty general in prosecutions of his friends

Correction: you don't remember the media telling you Obama was meddling at the Palace of Justice.

 

[AM64]

It shouldn’t matter who nominated a federal judge or what their political leanings are. A federal judge should do one thing and they all should do it in about the same fashion, apply the constitution to laws passed by congress.

Anything outside of that is activism and should be called out at every instance.

If human judges can't think apolitically, then we should move to artificial intelligence for applying law.

 

[AirVol]

Lawdy.

Well, I guess you know more than the 2,500 former Justice Department officials who submitted a letter calling on Barr to resign for ignoring the “long-standing practice” of not allowing political influence in legal decisions.

Please, by all means though, continue to grace us with your musings.

2500 swamp rats huh. Figured there’d be more.

 

[AM64]

Did you just pull a whataboutsim when getting called out for whataboutism?

You are a consummate professional.

You've got two cards in your deck now ... the racist one was overplayed. When are you going to add the "At this point, IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER" card? You might as well officially recognize the "Well, THAT'S different card" while you're at it.

 

[NCFisher]

Probably a lot of pent up prosecutorial butt hurt in the DOJ as dim prosecutors are quickly learning they have no chance as a lifetime federal judge like their old role models in the 9th circuit court.

They're the same "formers" who signed the Trump obstruction letter, both a product of lefty litigation group Protect Democracy Project, founded in 2017 purely as a reaction to Trump being elected. They're a disgrace.

 

[NCFisher]

So, didn't make it past your statement, "Yes, I do know more..."

Please don't waste your knowledge and wisdom here... just go fix the world for all us little folk! Thanks.

You're welcome!

 

[AM64]

They're the same "formers" who signed the Trump obstruction letter, both a product of lefty litigation group Protect Democracy Project, founded in 2017 purely as a reaction to Trump being elected. They're a disgrace.

I've been away for most of the past few days ... no internet. However, I thought I remembered the anti-Trump Mafia morphing from "former" to "current and former" ... I may be wrong about that. I do know one news service was being careful to change the term from "prosecutors" to "prosecutors and administrators".

You do have to admire how these liberal justice warriors wear their hypocrisy like a badge though. Their political view counts while they are appalled by someone else's "political" view as discerned through their pink colored glasses.

 

[PointGuard]

Utter babble; you don't even know what you're referring to, or the context. Most humorous though, is your Pink Panther misapplication.

1.) Yes, literally interpreted as his opinion. Even if Trump had said "I am requesting William Barr reduce the sentencing recommendation!", it would be an exercise of his plenary power under Art. II.

DOJ also said in the court briefing you refer to, but are ignorant of:

“To be sure, the President’s account identifies his office, and his tweets make official statements about the policies of his administration,” the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment argues. “But the fact that the President may ‘announce the actions of state’ through his Twitter account does not mean that all actions related to that account are attributable to the state.”

"Equally clear is that not all conduct of public officials is state action simply by virtue of their profession; officials routinely engage in personal conduct that is not an exercise of state power..."

2.) Yes, and...? He is expressing his personal opinion, not intervening (which he has the power to do, for the tenth time).

3.) He's wrong in that the AG is chief LEO by legislation. He's right in that AGs are appointed and can be fired by a president, and that the president is constitutionally empowered to ask for an investigation or not, or redress for injustice. DOJ and the AG are legislative constructs not found in the constitution. When the legislature and constitution conflict, the constitution wins.

You didn't think this through. Barr cannot dismiss the case; Stone is convicted. So, no one can or will be terminated since it can't be dismissed.

Thanks for acting as your own firing squad.

Got Arrogance?

 

[NCFisher]

Got Arrogance?

I respond courteously when addressed that way.

 

[vols40]

"...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.”

View attachment 262294

Did not know Rod B contributed to MAGA

 

[vols40]

Lawdy.

Well, I guess you know more than the 2,500 former Justice Department officials who submitted a letter calling on Barr to resign for ignoring the “long-standing practice” of not allowing political influence in legal decisions.

Please, by all means though, continue to grace us with your musings.

If that's the case why didn't President Obama resign because several in the Republican party wanted him to?
Former prosecutors= have no power.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

 

[tim]

Having watched the interview I'd say its conclusive proof the whole thing was a set up and is fake. He brags about not being bullied because he won't do what Trump says. But that's exactly what he did. And has done since moment one.

Barr is an evil, evil, stooge.

Was the interview impromptu, at an airport, with the husband who is an expresident, and his wife is running for president? Sounds shady if so

 

[Coug]

 

[evillawyer]

Wow, Barr just got BLASTED by a federal judge.

 

[FLVOL69]

Wow, Barr just got BLASTED by a federal judge.

 

[GAVol]

Wow, Barr just got BLASTED by a federal judge.

Not the first time he’s gone after Barr. They have history.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Lawdy.

Well, I guess you know more than the 2,500 former Justice Department officials who submitted a letter calling on Barr to resign for ignoring the “long-standing practice” of not allowing political influence in legal decisions.

Please, by all means though, continue to grace us with your musings.

From and excluded middle to an appeal to authority.That's an Olympic run right there.