Willian Barr is a Traitor

[Nbadan]

How many times does this ass-clown have to sperm-shield for the Trump administration. Buying into the Spying conspiracy theory with no proof....



After initially shielding President Donald Trump from the full brunt of the Mueller report's findings, Attorney General William Barr is reportedly shifting his attention to another frequent object of Trump's ire: the F.B.I. According to Bloomberg, Barr has assembled a team to investigate how the law enforcement agency handled their probe into the Trump campaign before it was taken over by Robert Mueller.

Barr said during his hearing before the House Appropriations Committee Tuesday that he was "reviewing the conduct of the [FBI's] investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016." Bloomberg reports the investigation will include allegations that the F.B.I.'s probe was tainted by anti-Trump bias and was spurred by a "pattern of actions" undertaken by F.B.I. officials, including a criminal investigation into former attorney general Jeff Sessions that was closed without charges. The newly-assembled team will operate separately from another Justice Department probe into the F.B.I.'s FISA process during the Russia investigation, which is being undertaken by the Inspector General. That investigation is expected to wrap up in May or June, Barr told lawmakers Tuesday.

The allegation that the F.B.I. was packed with members of the Resistance hellbent on taking down Trump has emerged as something of a Republican pet project during Trump's presidency, as lawmakers allied with the president seek a counter-narrative to combat the Mueller probe. House Republicans launched full-scale investigations into the agency during their time as the majority party, and Sen. Lindsay Graham promised in March to investigate the matter and "how [the Mueller report] got off the rails" in the Senate Judiciary Committee he leads. Barr's decision to join their insurgence with his own team, naturally, is being met with open arms: “That’s great news he’s looking into how this whole thing started back in 2016,” Rep. Jim Jordan told Bloomberg. “That’s something that has been really important to us. It’s what we’ve been calling for.”

Of course, one of the biggest proponents of Barr's new plan is likely to be Trump himself, who has frequently taken to Twitter to rail against "Lyin' James Comey" and the "corrupt former leaders of the FBI." While Barr's new probe may earn him brownie points from his boss, it won't do much to help the already-growing narrative that Barr is putting protecting Trump above all else, as evidenced by his controversial summary of the Mueller report and continued refusal to release it to Congress unredacted. As Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff noted on Twitter Tuesday: "Trump got his Roy Cohn."

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/william-barr-gives-trump-what-he-wants-forms-team-to-investigate-the-fbi?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=pol&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_mailing=thematic_ballot_04102019&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9f8cb24c17c6adf0e5d24&user_id=25394153&utm_content=B&utm_term=Thematic_Ballot_Subscribers

Now, if you didn’t already think Barr was failing to fulfill his oath to enforce the laws as the people’s lawyer (not Trump’s lawyer), this latest episode might do it. Remember that Barr already substituted his own “exoneration” of Trump on obstruction of justice (something the Justice Department’s guidelines specify should be a matter for Congress and not for the department), refused to use summaries that Robert S. Mueller III’s team prepared in favor of his misleading summary (which he later claimed was not a summary), has failed to turn over the report or Mueller summaries to Congress in a timely manner and has refused to make an unredacted version of the report available to Congress. All in all, it’s a shabby record of politicizing the Justice Department in a way that his predecessors avoided.

[Reck]

These people willing to work for Trump have lost their collective minds.

They think they will work for Trump for life. Little regards for their own freedom. Someone ought to tell them he’s only there for up to 4-8 years.

[Spurs Homer]

Dude - the entire Trump administration are traitors - including the biggest piece of shit traitor - Trump.

The GOP are traitors.

33% of the fucking country are traitors.

This is a very serious problem.

[Nbadan]

Im more worried about the president this is setting....forgetting Trump...The executive branch has now overridden the power of judicial and legislative branches of government. We are well on our way toward a dictatorship...

[Nbadan]

https://www.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/73/2019/04/09/223789_600.jpg

[Spurtacular]

Redactions bad now.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao Democrats clutching their pearls.

[in2deep]

:lmao Democrats clutching their pearls.

:lol

It's sad to watch

[MultiTroll]

Dude - the entire Trump administration are traitors - including the biggest piece of shit traitor - Trump.

The GOP are traitors.

33% of the fucking country are traitors.

This is a very serious problem.
All the people at Trader Joes are traders.

Oh wait you said traitors.

[boutons_deux]

search "Barr and Iran-Contra", and you'll see EXACTLY why the Repugs made sure Barr became AG.

Iran-Contra was long complicated story, and Barr protected two Repug Pres, St Ronnie the Diseased and Repug Dirty Trickster/CIA/East Coast WASP Elite GHW Bush.

Then Clinton got elected and followed the convention not pursuing the preceding President (Carter did the same for Ford's pardon of REPUG Tricky Dick).

Compare with "sore winners" Trash and the Repugs STILL wanting to Lock Her Up.

Since it really didn't concern himself at all, I'm sure Trash forgot, if he bothered to learn, all about Iran-Contra, and esp about who did what to whom, and esp anything about Barr.

As the always opaque politicians love to bleat, "Let Me Be Clear":

The Repugs and the people who elect them are who TF have been running the country down on behalf of the oligarchy.

THEY are "the problem", not St Ronnie's "the government".

[DarrinS]

It's hilarious watching libs losing their shit over this. :lmao

[hater]

It's hilarious watching libs losing their shit over this. :lmao


:lol

It's sad to watch


:lmao Democrats clutching their pearls.

:lmao :lol :lmao

[boutons_deux]

Repugs lose their shit:

butter emails

benghazi

christmas card list

whitewater

consensual sex

Vince Foster

[vy65]

Truly fucking sad that people are scorboarding "triggered libtards" instead of criticizing the AG/USFG for not releasing the report. I guess winning internet points is more important than government transparency these days ...

[Spurminator]

Truly fucking sad that people are scorboarding "triggered libtards" instead of criticizing the AG/USFG for not releasing the report. I guess winning internet points is more important than government transparency these days ...

Government transparency is only necessary when it benefits my team.

[boutons_deux]

Truly fucking sad that people are scorboarding "triggered libtards" instead of criticizing the AG/USFG for not releasing the report. I guess winning internet points is more important than government transparency these days ...

AKA, for the Repugs it's eternal campaigning and All Politics All The Time, fuck the law, fuck the Constitution, fuck agreements, fuck conventions, fuck fair play, break the rules, fuck the people, fellate BigDonor.

Repugs know they can do just about anything they want as long as they first and always do what BigDonor pays them to do.

After that, anything and everything goes.

[vy65]

inb4 "cry harder fagget"

[Spurs Homer]

Government transparency is only necessary when it benefits my team.

Here is your team;

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44852812

[Spurs Homer]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44852812



It is not red team vs blue team - here is your proof -

it is USA vs NOT USA!

[TSA]

Truly fucking sad that people are scorboarding "triggered libtards" instead of criticizing the AG/USFG for not releasing the report. I guess winning internet points is more important than government transparency these days ...

Truly fucking sad to see a lawyer criticizing the Attorney General for following the law.

[boutons_deux]

Truly fucking sad to see a lawyer criticizing the Attorney General for following the law.

bull fucking shit. Barr was chosen for his coverup of Iran-Contra and intends to coverup for Trash.

[Spurs Homer]

Truly fucking sad to see a lawyer criticizing the Attorney General for following the law.

He can also follow the law and tell the sdny to pursue trumps felonies in that district he oversees.

He can follow the law and enforce the IRS/Treasury to make sure they comply with the law to turn over trumps taxes.

He can follow the law to check into the emoluments clause violations of trump and his criminal family.


But you really do NOT want an AG that follows the law.

[TSA]

bull fucking shit. Barr was chosen for his coverup of Iran-Contra and intends to coverup for Trash.

Following the law is not covering up anything. Should Barr not follow the procedures put in place after Clinton/Starr? Yes or no.

[koriwhat]

All the people at Trader Joes are traders.

Oh wait you said traitors.

nah you're close... i bet they all voted for HRC though. :lmao

[vy65]

Truly fucking sad to see a lawyer criticizing the Attorney General for following the law.

Have you ever redacted something for privilege?

[boutons_deux]

"Truly fucking sad" to see anybody considering Barr to be ANYTHING but a corrupt political operator, with long corrupt political history, who distantly second is USAG.

[TSA]

Have you ever redacted something for privilege?

Are you aware of the procedures put in place after Clinton/Starr? Do you want Barr to ignore those and not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

[Chris]

Are you aware of the procedures put in place after Clinton/Starr? Do you want Barr to ignore those and not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

Arn

[boutons_deux]

Are you aware of the procedures put in place after Clinton/Starr? Do you want Barr to ignore those and not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

Repug Starr degraded, humiliated Dem Clinton by publishing his report, but now that an actual criminal/traitor of a President is a Repug, the Repug AG must "take the high road", not publish Repug's crimes.

Same shit, all the time, from the Repugs, all honorable people

[TSA]

Repug Starr degraded, humiliated Dem Clinton by publishing his report, but now that an actual criminal/traitor of a President is a Repug, the Repug AG must "take the high road", not publish Repug's crimes.

Same shit, all the time, from the Repugs, all honorable people
“taking the high road” in this case is doing nothing more than following the rule of law. Should the Attorney General not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

[vy65]

Are you aware of the procedures put in place after Clinton/Starr? Do you want Barr to ignore those and not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

Wasn’t my question. I’m aware of the standards for privilege. And I’ve had to redact plenty of documents for privilege. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you never have, have you?

[Mitch]

:lmao

[TSA]

Wasn’t my question. I’m aware of the standards for privilege. And I’ve had to redact plenty of documents for privilege. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you never have, have you?

I never have. Do you want Barr to ignore the procedures put in place after Clinton and not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

[Chris]

Wasn’t my question.

I have a couple of questions if you're not too busy grandstanding.

Are you aware of the procedures put in place after Clinton/Starr? Do you want Barr to ignore those and not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

I have a couple of questions if you're not too busy grandstanding.

Are you aware of the procedures put in place after Clinton/Starr?Not completely. What are they, Qhris?

[spurraider21]

Not completely. What are they, Qhris?
you think TSA will pass him a note with the answer on it?

[Pavlov]

you think TSA will pass him a note with the answer on it?In fairness I didn't ask him to explain it in his own words this time.

[vy65]

I never have. Do you want Barr to ignore the procedures put in place after Clinton and not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

Exactly. You haven't. So you don't know how easy it is to redact information that has no business being redacted. Lawyers do that regularly, under the pretense of following applicable standards. These "standards" get abused regularly. That's why you have to have a privilege log along with protocols like in camera review etc.... None of which applies here.

It's so cute that you think this is a straightforward process.

[vy65]

I have a couple of questions if you're not too busy grandstanding.

Are you aware of the procedures put in place after Clinton/Starr? Do you want Barr to ignore those and not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

You don't get to ask me questions about the law no more Mr. Mandamus/three-fifths compromise. You can't pay my fee.

[Chris]

You don't get to ask me questions about the law no more Mr. Mandamus/three-fifths compromise. You can't pay my fee.

So you're just trolling.

Got it :tu

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/1116415833037783041

It's a conspiracy theory guys!

[Pavlov]

So you're just trolling.

Got it :tuWhere are those procedures you were talking about?

[vy65]

So you're just trolling.

Got it :tu

Incorrect.

[vy65]

For the record, all 28 CFR 600.9 says is that Barr may determine that the release of Mueller's report is in the public's interest, to the extent that such release complies with "applicable legal restrictions." Acting like Barr hasn't used or won't overuse privilege associated with grand jury materials to block non-privileged materials is totally out of touch with how lawyers operate. Particularly where there's no third-party review, i.e., an in camera inspection of the redactions.

[Reck]

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/1116415833037783041

It's a conspiracy theory guys!

Dude you posted a 53 minute conspiracy video just yesterday.

[vy65]

Oh, and there's an argument that Barr himself should file a Federal Rule 6(e) petition to disclose the grand jury material under the exception contained in Rule 6(e)(A)(i).

[TSA]

Exactly. You haven't. So you don't know how easy it is to redact information that has no business being redacted. Lawyers do that regularly, under the pretense of following applicable standards. These "standards" get abused regularly. That's why you have to have a privilege log along with protocols like in camera review etc.... None of which applies here.

It's so cute that you think this is a straightforward process.

I've seen how easy it is to redact information that has no business being redacted, Mueller's lawyers did it regularly to try and protect the FBI from being embarrassed. I'll ask you for the third time, do you want Barr to ignore the procedures put in place after Clinton and not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/pz7X6ivsb8KaEO9D4F/giphy.gif

[vy65]

Or 6(e)(3)(E)(i) given Nadler's subpoena arguably is a legal proceeding. Certainly any court fight on quashing the subpoena would be a legal proceeding.

[vy65]

I've seen how easy it is to redact information that has no business being redacted, Mueller's lawyers did it regularly to try and protect the FBI from being embarrassed. I'll ask you for the third time, do you want Barr to ignore the procedures put in place after Clinton and not follow the rule of law? Yes or no.

This make no sense (you've seen information redacted by Mueller??). But, taken at your word, you've conceded that redactions get abused - do you think Trump's appointee serving at the pleasure of the president will or won't abuse the pretense of privilege?

The AG swore an oath to uphold the constitution. I've given two examples of how he could use exceptions under Rule 6(e) to authorize disclosure. But please, continue to lecture me on procedural technicalities.

[TSA]

Or 6(e)(3)(E)(i) given Nadler's subpoena arguably is a legal proceeding. Certainly any court fight on quashing the subpoena would be a legal proceeding.

Nadler's subpoena is DOA, it became the DOJ's investigation once Mueller was appointed.

[vy65]

Interestingly enough, there is a petition for review pending before the Texas Supreme Court concerning the question of whether a subpoena constitutes a "legal proceeding" for purposes of the TCPA.

[Chris]

Dude you posted a 53 minute conspiracy video just yesterday.

1.) You didn't watch it because it was all based on fact.

2.) Dude, you should watch stuff before you write it off as a conspiracy. Dude, you're like totally a useful idiot, dude.

[vy65]

Nadler's subpoena is DOA, it became the DOJ's investigation once Mueller was appointed.

Fascinating. You have any legal authority that means this isn't a legal proceeding under the Rule?

[vy65]

Nadler's subpoena is DOA, it became the DOJ's investigation once Mueller was appointed.

Oh and what about 6(e)(3)(A)(i)?

[TSA]

Fascinating. You have any legal authority that means this isn't a legal proceeding under the Rule?

No I'm still waiting to hear the results on the review pending before the Texas Supreme Court concerning the question of whether a subpoena constitutes a "legal proceeding" for purposes of the TCPA.

[Chris]

"Federal law bars the release of material presented to a grand jury, including testimony and evidence, to protect the rights of the accused."

[vy65]

No I'm still waiting to hear the results on the review pending before the Texas Supreme Court concerning the question of whether a subpoena constitutes a "legal proceeding" for purposes of the TCPA.

You'll be happy to find out that they asked for merits briefing on the subject. Oh and btw, the PFR is about a third-party subpoena. There are court of appeals decisions holding that a party seeking to quash a subpoena is a legal proceeding.

[vy65]

So to recap, TSA (A) admits that the government abuses its power to redact information under the guise of privilege (B) doesn't address whether Barr has an incentive to do so for Trump and (C) drops the :cry rule of law :cry bit when I give him two avenues for Barr to disclose the full report if, you know, he wasn't a political pawn.

[vy65]

"Federal law bars the release of material presented to a grand jury, including testimony and evidence, to protect the rights of the accused."

The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter ...

:lolhris

[TSA]

This make no sense (you've seen information redacted by Mueller??). But, taken at your word, you've conceded that redactions get abused - do you think Trump's appointee serving at the pleasure of the president will or won't abuse the pretense of privilege?

The AG swore an oath to uphold the constitution. I've given two examples of how he could use exceptions under Rule 6(e) to authorize disclosure. But please, continue to lecture me on procedural technicalities.

I'm not lecturing you at all stop acting so butthurt. Why do you feel it necessary that exceptions be made in this case concerning grand jury testimony instead of following the procedures set in place after the Clinton/Starr debacle?

[vy65]

I'm not lecturing you at all stop acting so butthurt. Why do you feel it necessary that exceptions be made in this case concerning grand jury testimony instead of following the procedures set in place after the Clinton/Starr debacle?

Wow, and here I thought you knew what was going on. Let me explain why I've directly answered your question.

After the Starr Report, the CFR was amended to allow disclosure of the Special Counsel's report "to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions." 28 CFR 600.9. Those restrictions - what you're calling procedures - are contained in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Rule 6(e) contains the exceptions I'm talking about. I feel the need to talk about those exceptions because those are part of the "applicable legal restrictions" you keep harping about under the guise of "post-Clinton/Starr procedures."

Exceptions to disclosure rules are common. The attorney-client privilege rule has all kinds of disclosure exceptions (i.e., crime fraud). Rule 6(e) is no different. To Pav's point, this isn't some big ask -- it's literally written into the post-Clinton/Starr procedures you keep emphasizing.

[Pavlov]

:lol vy is citing black letter law and TSA somehow thinks it's some kind of extraordinary exception no one has ever heard of.

[vy65]

:lol vy is citing black letter law and TSA somehow thinks it's some kind of extraordinary exception no one has ever heard of.

Still better than :lolhris and his reuters article

[Chris]

Still better than :lolhris and his reuters article

What reuters article?

[ChumpDumper]

Still better than :lolhris and his reuters articleI'm sure he got it from a Bill Mitchell tweet or the Breitbart article he lifted it from.

[vy65]

I'm sure he got it from a Bill Mitchell tweet or the Breitbart article he lifted it from.

1113901778364502016

:lmao

I was giving him credit thinking it was from reuters.

[Chris]

Lawyer can't even get his sources right. What a dumb fuck.

[vy65]

I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about

[ChumpDumper]

Lawyer can't even get his sources right. What a dumb fuck.He was guessing your sources, not citing one of his own.

Where did you get the quote? A lot of your usual sources are using it.

[vy65]

Notice how :lolhris has gone from intimating federal law to "lolz u din no I was tweetin"

[Chris]

Still better than :lolhris and his reuters article

^ What a dumb fuck.

[vy65]

:yield

This is why you can't pay my fee.

[ChumpDumper]

Notice how :lolhris has gone from intimating federal law to "lolz u din no I was tweetin"OK YOU'RE RIGHT BUT YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT WHERE I GOT MY WRONG INFORMATION SO THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING NOW

[vy65]

OK YOU'RE RIGHT BUT YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT WHERE I GOT MY WRONG INFORMATION SO THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING NOW

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1080948063571726336/AN2adQSk_400x400.jpg

[TSA]

Wow, and here I thought you knew what was going on. Let me explain why I've directly answered your question.

After the Starr Report, the CFR was amended to allow disclosure of the Special Counsel's report "to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions." 28 CFR 600.9. Those restrictions - what you're calling procedures - are contained in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Rule 6(e) contains the exceptions I'm talking about. I feel the need to talk about those exceptions because those are part of the "applicable legal restrictions" you keep harping about under the guise of "post-Clinton/Starr procedures."

Exceptions to disclosure rules are common. The attorney-client privilege rule has all kinds of disclosure exceptions (i.e., crime fraud). Rule 6(e) is no different. To Pav's point, this isn't some big ask -- it's literally written into the post-Clinton/Starr procedures you keep emphasizing.

Why do you feel it's necessary for Barr to release the grand jury testimony on people who were not charged with a crime? Why do you think the procedures were changed after Clinton/Starr?

[vy65]

Why do you feel it's necessary for Barr to release the grand jury testimony on people who were not charged with a crime? Why do you think the procedures were changed after Clinton/Starr?

I'm happy to answer these questions, but first, I want you to notice how the conversation is no longer about a) Barr (potentially-but-likely) abusing his privileges viz. the report or b) about the legality of disclosing the full/unredacted report after the changes to 28 CFR 600.9

At first the conversation was about whether it was legal in the first place. I showed that there's a clear path to disclosure. Now, the questions are about a) why should Barr release in the first place and b) why was 600.9 amended. Those are different questions. Agree?

[spurraider21]

I'm happy to answer these questions, but first, I want you to notice how the conversation is no longer about a) Barr (potentially-but-likely) abusing his privileges viz. the report or b) about the legality of disclosing the full/unredacted report after the changes to 28 CFR 600.9

At first the conversation was about whether it was legal in the first place. I showed that there's a clear path to disclosure. Now, the questions are about a) why should Barr release in the first place and b) why was 600.9 amended. Those are different questions. Agree?
SHOULD HE FOLLOW THE LAW YES OR NO

[vy65]

SHOULD HE FOLLOW THE LAW YES OR NO

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1080948063571726336/AN2adQSk_400x400.jpg

[Chris]

muh fees and muh reuters herp derp

[ChumpDumper]

SHOULD HE FOLLOW THE LAW YES OR NOHE SHOULD FOLLOW THE LAW I WANT HIM TO FOLLOW AND NOT LAW I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT

[Reck]

I stopped conversing with TSA when he said he knew more than what Mueller was doing himself. :lol

[ElNono]

:lol Qhris doubling down on stupid per par

[TSA]

I'm happy to answer these questions, but first, I want you to notice how the conversation is no longer about a) Barr (potentially-but-likely) abusing his privileges viz. the report or b) about the legality of disclosing the full/unredacted report after the changes to 28 CFR 600.9

At first the conversation was about whether it was legal in the first place. I showed that there's a clear path to disclosure. Now, the questions are about a) why should Barr release in the first place and b) why was 600.9 amended. Those are different questions. Agree?

Never pretended they were the same questions. You're on a message board conversations are fluid. I'll be happy to read your answers to my questions.

[ChumpDumper]

HE SHOULD FOLLOW THE LAW I WANT HIM TO FOLLOW AND NOT LAW I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT

[TSA]

I stopped conversing with TSA when he said he knew more than what Mueller was doing himself. :lol

You were just conversing with me the other day you dipshit :lol

Why do you have to lie to try and make yourself look cool to people on a message board you don't even know?

[Chris]

Why do you have to lie to try and make yourself look cool to people on a message board you don't even know?

Qcx3fcNlnSM

[Reck]

You were just conversing with me the other day you dipshit :lol

Why do you have to lie to try and make yourself look cool to people on a message board you don't even know?

Laughing at your stupid posts is not the same as me engaging in serious conversation with you. :lol

You arguing with lawyers and thinking you have the higher ground or knowledge is funny to me.

[ChumpDumper]

Qcx3fcNlnSM:lol you're trying to take credit for sayings other people started to try and make yourself look cool to people on a message board you don't even know.

[TSA]

Laughing at your stupid posts is not the same as me engaging in serious conversation with you. :lol

You arguing with lawyers and thinking you have the higher ground or knowledge is funny to me.

You're still lying. Who are you trying to impress here?

[Reck]

You're still lying. Who are you trying to impress here?

Not a soul. Unlike you.

There must be a reason why you insist on knowing more than just about everyone else here. You're compensating and it is fairly obvious to everyone but you.

[TSA]

Not a soul. Unlike you.

There must be a reason why you insist on knowing more than just about everyone else here. You're compensating and it is fairly obvious to everyone but you.

If you are not trying to impress anyone why are you lying about conversing with me? It's so stupid and so easily disproven.

[vy65]

Never pretended they were the same questions. You're on a message board conversations are fluid. I'll be happy to read your answers to my questions.

Fair enough, I just want it to be clear that full/unredacted disclosure can and should be made and Barr's bs about what Rule 6(e) is understood to be just that - bs. Glad you agree now.

I think the public interest and need for full transparency on POTUS's end is a greater interest when balanced against the need for maintaining the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings.

I'm no expert on why the procedures were changed after Starr. I don't like the changes. But I think they were made out of political exigency and not substantive policy.

[Chris]

I just wanted to flex some legalese copy pasta. Reuters and lawyer fees. Yee-haw.

[vy65]

I still can't afford VY's fee

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, Qhris's butt is hurt bad.

[TSA]

Fair enough, I just want it to be clear that full/unredacted disclosure can and should be made and Barr's bs about what Rule 6(e) is understood to be just that - bs. Glad you agree now.

I think the public interest and need for full transparency on POTUS's end is a greater interest when balanced against the need for maintaining the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings.

I'm no expert on why the procedures were changed after Starr. I don't like the changes. But I think they were made out of political exigency and not substantive policy.

Why should people not charged with a crime have grand jury evidence released to be used against them politically?

[vy65]

Why should people not charged with a crime have grand jury evidence released to be used against them politically?

I told you, I think that the public interest/need for full transparency on POTUS is, when balanced, greater.

[boutons_deux]

As I quoted somebody's slam dunk plan for 2020 re-election:

give Dems the tax reports

give Dems the Mueller report

nothing will be found and thereby Trash would prove he is above board, innocent, bona fides through and through, a wonderful guy worthy of the people's respect, trust, and re-election.

[vy65]

This thread got quiet ...

[ChumpDumper]

I'd expect another wave of tweet quotes after Hannity.

[spurraider21]

This thread got quiet ...
to be fair bill mitchell hasn't refuted your argument yet

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1116023548605358080

Now do pee-pee tapes.

[Chris]

"You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
-Senator Chuck Schumer Jan. 2017

[Chris]

Gowdy: "We already know US government was doing surveillance (spying) on at least two members of Trump campaign"

Video:https://video.foxnews.com/v/6025338575001/#sp=show-clips

[DarrinS]

How many times does this ass-clown have to sperm-shield for the Trump administration. Buying into the Spying conspiracy theory with no proof....



Strange that OP thinks 9/11 was staged by our govt, but spying on political opponents is far-fetched.

[Winehole23]

Darrin thinks Obama was spying on DJT for her.

[DarrinS]

Darrin thinks Obama was spying on DJT for her.

Unfathomable

They only spied on journalists and our allies. Lol

[Winehole23]

Team Red bandwagon for investigation of the investigators for conspiracy against DJT seem not to have learned much from the recently concluded Mueller investigation.

Conspiracies are hard to prove.

The conspiracy theory that Obama spied on DJT on behalf of HRC will not be less difficult to prove than the one Team Red is jeering at now.

[Winehole23]

I can see your mind is made up, though.

[DarrinS]

The Dems are about to get a nothingburger report, followed by a dick punch.

And then drumpf will get re-elected.

[Winehole23]

Keeping the conspiracy fresh in everyone's mind would be way for DJT to run against HRC again, as well as to stoke afresh the long, national nightmare of having once had a black President.

[Chris]

Team Red bandwagon for investigation of the investigators for conspiracy against DJT seem not to have learned much from the recently concluded Mueller investigation.

Conspiracies are hard to prove.

The conspiracy theory that Obama spied on DJT on behalf of HRC will not be less difficult to prove than the one Team Red is jeering at now.

Nah, we got texts and Comey admitting to leaking and the 'HQ Special.' These people were flaunting their power leaving behind a digital trail. Except for the emails that Hillary whitewashed.

[Chris]

Keeping the conspiracy fresh in everyone's mind would be way for DJT to run against HRC again, as well as to stoke afresh the long, national nightmare of having once had a black President.

^ troll post

[DarrinS]

Keeping the conspiracy fresh in everyone's mind would be way for DJT to run against HRC again, as well as to stoke afresh the long, national nightmare of having once had a black President.

Virtue ding

[Winehole23]

The Dems are about to get a nothingburger report, followed by a dick punch.

And then drumpf will get re-elected.Drumpf might be reelected, true enough, but AG Barr will deliver the report not to the Dems but to the US Congress.

Both sides will prop themselves up on it claiming vindication, as you have done yourself.

[Winehole23]

Virtue ding^^^ flashbacks

[ChumpDumper]

Virtue ding:lol triggered

[DarrinS]

:lol triggered

Meh, I will just keep laughing at you guys

[ChumpDumper]

Meh, I will just keep laughing at you guysAnd we'll laugh at you every time black president triggers you.

[Winehole23]

^ troll postNot really, it's a well established part of the Trump style to stoke racial animus, having HRC as campaign fodder the second time around would just be a bonus.

[TSA]

I'm happy to answer these questions, but first, I want you to notice how the conversation is no longer about a) Barr (potentially-but-likely) abusing his privileges viz. the report

If you think it's likely Barr is going to abuse his privileges do you also think Mueller's team and Rosenstein are in on it too?

"Mueller’s team is, however, participating in the redaction process, as are members of the intelligence community and prosecutors working on cases that could be affected by the public disclosure of certain information in the report, Barr said."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/barr-says-congress-wont-get-unredacted-mueller-report/586786/

1116465637688107008

[vy65]

Behind a pay wall, but the answer to your question depends on the scope of Mueller/Rosenstein's "participation."

[Winehole23]

If you think it's likely Barr is going to abuse his privileges do you also think Mueller's team and Rosenstein are in on it too?

"Mueller’s team is, however, participating in the redaction process, as are members of the intelligence community and prosecutors working on cases that could be affected by the public disclosure of certain information in the report, Barr said."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/barr-says-congress-wont-get-unredacted-mueller-report/586786/

1116465637688107008All in the same huddle? Ominous.

[Nbadan]

https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1117979993936748545

[Spurs Homer]

https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1117979993936748545

How shocking that Trumps handpicked henchman who is covering up Trumps crimes - is also connected to Russia, Deutsche bank and others...

shocking I tell you!

[Chris]

No evidence of an actual concrete conflict. Dude is just spinning his wheels.

[boutons_deux]

“It’s a little bit concerning generally with this administration because

everybody seems to have some connection somehow to people

involved with Russian investment or Russia at some point.”

Pootin has been busy compromising America and Europe, for years.

[Nbadan]

the case against Barr...

Nadler: 4 charges against Bill Barr
House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler blasted Attorney General Bill Barr at a hastily-called Wednesday evening press conference.


“One, he summarized the report and cherry-picked findings in his March 24th letter to Congress,” he charged.

“Two, he withheld summaries written by the special counsel that were intended for public consumption,” he continued.

“Three he briefed the white house before providing Congress a copy that helped them prepare a rebuttal response for the president,” he said.

“And now, the evening before the report’s scheduled release, the Department of Justice has informed the committee that it will receive a copy between 11:00 and noon — well after the Attorney General’s 9:30 a.m. press conference,” Nadler said. “This is wrong.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/judiciary-chair-lays-4-charges-bill-barr-sound-like-articles-impeachment/

[Nbadan]

Here is another clip with the judge at a Newsweek link which is a couple of days old:

FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST PREDICTS FULL MUELLER REPORT WILL BE RELEASED AFTER FEDERAL JUDGE ORDER


Snip: Speaking with America’s Newsroom host Bill Hemmer about the much-anticipated report, which will be released on Thursday, Napolitano said he believes Attorney General William Barr will redact more than 100 pages of the almost 400-page document. The former New Jersey Superior Court judge argued that Barr would do this in line with legal requirements and that “all the meaty stuff that everyone wants to know about” would be “blacked out.”

“Our wish to know about it is not enough for him to fail to black it out,” Napolitano explained. “He doesn’t have the authority. Only a federal judge can override the requirements of redaction,” he pointed out.

The former judge then explained what he believes will unfold after the redacted report is released. “The House Judiciary committee will subpoena it,” he said. “The attorney general’s not gonna sit on a subpoena, he’s going to take it to a federal judge and say ‘quash this.’ And she’ll say: ‘I’m not gonna quash it. I’m going to authorize and order you to release it in full.’”

“I honestly think that will happen,” Napolitano said confidently.

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-full-mueller-report-judge-1396819

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/nickguitar1776/status/1119607284127158273

:wow

[Reck]

https://twitter.com/nickguitar1776/status/1119607284127158273

:wow

Citizen X.

[Chris]

Citizen X.

Don't quote me if you're just going to spout inane gibberish.

[Reck]

Don't quote me if you're just going to spout inane gibberish.

Did you delete it in shame? if so, I'll stop.

[Chris]

Did you delete it in shame? if so, I'll stop.

What are you talking about? Are you OK Reck?

[Reck]

What are you talking about? Are you OK Reck?

I understand why you would want to forget those times.

:lol Getting mistaken by a bot can have a negative lasting effect on somebody.

[DMC]

:lol another multi-page rodeo from the law offices of Philo and Vylo, with their legal assistants Hermit the Frog and Miss Thang in a low cut blouse and tight skirt, balls peeking out.

Typical week at ST.

[Spurtacular]

:lol another multi-page rodeo from the law offices of Philo and Vylo, with their legal assistants Hermit the Frog and Miss Thang in a low cut blouse and tight skirt, balls peeking out.

Typical week at ST.

You're not convinced of Reck's trans conversion?

[DMC]

You're not convinced of Reck's trans conversion?

No, but I sense some narcissistic injury ITT tbh

[Nbadan]

https://i.imgur.com/C2X2q1Z.jpg

[Nbadan]

Questions have been raised about his personal and professional connections to the Vector Group, Alfa Bank, Deutsche Bank, and Och-Ziff.

Maybe he is an institutionalist after all; that is, someone who supports Russia's institutions.


“The legal standard is really clear about these issues. It’s not about actual conflict, it’s about the appearance of a conflict, about the appearance of bias,” Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham University’s School of Law and an expert on judicial and government ethics, tells Newsweek . “The problem is that we have so many flagrant conflicts that are so obvious, we get distracted from what the legal standard is.”

This much is known: On Barr’s public financial disclosure report, he admits to working for a law firm that represented Russia’s Alfa Bank and for a company whose co-founders allegedly have long-standing business ties to Russia. What’s more, he received dividends from Vector Group, a holding company with deep financial ties to Russia.

These facts didn’t get much attention during Barr’s confirmation hearing, as Congress was hyperfocused on an unsolicited memo Barr wrote prior to his nomination, which criticized the special counsel’s investigation—and whether he would release an unredacted Mueller report to Congress. Much of the information is public, but it has so far been unreported in relation to Barr.

SNIP

“All of this raises the need for further inquiry from an independent review, not a Department of Justice investigation,” Michael Frisch, ethics counsel for Georgetown University’s law school and an expert in professional ethics, tells Newsweek . Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project for Government Oversight, says that Barr is probably playing within the rules. But that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t recuse himself.

https://www.newsweek.com/so-many-conflicts-so-little-time-1396435

[boutons_deux]

Barr, yet another Trash sycophant compromised by Pootin

Did Pootin propose Barr as AG to Trash?

[a777pilot]

How many times does this ass-clown have to sperm-shield for the Trump administration. Buying into the Spying conspiracy theory with no proof....


Ah, but there is proof. High level proof. The senior Justice of the FISA Court knows it.

This proof is brought to us by the only real hero of this mess.

I'm amazed none of you know who that is.

[a777pilot]

p.s., Then again, why am I surprised at the ignorance of this crowd.

[a777pilot]

.

[a777pilot]

https://twitter.com/nickguitar1776/status/1119607284127158273

:wow

Out-fucking-standing!

[RandomGuy]

p.s., Then again, why am I surprised at the ignorance of this crowd.

...says the guy who hasn't actually read the Mueller report, but just KNOWs what is in it. :rollin

[spurraider21]

https://twitter.com/nickguitar1776/status/1119607284127158273

:wow
:lmao HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT ABOUT MY FRIEND

[koriwhat]

https://twitter.com/nickguitar1776/status/1119607284127158273

:wow

fuck fake news and their shit wannabe anchors!

[a777pilot]

...says the guy who hasn't actually read the Mueller report, but just KNOWs what is in it. :rollin

Well, I didn't read the Bible, but I saw the movie.

[a777pilot]

God, bless Bill Barr!

[RandomGuy]

Well, I didn't read the Bible, but I saw the movie.

:rollin

You haven't even seen the movie. You are taking the word of a con man about what the book expose about him says.

That is some SERIOUS gullibility.