i'm still with #hangthat hrc
Barr expands on full blown in the interview I linked. Wired CHS’s, undercover FBI agents, FISA warrants. Do you think the Papadapolous comment warranted all that? And you can’t fall back on Horowitz that, he made judgement on clearing the low bar to open, not what followed.
yup, that's the political tie to Trump I was referencing earlier...
Protecting the President would have been shutting down the investigation.
Say Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch had tasked themselves with second guessing an IG investigation and casting shade on other investigations that reflected poorly on Obama, what would the GOP say then?
There's at least one good reason we have an IG, and that's to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest that would arise any time a political appointee was put in charge of investigating the person who gave them the job, or, his own department.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-12-2019 at 09:40 PM.
which one? Durhan isn't investigating the President, he's looking for an excuse to give the prez ammo to play the victim card some more.
That's one way.
The way Barr is doing it -- with press interviews, bespoke investigations, and ad hoc opinions about the work product of his own department -- is another.
Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress trying to protect his President
And Barr didn’t second guess the IG report he praised its work. He disagreed on what should have been done rather than what may be done when opening the investigation.
Bad for Holder, ok for Barr.
The Durham investigation will likely be 'completed' right smack in the middle of campaign season (sometimes towards the end of the summer next year), probably with some bombastic declarations, one or two indictments, of which we won't have the results by election night.
Bookmark it and hold me to it. I'll be happy to eat crow if incorrect.
Wired CHS’s, undercover FBI agents, FISA warrants. Do you think the Papadapolous comment warranted all that?
deferring to obama-appointed IG
The Obama appointed IG said the regulations permitted it, he didn’t say it was the correct choice of actions.
Wired CHS’s, undercover FBI agents, FISA warrants. Do you think the Papadapolous comment warranted all that?
hindsight is always 20/20
if they uncovered the crime they were looking for we wouldn't be second guessing it at all
awesome
The fake crime the Clinton campaign paid for?
None of the deflecting has anything to do with impeachment.
Why has Trash and his mafiya been forgetting, lying, obstructing investigations about their Russian connections?
Why is Trash so subservient to Pootin?
Why are Trash's geopolitical moves matching exactly what Pootin would want him to do?
Trump’s Other Lawyer
Much more powerful than Giuliani,
William Barr is exercising the Justice Department’s full force to defend a president in crisis.
Barr advocates for what is known as the “unitary executive theory,”
which challenges the long-established doctrine that the president’s control over his branch of government is shared, to some degree, with Congress and the courts.
Critics say that in its maximalist form, the theory is a license for authoritarianism
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...-hearings.html
So why do Repugs adore and push hard for an autocratic, uncheckable President?
It's just not to implement their perverted interpretation of the Cons ution.
When a Repug President becomes an autocrat he will mop up, complete the destruction of govt that the Repugs have been executing for decades, a destruction that has enriched the oligarchy financing the Repugs.
"Government is the problem", cannot do anything good, must be drowned in bathtub, etc, etc.
investigation started before the that and they wanted a warrant before that
I already tried asking you questions about the start of the investigation but you were too chicken to answer so I moved on
You specifically said the crime they were looking for. What crime were they looking for that didn’t come from the Clinton campaign paid for dossier?
there was recently a big OIG investigation into all these questions you're asking meI already tried asking you questions about the start of the investigation but you were too chicken to answer so I moved on
You specifically said the crime they were looking for. What crime were they looking for that didn’t come from the Clinton campaign paid for dossier?
the fbi shouldn't get a free pass for all the ups they had. a lot of people should be disciplined/fired tbh. but the opening of the investigation was found to be ok. the methods used (informants, etc) was found to be ok. nobody was planted within the campaign to gain political info. and despite all the potential evidence there, no affirmative finding of bias on any decisions made
you dont have to like the results, but thats what they are. asking me about my opinion of what that report should have said is useless.
*Bias warning* center left former CIA opps officer
Then why are you having so much trouble answering?there was recently a big OIG investigation into all these questions you're asking me
Which crime were they looking for?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote