Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Comey's Op-Ed in the NYT.

"People have been asking me hard questions. What happened to the leaders in the Trump administration, especially the attorney general, Bill Barr, who I have said was due the benefit of the doubt? 

How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like “no collusion” and F.B.I. “spying”? And downplaying acts of obstruction of justice as products of the president’s being “frustrated and angry,” something he would never say to justify the thousands of crimes prosecuted every day that are the product of frustration and anger? 

How could he write and say things about the report by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, that were apparently so misleading that they prompted written protest from the special counsel himself? 

How could Mr. Barr go before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and downplay President Trump’s attempt to fire Mr. Mueller before he completed his work? 

And how could Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, after the release of Mr. Mueller’s report that detailed Mr. Trump’s determined efforts to obstruct justice, give a speech quoting the president on the importance of the rule of law? Or on resigning, thank a president who relentlessly attacked both him and the Department of Justice he led for “the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations”? 

What happened to these people? 

I don’t know for sure. People are complicated, so the answer is most likely complicated. But I have some idea from four months of working close to Mr. Trump and many more months of watching him shape others. 

Amoral leaders have a way of revealing the character of those around them. Sometimes what they reveal is inspiring. For example, James Mattis, the former secretary of defense, resigned over principle, a concept so alien to Mr. Trump that it took days for the president to realize what had happened, before he could start lying about the man. 

But more often, proximity to an amoral leader reveals something depressing. I think that’s at least part of what we’ve seen with Bill Barr and Rod Rosenstein. Accomplished people lacking inner strength can’t resist the compromises necessary to survive Mr. Trump and that adds up to something they will never recover from. It takes character like Mr. Mattis’s to avoid the damage, because Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites." 




https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/william-barr-testimony.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

It starts with your sitting silent while he lies, both in public and private, making you complicit by your silence. In meetings with him, his assertions about what “everyone thinks” and what is “obviously true” wash over you, unchallenged, as they did at our private dinner on Jan. 27, 2017, because he’s the president and he rarely stops talking. As a result, Mr. Trump pulls all of those present into a silent circle of assent.

 

Speaking rapid-fire with no spot for others to jump into the conversation, Mr. Trump makes everyone a co-conspirator to his preferred set of facts, or delusions. I have felt it — this president building with his words a web of alternative reality and busily wrapping it around all of us in the room.

I must have agreed that he had the largest inauguration crowd in history because I didn’t challenge that. Everyone must agree that he has been treated very unfairly. The web building never stops.

From the private circle of assent, it moves to public displays of personal fealty at places like cabinet meetings. While the entire world is watching, you do what everyone else around the table does — you talk about how amazing the leader is and what an honor it is to be associated with him.

Sure, you notice that Mr. Mattis never actually praises the president, always speaking instead of the honor of representing the men and women of our military. But he’s a special case, right? Former Marine general and all. No way the rest of us could get away with that. So you praise, while the world watches, and the web gets tighter.

Next comes Mr. Trump attacking institutions and values you hold dear — things you have always said must be protected and which you criticized past leaders for not supporting strongly enough. Yet you are silent. Because, after all, what are you supposed to say? He’s the president of the United States.

You feel this happening. It bothers you, at least to some extent. But his outrageous conduct convinces you that you simply must stay, to preserve and protect the people and institutions and values you hold dear. Along with Republican members of Congress, you tell yourself you are too important for this nation to lose, especially now.

You can’t say this out loud — maybe not even to your family — but in a time of emergency, with the nation led by a deeply unethical person, this will be your contribution, your personal sacrifice for America. You are smarter than Donald Trump, and you are playing a long game for your country, so you can pull it off where lesser leaders have failed and gotten fired by tweet.

 

 

Of course, to stay, you must be seen as on his team, so you make further compromises. You use his language, praise his leadership, tout his commitment to values.

And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.

There's a few people here that could pay mind to that last comment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Hannity. 

probably right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

It starts with your sitting silent while he lies, both in public and private, making you complicit by your silence. In meetings with him, his assertions about what “everyone thinks” and what is “obviously true” wash over you, unchallenged, as they did at our private dinner on Jan. 27, 2017, because he’s the president and he rarely stops talking. As a result, Mr. Trump pulls all of those present into a silent circle of assent.

Speaking rapid-fire with no spot for others to jump into the conversation, Mr. Trump makes everyone a co-conspirator to his preferred set of facts, or delusions. I have felt it — this president building with his words a web of alternative reality and busily wrapping it around all of us in the room.

I must have agreed that he had the largest inauguration crowd in history because I didn’t challenge that. Everyone must agree that he has been treated very unfairly. The web building never stops.

From the private circle of assent, it moves to public displays of personal fealty at places like cabinet meetings. While the entire world is watching, you do what everyone else around the table does — you talk about how amazing the leader is and what an honor it is to be associated with him.

Sure, you notice that Mr. Mattis never actually praises the president, always speaking instead of the honor of representing the men and women of our military. But he’s a special case, right? Former Marine general and all. No way the rest of us could get away with that. So you praise, while the world watches, and the web gets tighter.

Next comes Mr. Trump attacking institutions and values you hold dear — things you have always said must be protected and which you criticized past leaders for not supporting strongly enough. Yet you are silent. Because, after all, what are you supposed to say? He’s the president of the United States.

You feel this happening. It bothers you, at least to some extent. But his outrageous conduct convinces you that you simply must stay, to preserve and protect the people and institutions and values you hold dear. Along with Republican members of Congress, you tell yourself you are too important for this nation to lose, especially now.

You can’t say this out loud — maybe not even to your family — but in a time of emergency, with the nation led by a deeply unethical person, this will be your contribution, your personal sacrifice for America. You are smarter than Donald Trump, and you are playing a long game for your country, so you can pull it off where lesser leaders have failed and gotten fired by tweet.

Sign Up for Jamelle Bouie's Newsletter

Join Jamelle Bouie as he shines a light on overlooked writing, culture and ideas from around the internet.

SIGN UP
 

Of course, to stay, you must be seen as on his team, so you make further compromises. You use his language, praise his leadership, tout his commitment to values.

And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.

 

Ya, we elected a maniac to the highest office in the land,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

probably right

On the road all day, so I listened. That’s where all this bullshit is coming from. Barr said this or that, followed with gibberish. Example, the one about the OLC memo on not indicting not playing a role in the decision, despite the opposite being explicitly written in the report?  Yeah, Hannity is doing a Doggy Style repeat until true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

Nonsense, I do my own reading (and as a consequence was not duped by the collusion fiction) 

Actually, you've admitted (and even crowed about) how you don't when it comes to the actual report. As a consequence, you're duped into repeating whatever right-wing retard talking points your favoured op-ed wants you to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a silly putty thing.... You spread the silly putty out real thin then press it on the newspaper. Then you stretch and distort it in anyway you want. Then press it on a clean piece of paper, and see what you got!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

On the road all day, so I listened. That’s where all this bullshit is coming from. Barr said this or that, followed with gibberish. Example, the one about the OLC memo on not indicting not playing a role in the decision, despite the opposite being explicitly written in the report?  Yeah, Hannity is doing a Doggy Style repeat until true. 

Excellent summary, if that's the right word... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't be too hard on Dog for not reading the actual report. Barr didn't bother looking at any of the underlying evidence either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bhyde said:

Can't be too hard on Dog for not reading the actual report. Barr didn't bother looking at any of the underlying evidence either.

 

If one can't accept the report as evidence and draw conclusions from having read it I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s see. Do I take the word of Robert Mueller and his team of investigators, who had the power of the subpoena and gathered testimony under oath...

or Dog, and the Sean Hannity shuffle. 

I think I’ll go with the honest guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Let’s see. Do I take the word of Robert Mueller and his team of investigators, who had the power of the subpoena and gathered testimony under oath...

or Dog, and the Sean Hannity shuffle. 

I think I’ll go with the honest guy. 

Mueller's report is not evidence apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

Mueller's report is not evidence apparently.

Barr admitted he didn't even look at the underlying evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dog said:

Mueller's report is not evidence apparently.

A report is a report. Pretend it is about a democRAT and see how you feel about the rule of law. Pretend there’s a dead black boy in the street and see how you feel about law enforcement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Barr admitted he didn't even look at the underlying evidence.

Whoops. Who needs to do that. Just listen to Sean and repeat the bullshit until true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

A report is a report. Pretend it is about a democRAT and see how you feel about the rule of law. Pretend there’s a dead black boy in the street and see how you feel about law enforcement. 

 

Why stop there... If Mueller's report is suspect so is his evidence. Barr needs to conduct his own investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For two years we have been told to wait for Mueller's report and now we're told it's not reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

 

Why stop there... If Mueller's report is suspect so is his evidence. Barr needs to conduct his own investigation.

Who exactly is saying Mueller's report is suspect?

I thought the word was: Total exoneration! Found NO evidence of collusion! No obstruction!!

Isn't that what Mueller's report says? That's pretty close to what A.G. Barr says it says.

Should the Attorney General of the United States enforce the law or should he protect his chosen PussyGrabber-In-Chief at all costs? It's an interesting question............

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

 

Why stop there... If Mueller's report is suspect so is his evidence. Barr needs to conduct his own investigation.

Who says it is suspect?  Cite please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

 

Why stop there... If Mueller's report is suspect so is his evidence. Barr needs to conduct his own investigation.

Barr couldn't investigate his way out of a revolving door.

1 minute ago, Dog said:

 

Why stop there... If Mueller's report is suspect so is his evidence. Barr needs to conduct his own investigation.

What's "suspect" about Mueller's report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

For two years we have been told to wait for Mueller's report and now we're told it's not reliable.

Who told "we" that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Who says it is suspect?  Cite please. 

Everyone criticizing Barr for relying on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great questions.  Are about to get more Doggy-stylin'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Everyone criticizing Barr for relying on it.

You love to ask for specific cites that match up word-for-word.

I trust you can provide a cite in which someone has done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Doesn't the Attorney General have custody of the file?

I may be mistaken in this understanding, but, I think FOIA requests for anything the FBI generated are cleared and processed via the FBI's RMD.  I don't know If NARA custodial responsibility being w/a different agency negates that requirement or not.   I do know that part of processing FOIA requests is to heavily redact information pertaining to any person not explicitly named in the FOIA request by way of protecting their privacy.   If you're serious about doing this, and you're inexperienced w/the request processing, ping me offline and I'll share what I've been taught in the NARA classes I've had to endure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this at FOIA.gov.

There is no central office in the government that handles FOIA requests for all federal departments and agencies. Each federal agency processes its own records in response to FOIA requests. There are many different officials at these agencies who work hard every day to make sure that the FOIA works. There are the FOIA professionals who search for and process records in response to FOIA requests, FOIA Contacts and FOIA Public Liaisons who work with FOIA requesters to answer questions and resolve concerns, and Chief FOIA Officers who oversee their agency’s compliance with the FOIA.

 

The nine exemptions are described below.

  • Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.
  • Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
  • Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.
  • Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.
  • Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:
    1. Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)
    2. Attorney-Work Product Privilege
    3. Attorney-Client Privilege
  • Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.
  • Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:
    • 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
    • 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
    • 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
    • 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
    • 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law
    • 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
    • https://www.foia.gov/faq.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

If one can't accept the report as evidence and draw conclusions from having read it I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

I think you may have missed the context, nature, and substance of the video.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awhile back, AGIT asked me to explain a post where I was saying that the Mueller report became “suspect” after Barr had presented it in misleading fashion.

Dog is now quoting that and interpreting it whatever way he likes. It’s what doggystylers do.

My point was that by putting politics before evenhandedness, Barr was diluting the restorative impact of a senior government agency doing its job well. Mueller wanted the presentation of the report to be consonant with a professional, nonpartisan ethic; thats why he wrote the “you screwed it up” letter to Barr.

And now, the impact of the report is tarnished by Barr.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I read this at FOIA.gov.

There is no central office in the government that handles FOIA requests for all federal departments and agencies. Each federal agency processes its own records in response to FOIA requests. There are many different officials at these agencies who work hard every day to make sure that the FOIA works. There are the FOIA professionals who search for and process records in response to FOIA requests, FOIA Contacts and FOIA Public Liaisons who work with FOIA requesters to answer questions and resolve concerns, and Chief FOIA Officers who oversee their agency’s compliance with the FOIA.

 

The nine exemptions are described below.

  • Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.
  • Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
  • Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.
  • Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.
  • Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:
    1. Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)
    2. Attorney-Work Product Privilege
    3. Attorney-Client Privilege
  • Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.
  • Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:
    • 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
    • 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
    • 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
    • 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
    • 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law
    • 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
    • https://www.foia.gov/faq.html

Do you think that any of the AG's redactions fall outside those stipulations?   Do you think a FOIA request is going to achieve more than a comittee w/subpoena authority? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Awhile back, AGIT asked me to explain a post where I was saying that the Mueller report became “suspect” after Barr had presented it in misleading fashion.

Dog is now quoting that and interpreting it whatever way he likes. It’s what doggystylers do.

 My point was that by putting politics before evenhandedness, Barr was diluting the restorative impact of a senior government agency doing its job well. Mueller wanted the presentation of the report to be consonant with a professional, nonpartisan ethic; thats why he wrote the “you screwed it up” letter to Barr.

And now, the impact of the report is tarnished by Barr.

Just to clear - I was saying that I didn't think that Barr's behavior had in any way diminished the work or credibility of the Mueller investigation or the final report.   If this is what you meant then, thanks for clarifying. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Do you think that any of the AG's redactions fall outside those stipulations?   Do you think a FOIA request is going to achieve more than a comittee w/subpoena authority? 

I have no way of knowing if they fall outside those stipulations. My experience tells me that everything gets withheld until a particular agency is compelled to release the information. Sometimes by the effort of journalism, sometimes by a court decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Awhile back, AGIT asked me to explain a post where I was saying that the Mueller report became “suspect” after Barr had presented it in misleading fashion.

Dog is now quoting that and interpreting it whatever way he likes. It’s what doggystylers do.

My point was that by putting politics before evenhandedness, Barr was diluting the restorative impact of a senior government agency doing its job well. Mueller wanted the presentation of the report to be consonant with a professional, nonpartisan ethic; thats why he wrote the “you screwed it up” letter to Barr.

And now, the impact of the report is tarnished by Barr.

Dude, Barr's summary was, according to Mueller himself,  accurate. He followed that up by releasing the report itself. Nothing will satisfy you guys.

It was Kamila Harris followed by her choir who criticized Barr for basing his conclusions on Mueller's report tarnishing it in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude, Barr's summary was, according to Mueller himself,  accurate. ...   ...

Liar, Liar, pants on fire...... well um actually they burnt to a crisp long ago but you get the idea

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude, Barr's summary was, according to Mueller himself,  accurate.

Cite please.  Show us the documentation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again....if the special counsel's office provided and intro and exec summary of the report, why did Barr find it necessary to create a new artifact to submit to Congress?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thistle3868 said:

Again....if the special counsel's office provided and intro and exec summary of the report, why did Barr find it necessary to create a new artifact to submit to Congress?

 

The point is moot, he provided the report itself. 

And BTW ...

"Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to just 12 members of Congress — six Democrats and six Republicans. But as of Tuesday afternoon, only Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opted to view it. A third, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he planned to review the report later Tuesday."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/30/mueller-report-redacted-1295105

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that it's moot.  From my perspective, it was a clear attempt to frame the discussion in a different way than the SC office's summary.

I agree it's bad if folks didn't take the opportunity to view the less redacted version.  I would certainly welcome the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Thistle3868 said:

I disagree that it's moot.  From my perspective, it was a clear attempt to frame the discussion in a different way than the SC office's summary.

I agree it's bad if folks didn't take the opportunity to view the less redacted version.  I would certainly welcome the opportunity.

I suspect you're right, Barr was not satisfied with how it was framed in the SC summary and wanted it framed differently so he wrote his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

I suspect you're right, Barr was not satisfied with how it was framed in the SC summary and wanted it framed differently so he wrote his own.

Robert Mueller's testimony about that should be both revealing and embarrassing to William Barr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dog is the OCD spaniel that stands next to you to throw the ball, when you finally do it barely hits the ground and that damn dog is back again, drooling and panting.

 

And loving it.

 

He's just a troll.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

I suspect you're right, Barr was not satisfied with how it was framed in the SC summary and wanted it framed differently so he wrote his own.

And why do expect that is?  I would prefer to see the summary from the INDEPENDENT counsel myself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

If one can't accept the report as evidence and draw conclusions from having read it I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

Oh, snap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

Robert Mueller's testimony about that should be both revealing and embarrassing to William Barr.

Like he cares.  He’s got a dog in this fight, but the only thing I can think of is he wants to go back to 1825 or something, when the AG really was a political extension of the President.  Of course there’s a lot of other things that go along with that-I’m surprised he didn’t characterize the letter from Mueller as ‘miss-ish’.  (that’s a Jane Austin reference there......).  Maybe we’ll see him issuing a dueling challenge soon?  Would a duel be televised?  Geraldo?  Hannity?  I’m going to watch the movie ‘Lincoln ‘ again- there was some serious old school manly shit in that thing!  Single shot Gunplay!  Barr’s old man fantasy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amati said:

Like he cares.  He’s got a dog in this fight, but the only thing I can think of is he wants to go back to 1825 or something, when the AG really was a political extension of the President.  Of course there’s a lot of other things that go along with that-I’m surprised he didn’t characterize the letter from Mueller as ‘miss-ish’.  (that’s a Jane Austin reference there......).  Maybe we’ll see him issuing a dueling challenge soon?  Would a duel be televised?  Geraldo?  Hannity?  I’m going to watch the movie ‘Lincoln ‘ again- there was some serious old school manly shit in that thing!  Single shot Gunplay!  Barr’s old man fantasy?

Mueller owns him now. All he has to do is verify his version of the conversation, and William Barr will have to challenge him to a duel if only to keep his reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Mueller owns him now. All he has to do is verify his version of the conversation, and William Barr will have to challenge him to a duel if only to keep his reputation.

Do any of the Trump people believe they have a reputation?  Except to torture Liberals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amati said:

Do any of the Trump people believe they have a reputation?  Except to torture Liberals?

They don't care. The point is to keep their eyes on the board and not worry about how the game is played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dog is the nation well served by Barr setting the precedent that the executive branch of our government is not subject to investigation if makes the president frustrated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

@Dog is the nation well served by Barr setting the precedent that the executive branch of our government is not subject to investigation if makes the president frustrated?

Your premise is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Just to clear - I was saying that I didn't think that Barr's behavior had in any way diminished the work or credibility of the Mueller investigation or the final report.   If this is what you meant then, thanks for clarifying. 

In a strictly literal sense, you are correct.

But this game is being played for keeps in the political realm.

The AG is therefore supposed to be one of the checks and balances on the president and the executive branch.

By strictly upholding the law in bipartisan fashion, not starting or ending investigations for or with political intent, we remain a free and relatively fair country.

A blatantly partisan AG makes laws and their application political. 

Not just Mueller’s report, but our judicial system IS tarnished by Barr’s behavior.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Your premise is absurd.

Actually I’m quoting Barr. You should read more.

“The president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” Barr said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Actually I’m quoting Barr. You should read more.

“The president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks,” Barr said.

Was he not subject to investigation as a consequence? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

Was he not subject to investigation as a consequence? I don't think so.

He fired the head of that investigation, and then requested the next head of that investigation be fired by McGahn.

Your tap dancing is hiding the obstruction of justice Mueller documented and our AG tried to spin. You’d prefer frustrating laws, checks & balances not apply to Donald Trump, just like the AG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

He fired the head of that investigation, and then requested the next head of that investigation be fired by McGahn.

Your tap dancing is hiding the obstruction of justice Mueller documented and our AG tried to spin. You’d prefer frustrating laws, checks & balances not apply to Donald Trump, just like the AG.

I'm not tap dancing. You asked if the nation was better off as a consequence of Barr setting the precedent that the executive branch of our government is not subject to investigation if makes the president frustrated. Your premise is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copied from Slate:

”If a president thinks any part of an investigation is unfounded, he can lawfully shut it down. Barr told Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont that if a legal proceeding was “based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there, constitutionally, and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding, and it would not be a corrupt intent, because he was being falsely accused.” The attorney general made the same argument to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, contending that a “falsely accused” president could fire a special counsel without corrupt intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't care. The point is to keep their eyes on the board and not worry about how the game is played.

See?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In @Dog and Barr’s world, the office of the prez cannot commit obstruction. Period. Nixon thought the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Copied from Slate:

”If a president thinks any part of an investigation is unfounded, he can lawfully shut it down. Barr told Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont that if a legal proceeding was “based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there, constitutionally, and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding, and it would not be a corrupt intent, because he was being falsely accused.” The attorney general made the same argument to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, contending that a “falsely accused” president could fire a special counsel without corrupt intent.

You claim to be quoting Barr but you're not, you're being disingenuous. According to your own cite Barr said the president could shut down an investigation if it is unfounded. You claim he set some precedent for the president to shut down an investigation because he's frustrated.  You're a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

 You're a waste of time.

that's rich coming from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

You claim to be quoting Barr but you're not, you're being disingenuous. According to your own cite Barr said the president could shut down an investigation if it is unfounded. You claim he set some precedent for the president to shut down an investigation because he's frustrated.  You're a waste of time.

Do you feel the President should be able to unilaterally shut down an investigation based on his/her own claim to be falsely accused?

That seems to be the argument of the AG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Do you feel the President should be able to unilaterally shut down an investigation based on his/her own claim to be falsely accused?

That seems to be the argument of the AG.

If it's an executive branch investigation yes. He's the boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

If it's an executive branch investigation yes. He's the boss.

You tuned into Levin yesterday I see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Funny how your standards have suddenly changed.

That's not my standard, it's my understanding of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

That's not my standard, it's my understanding of the law.

Which is the same as saying you buy the RWNM review of Barr's letter from a year ago.

Yet, what did Nixon find?  

Do you expect the new Supremes to break from the precedent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Which is the same as saying you buy the RWNM review of Barr's letter from a year ago.

Yet, what did Nixon find?  

Do you expect the new Supremes to break from the precedent?

Yeah, and I don't expect it to change. But the framers designed a system of checks and balances including provisions empowering congress to remove a president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dog said:

You claim to be quoting Barr but you're not, you're being disingenuous. According to your own cite Barr said the president could shut down an investigation if it is unfounded. You claim he set some precedent for the president to shut down an investigation because he's frustrated.  You're a waste of time.

Excuse, me but you are full of shit. 

When I said I was quoting Barr, I was quoting his testimony under oath before the Senate. 

When I quoted Slate, I noted that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yeah, and I don't expect it to change. But the framers designed a system of checks and balances including provisions empowering congress to remove a president.

Don't expect what to change?

The Supremes ruled a Prez can be charged with Obstruction

Barr strongly disagrees and holds to the Unitary Theory of the Exec.

 

Do you think the New Supremes would overturn precedent, or is Barr wrong?  Sounds like you believe the former.

 

 

Edit: there's a good discussion of this theory here:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/william-barr-donald-trump-mueller-report-1295273

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

If it's an executive branch investigation yes. He's the boss.

Negative, immigrant. Even though Mueller is only a Special Counsel and not an Independent Counsel, the law is still clear. The AG can, for cause, and your boy Shitstain can't, for love or money. Bluntly, your boy Shitstain is only a President (with your and Russian help) and not a King. You'll have to console yourself knowing that this AG is your boy Shitstain's obsequious lapdog.

image.png.481c65b2cdef96fb1a6a8f0c0760bf07.png

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/can-trump-fire-mueller/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

If it's an executive branch investigation yes. He's the boss.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Negative, immigrant. Even though Mueller is only a Special Counsel and not an Independent Counsel, the law is still clear. The AG can, for cause, and your boy Shitstain can't, for love or money. Bluntly, your boy Shitstain is only a President (with your and Russian help) and not a King. You'll have to console yourself knowing that this AG is your boy Shitstain's obsequious lapdog.

image.png.481c65b2cdef96fb1a6a8f0c0760bf07.png

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/can-trump-fire-mueller/

Barr (and our own little @Dog) will disagree with you. They believe in the unitary exec theory. In that view the Prez is literally, above the law. I have a feeling that if push came to shove, our Supremes would roll over on precedent and agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

.......... You're a waste of time.

What's time to a Dog?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Dog said:

You claim he set some precedent for the president to shut down an investigation because he's frustrated. 

If a president thinks any part of an investigation is unfounded, he can lawfully shut it down. Barr told Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont that if a legaproceeding was “based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there, constitutionally, and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding, and it would not be a corrupt intent, because he was being falsely accused.”

 

So, based on the president’s emotions or what he “thinks”, the president can terminate that proceeding, and it would not be corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Barr (and our own little @Dog) will disagree with you. They believe in the unitary exec theory. In that view the Prez is literally, above the law. I have a feeling that if push came to shove, our Supremes would roll over on precedent and agree.

Unitary Executive Theory really went out of style in late January of 2009 for some reason, but has made quite a comeback with folks of rock solid principles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

If a president thinks any part of an investigation is unfounded, he can lawfully shut it down. Barr told Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont that if a legaproceeding was “based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there, constitutionally, and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding, and it would not be a corrupt intent, because he was being falsely accused.”

 

So, based on the president’s emotions or what he “thinks”, the president can terminate that proceeding, and it would not be corrupt.

Well, that is Mr. Barr's interpretation.  

Anyway, that'll go by the wayside when a Democrat is elected to the Oval.  Bank on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

If a president thinks any part of an investigation is unfounded, he can lawfully shut it down. Barr told Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont that if a legaproceeding was “based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there, constitutionally, and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding, and it would not be a corrupt intent, because he was being falsely accused.”

 

So, based on the president’s emotions or what he “thinks”, the president can terminate that proceeding, and it would not be corrupt.

That's the theory that's pretty popular with Trumptards right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

 

Anyway, that'll go by the wayside when a Democrat is elected to the Oval.  Bank on it.

We all should live so long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The thing is, I think, the Founders thought they had set things up in the Constitution to properly deal with the very issue we have with the Cheeto Benito. Congress would be made up entirely of properly educated white gentlemen of means. Sensible, patriotic men who would not abide by a rogue President. The riddance of such man was left in the hands of these men. Then came the factions.

“The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

- George Washington in his 1796 farewell address

Party factionalism is the real problem with our country. Five minutes on PA makes that quite clear.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dog said:

For two years we have been told to wait for Mueller's report and now we're told it's not reliable.

We are? Who other than you is saying it's not reliable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

We are? Who other than you is saying it's not reliable?

This "We" that Dog keeps trotting out is starting to smell more like Pee Pee.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is: Barr couldn't straight faced answer senators questions. Straight out refused to be questioned by the House. Has been caught in lies since he was nominated, much less confirmed, and yet he continues to try to weasel his way through.....

 We know that "These people" have no shame, and will do anything they can to advance their objective..... But.... Do the rest of us have that little say in it?

 

 

Trump says he will prohibit McGhan from testifying.

McGhan is a citizen. He can say whatever the fuck he wants, whether Trump wants him to or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

The thing is, I think, the Founders thought they had set things up in the Constitution to properly deal with the very issue we have with the Cheeto Benito. Congress would be made up entirely of properly educated white gentlemen of means. Sensible, patriotic men who would not abide by a rogue President. The riddance of such man was left in the hands of these men. Then came the factions.

“The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

- George Washington in his 1796 farewell address

Party factionalism is the real problem with our country. Five minutes on PA makes that quite clear.

 

 

I'd love to see a "Washington vs. Eisenhower" debate.  Faction vs. MIC. Which is more pernicious? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One guy can't be trusted to tell us where he was born, and another CAN be trusted to stop investigations into himself if he's totally sure he didnt do anything wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites