Jump to content

Judge Discredits Barr, says his take on Mueller Reoprt "Misleading"


Remodel

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, bhyde said:

I'd supply the link, but why bother.

because it's a smoking hot story of international intrigue? 

the investigators had to force the info, texts, contacts, and documents out of PapaD, after obtaining the evidence elsewhere,

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

A. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor, who defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant PAP ADOPOULOS became a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign.

B. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS further told the investigating agents that the professor was "a nothing" and "just a guy talk[ing] up connections or something." In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood that the professor had substantial connections to Russian government officials (and had met with some ofthose officials in Moscow immediately prior to telling defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails") and, over a period of months, defendant PAPADOPOULOS repeatedly sought to use the professor's Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.

C. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed he met a certain female Russian national before he joined the Campaign and that their communications consisted of emails such as, '"Hi , how are you?"' In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the female Russian national on or about March 24, 2016, after he had become an adviser to the Campaign; he believed that she had connections to Russian government officials; and he sought to use her Russian connections over a period ofmonths in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.

I'd supply the link, but why bother.

It wouldn't take me to the statement of offense he pled guilty to anyway.

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

It wouldn't take me to the statement of offense he pled guilty to anyway.

There's a good excuse.

Just like the Mueller report, you didn't read it, so you can contradict it freely

And no doubt with a clear conscience

- DSK

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

It wouldn't take me to the statement of offense he pled guilty to anyway.

It wouldn't take you to the Statement of Offense he pled guilty to that you wouldn't read anyway. Like I said, why bother.

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

Well she lied to investigators about Hillary's server and was not charged. Papadopoulos went to jail for getting a date wrong. Maybe that's just the difference between an investigation and a "matter" after Bill and Loretta's excellent meeting..

Can you remind me again what Bill and Loretta talked about in their excellent meeting. I don't recall. Got an un-redacted transcript?

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

Well she lied to investigators about Hillary's server and was not charged. Papadopoulos went to jail for getting a date wrong. Maybe that's just the difference between an investigation and a "matter" after Bill and Loretta's excellent meeting..

Did all that come from the same place that Huma's "immunity" came from? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Why the fuck do you have to lie all the fucking time? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not see the quoted text on page 2? Who the mother fucks signature is it on the last page?

https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

its the statement of offense. YOU LIE DOG! JUST LIKE THE CORRUPT ORANGE SACK OF SHIT YOU DEFEND WITH YIUR LIES!

what the fuck is wrong with Republicans? 

 

You are correct. I thought it was a later version that was attached to the final plea deal.

In any case it was a lie about the time line that he went to jail for. Abedin told investigators she had no knowledge of Hillary's private server dispite having used it herself, she got nothing.

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

You are correct. I thought it was a later version that was attached to the final plea deal.

In any case it was a lie about the time line that he went to jail for. Abedin told investigators she had no knowledge of Hillary's private server dispite having used it herself, she got nothing.

Why won't Barr prosecute Abedin then? Is Barr Deep-State now too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was pretty obvious to EVERYONE that Hillary committed many, many crimes too.

Well, everyone at a rally.

But when Sessions, or Barr, or the toilet-salesman guy were in a position to charge, they didn't.

The attorneys on the television sure seemed convincing..

It's almost like they know their audience won't notice.

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

You are correct. I thought it was a later version that was attached to the final plea deal.

In any case it was a lie about the time line that he went to jail for. Abedin told investigators she had no knowledge of Hillary's private server dispite having used it herself, she got nothing.

Another Dog lie because that isn't a lie. By way of comparison, you have no knowledge of the Ed's Sailing Anarchy servers despite using them. They could be AWS or they could be on prem.

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

Another Dog lie because that isn't a lie. By way of comparison, you have no knowledge of the Ed's Sailing Anarchy servers despite using them. They could be AWS or they could be on prem.

On the contrary...I know Ed's servers exist. She used Hillary's private email address for government business in fact her husband had Hillary's emails on his computer.

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

On the contrary...I know Ed's servers exist. She used Hillary's private email address for government business in fact her husband had Hillary's emails on his computer.

I didn’t say existed. I said cloud or on prem. And on prem, I mean at home and not collocated. I’m kinda in the business, kinda like way more than Huma is, and I don’t know know this about Ed’s iron.

But Dog knows this. So which is it?

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

I didn’t say existed. I said cloud or on prem. And on prem, I mean at home and not collocated. I’m kinda in the business, kinda like way more than Huma is, and I don’t know know this about Ed’s iron.

But Dog knows this. So which is it?

Can you tell if an address ends in .gov?

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

I can host a .gov domain in my bedroom. I can host a .com domain in a police station.

Again, which is it?

That's nice....And you can tell that clintonemail.com does not end in .gov

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

He prefers to answer questions by posing questions.

State Department email addresses end in .gov

Edit... Actually they end in @state.gov   Is clintonmail.com a state department email address?

 

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

That’s not interesting to me, Dog. What I wanted to know was whether you know where the Ed keeps his site.

I don't know where he keep it, ask him.  Is clintonmail.com a state department email address?

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

State Department email addresses end in .gov

Edit... Actually they end in @state.gov   Is clintonmail.com a state department email address?

 

Why are you asking me?  

See what it's like when a question is answered with a question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Another Dog lie because that isn't a lie. By way of comparison, you have no knowledge of the Ed's Sailing Anarchy servers despite using them. They could be AWS or they could be on prem.

It isn't a lie? I guess state.gov and clintonemail.com are easily confused.

In any event, what does any of your nonsense have to do with finding classified state dept emails on a private server?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I could register Dogfucksgoatswithoutlubeonatrabant.gov with Trump level fraud.

am I the government?

Nope.  I registered that one 2 years ago.

I'll sell it to you though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The level of ignorance on this thread is astounding - even for those who I already considered to be ignorant. No wonder Fox News can spread so much disinformation with such ease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

It isn't a lie? I guess state.gov and clintonemail.com are easily confused.

In any event, what does any of your nonsense have to do with finding classified state dept emails on a private server?

 

You mean like the ones Jared and Ivanka used?   

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

You mean like the ones Jared and Ivanka used?   

shhhh, the setup is developing nicely.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

It isn't a lie? I guess state.gov and clintonemail.com are easily confused.

In any event, what does any of your nonsense have to do with finding classified state dept emails on a private server?

No on said that state.gov and clintonemail.com are easily confused. The question was whether Abedin lied when she said (as the FBI interview on 4/5/2016 reports) ABEDIN did not know that CLINTON had a private server until about a year and half ago when it became public knowledge.

Dog (and by extension you) are souper networking geniuses compared to those duffers at the FBI who were easily cowed by this transparent falsehood. Except that Dog didn't even know where the server this site is hosted on sits.

As for the classified emails, why did the Barr DOJ end the investigation with no charges?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/18/clinton-emails-investigation-ends-state-department

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

I thought the server was a little box somewhere in Ukraine?

Rudy went looking for it I think.

They sent Rudy for the server, the fuckwit can't even operate a secure cell phone,  :D

No wonder things are going badly for team trump, surround yourself with idiots dumber than you, what could possibly go wrong....oh wait,  never mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Navig8tor said:

Muttley doing what he does best, wandering aimlessly thru the neighbourhood and distracting the drivers travelling in the Donald J Trump fast lane to political anonymity.

I prefer to think of it as chasing cars.

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

You are correct. I thought it was a later version that was attached to the final plea deal.

In any case it was a lie about the time line that he went to jail for. Abedin told investigators she had no knowledge of Hillary's private server dispite having used it herself, she got nothing.

I'm curious why you think this claim is germane today in any way.  After all, she's been investigated to within an inch of her life and no one has gone to jail.  The FBI has declined to file charges, because they've found no wrong-doing significant enough to warrant it.  Which is a very, very different story that the candidate you continue to support. 

You continue to dredge this up to avoid talking about the /current/ events that Trump is mismanaging.  I know there's a term for that. I wonder what that term is.

No.  I don't.

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

I'm curious why you think this claim is germane today in any way.  After all, she's been investigated to within an inch of her life and no one has gone to jail.  The FBI has declined to file charges, because they've found no wrong-doing significant enough to warrant it.  Which is a very, very different story that the candidate you continue to support. 

You continue to dredge this up to avoid talking about the /current/ events that Trump is mismanaging.  I know there's a term for that. I wonder what that term is.

No.  I don't.

To illustrate the difference between how the FBI handled the Trump investigation and how it handled the Clinton investigation matter. (It became a "matter" sometime after Bill and Loretta's excellent meeting) As you say no one was charged in the Hillary investigation matter but some committed the same offenses that sent Trump associates to jail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I could register Dogfucksgoatswithoutlubeonatrabant.gov with Trump level fraud.

am I the government?

But you can't seem to answer this...Is @clintonmail.com a state department address?

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

To illustrate the difference between how the FBI handled the Trump investigation and how it handled the Clinton investigation matter. (It became a "matter" sometime after Bill and Loretta's excellent meeting) As you say no one was charged in the Hillary investigation matter but some committed the same offenses that sent Trump associates to jail.

As far as I am aware, no one was charged.  In the intervening years, the Republicans have held the majority.  For some time, the majority in both the congress and the senate.  Can you explain why no one went to jail, even at that point when the Republicans owned the entire government?

I'm just wondering who you seem to be accusing of this heinous act of not sending someone in the Clinton camp to jail.  If, as you state, that they comitted the 'same' offenses, why has no one prosecuted them?  Why has no one sued them?  Why has our law enforcement and judicial system not done anything about it?

I find your implication of some grand conspiracy to protect the Clintons laughable.

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

As far as I am aware, no one was charged.  In the intervening years, the Republicans have held the majority.  For some time, the majority in both the congress and the senate.  Can you explain why no one went to jail, even at that point when the Republicans owned the entire government?

I'm just wondering who you seem to be accusing of this heinous act of not sending someone in the Clinton camp to jail.  If, as you state, that they comitted the 'same' offenses, why has no one prosecuted them?  Why has no one sued them?  Why has our law enforcement and judicial system not done anything about it?

I find your implication of some grand conspiracy to protect the Clintons laughable.

Well, just don't get cought with classified documents on your computer. And if you are, don't destroy them while under subpoena. I don't think you will skate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and while News is happening, the circle jerk of Clinton's emails continues. The distraction is self evident, and Dog is a troll. Y'all are petting him.

When done with this, it'll be BENGHAAAZI or Fast & Furious or "I'm his wingman." Anything but the myriad day-to-day offenses from our current WH. The whataboutism and "the other side is just as bad" are plain to see.

Stop feeding the trolls.

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

... and while News is happening, the circle jerk of Clinton's emails continues. The distraction is self evident, and Dog is a troll. Y'all are petting him.

When done with this, it'll be BENGHAAAZI or Fast & Furious or "I'm his wingman." Anything but the myriad day-to-day offenses from our current WH. The whataboutism and "the other side is just as bad" are plain to see.

Stop feeding the trolls.

 And this is a timely news driven post?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

As far as I am aware, no one was charged.  In the intervening years, the Republicans have held the majority.  For some time, the majority in both the congress and the senate.  Can you explain why no one went to jail, even at that point when the Republicans owned the entire government?

I'm just wondering who you seem to be accusing of this heinous act of not sending someone in the Clinton camp to jail.  If, as you state, that they comitted the 'same' offenses, why has no one prosecuted them?  Why has no one sued them?  Why has our law enforcement and judicial system not done anything about it?

I find your implication of some grand conspiracy to protect the Clintons laughable.

I ask folks like Dog which scenario is the most likely -

1. Hillary Clinton (and her posse) are the most successful criminal masterminds ever.  The Clinton Body Count is out there, and no smoking gun has ever been found, despite loads of investigations.  She is just that damned good.

2. The Republican investigating her are hopelessly inept.  They could not find their own asses with both hands.

3. The allegations are bullshit.

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

To illustrate the difference between how the FBI handled the Trump investigation and how it handled the Clinton investigation matter. (It became a "matter" sometime after Bill and Loretta's excellent meeting) As you say no one was charged in the Hillary investigation matter but some committed the same offenses that sent Trump associates to jail.

Keep saying it. Over and over and over. Repeat it in a loop... it will still never become true

- DSK

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

I ask folks like Dog which scenario is the most likely -

1. Hillary Clinton (and her posse) are the most successful criminal masterminds ever.  The Clinton Body Count is out there, and no smoking gun has ever been found, despite loads of investigations.  She is just that damned good.

2. The Republican investigating her are hopelessly inept.  They could not find their own asses with both hands.

3. The allegations are bullshit.

 

It's not that they're inept... they're busy making money and for last three years, slurping up cream of mushroom.

They're only pretending to investigate so they can keep doing what they do

Sort of like if you asked former VP Dick Cheney about his failed foreign policy and wars, he'll laugh his ass off. It was all a HUGE success from his point of view

- DSK

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

Well, just don't get cought with classified documents on your computer. And if you are, don't destroy them while under subpoena. I don't think you will skate.

Right - so you continue to have no explanation.  Just a wild accusation of some sort of guilt.  But when it comes to Trump..... he's innocent until he provides a signed confession.

You're such an asshole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chief Justice of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
March 11, 2020
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.


This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986.
 

I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005.

 

I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.


I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.


The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.


Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.


Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.


It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.


I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong.


The Supreme Court of the United States is respected when it wields authority and not mere power. As has often been said, you are infallible because you are final, but not the other way around.


I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can’t vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide.


Please remove my name from the rolls.
With deepest regret,


James Dannenberg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...