A federal judge ordered the DOJ to release a memo that Bill Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction of justice, saying 'it is time for the public to s

[ouch]

He won’t need to. Someone else will do it. Biden isn’t in charge anyway.

Please help me to understand who is actually in charge (of the DOJ and or Oval Office?). I missed that memo.

 

[poweRob]

Great debating skills lol. Troll much?

That is all they have over there. They stand for nothing but against everything so trolling is just about all that fits their existance.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Please help me to understand who is actually in charge (of the DOJ and or Oval Office?). I missed that memo.

President Biden is a figurehead. He's being led. VP Harris isn't in charge either. Pelosi and Schumer are guiding government right now.

 

[Tahuyaman]

That is all they have over there. They stand for nothing but against everything so trolling is just about all that fits their existance.

That's a great example of irony. Actually that is a common tactic on the left. When they are confronted with facts they can't refute, they claim that you "have nothing", or are trolling. Then if you ask them to support their views they respond with, "I'll accept your surrender" or something equally irrelevant.

 

[poweRob]

That's a great example of irony. Actually that is a common tactic on the left. When they are confronted with facts they can't refute, they claim that you "have nothing", or are trolling. Then if you ask them to support their views they respond with, "I'll accept your surrender" or something equally irrelevant.

"*Herp* I know you are but what am i *derp*!"

 

[ashurbanipal]

That's crazy.

Nope. That's math.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Nope. That's math.

No, it wasn't. I don't know what it was, but it made no sense.

 

[Tahuyaman]

"*Herp* I know you are but what am i *derp*!"

That's another example.

 

[prometeus]

President Biden is a figurehead. He's being led. VP Harris isn't in charge either. Pelosi and Schumer are guiding government right now.

Their success must be eating at you really bad eh?

 

[ouch]

President Biden is a figurehead. He's being led. VP Harris isn't in charge either. Pelosi and Schumer are guiding government right now.

As leaders of the House and Senate, P&S are performing their duties. Biden and Harris are leading our nation from the executive branch of our government. "Figureheads" goes with the job and not in an overbearing manner unlike (S/I/T) Trump's wannabe dictator position. If ever Biden or Harris behaves like (S/I/T) Trump, my opinions about that will be read here in DP. I expect AG Garland to perform his duties, unlike SG Barr, in which should be by the book in a proper manner. Barr's activities as AG under (S/I/T) Trump should be investigated, imo. The sooner the better so as to avoid future AGs using their office to obstruct or protect the president or vice president from investigations due to their acts of corruption that could lead to impeachments.

 

[NolanVoyd]

It was a big dud. Barr didn’t lie. He had no reason to lie.

No, he flat our lied.

That is what the ruling determined.

 

[ashurbanipal]

No, it wasn't. I don't know what it was, but it made no sense.

I'm sure it didn't make any sense to you. To those of us who know something about logic, especially formal logic, what I wrote makes complete sense. The propositions you assert as all true cannot all be true. You cannot consistently claim that one can know a particular hypothesis for X, admit there's no evidence for any hypothesis about X, and claim that we can only speculate about why there is no evidence for any hypothesis about X.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

TDS is so wide spread, it’s now considered normal.

You can't just make shit up and then accuse other people of being crazy for criticizing you. Sorry. That's not how it works.

 

[Tahuyaman]

You can't just make shit up and then accuse other people of being crazy for criticizing you. Sorry. That's not how it works.

I haven’t made anything up. I’m dealing in facts.

 

[Tahuyaman]

I'm sure it didn't make any sense to you. To those of us who know something about logic, especially formal logic, what I wrote makes complete sense. The propositions you assert as all true cannot all be true. You cannot consistently claim that one can know a particular hypothesis for X, admit there's no evidence for any hypothesis about X, and claim that we can only speculate about why there is no evidence for any hypothesis about X.

Uh. Sure. Ok? Well........

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The fact that people like you aren’t embarrassed is embarrassing.

Read Vol 2 for yourself if you don't believe me. It's all there.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Read Vol 2 for yourself if you don't believe me. It's all there.

The facts don’t change because of your interpretation.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I haven’t made anything up. I’m dealing in facts.

You're dealing with propaganda, and in this specific case, a kind of propaganda that doesn't have much connection to the facts.

For instance, when you said there was "no" evidence of conspiracy you were lying. I don't know if the lie was intentional or not, but if it wasn't I encourage you to read Vol 1 and unburden yourself from the self-imposed ignorance you are experiencing.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The facts don’t change because of your interpretation.

I don't need you to accept my interpretation in order to prove what I've been arguing in this thread.

I just need you to set aside time to read the source material for yourself and acquaint yourself somewhat with our legal system.

 

[Tahuyaman]

I don't need you to accept my interpretation in order to prove what I've been arguing in this thread.

I just need you to set aside time to read the source material for yourself and acquaint yourself somewhat with our legal system.

You’re arguing a proven false and partisan motivated narrative. A narrative which failed to do what it was intended to do. That failure ruined your day back then. It was a crushing blow. So instead of accepting failure and learning from it, you double, triple and quadruple down.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

And because Mueller said that he could not establish there was a conspiracy, Barr said there can be no obstruction.

We will learn more in the coming days about why Barr made the decisions he did, but taking Barr at face value, based on the actual letter he wrote, what you wrote isn't correct.

This isn't your fault though. Barr and Trump's other political allies have been intentionally vague about communicating Barr's rationale.

While this bogus legal argument -- one that is not in any way supported by the case law -- was indeed pushed by Barr at various moments prior to him becoming the AG, in his letter summarizing Mueller's report, Barr didn't push that particular legal argument (probably because it's so incredibly weak and unconvincing). Instead, what he did was say that because conspiracy could not be proven then it would be difficult to prove intent with respect to obstruction.

Read it for yourself:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report (Published 2019)

The letter, by Attorney General William P. Barr, details the main findings of the special counsel’s two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

www.nytimes.com

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

 

[Tahuyaman]

We already know everything we need to know about this. There’s nothing relevant left to be known. It’s time to find another scam to promote.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

You’re arguing a proven false and partisan motivated narrative.

So, what part of Vol. 1 do you believe is false?

A narrative which failed to do what it was intended to do. That failure ruined your day back then. It was a crushing blow. So instead of accepting failure and learning from it, you double, triple and quadruple down.

I'm not saying Trump is guilty of conspiracy. I am saying there was enough evidence that indicated Trump or his campaign personnel may have engaged in a conspiracy to justify the investigation.

And it's not that complicated. Why did Trump fire Comey for not ending the Flynn investigation? That's strange. Why did Trump's son and campaign personnel meet with Russian government agents? That's strange. Why did Trump lie about the meeting OVER AND OVER AND OVER and only admit he was lying about his previous stories when each previous story was debunked?!?! That's STRANGE. Why did Trump order Flynn to make contact with Russian agents in an attempt to find Clinton's e-mails. THAT'S STRANGE!! Why did Manafort and Gates transmit poll information to a known Russian government agent. THAT IS SUSPICIOUS.

So you have things like that happened, that they actually did, that isn't fake news, not some invention of CNN or MNSBC or Steele, or whatever. These things actually happened. Trump and his personnel did things that made people suspicious. Those things happened. They weren't fake news.

Is the FBI supposed to ignore this stuff? Pretend it didn't happen?

You have this notion that investigators must know the outcome of an investigation before they even begin investigating anything. That's just idiotic. It's stupid. It doesn't make any sense. Reality isn't like the movie/book Minority Report. We can't make predictions about what crimes will happen in the future or read people's minds. We have to look for evidence. It's not just sitting there in your face. And for the most part, criminals don't march themselves into an interrogation room and willingly confess their crimes.

If Investigators knew the outcome of every investigation they would never investigate anything. That's the WHOLE POINT of an investigation. To find something else.

If you can sit there and say with a straight face that the investigation wasn't justified, it's clear you haven't read vol 1. If you had read vol 1. you would NOT be saying what you're saying now. Because Trump and his campaign personnel did a bunch of weird, goofy shit that made people suspicious. It's all right there in Vol 1. Read it.

The problem is that Trump supporters could never accept that Trump wasn't some sort of dictator who was above the law and never accountable to anyone or anything. That's not how our system works.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

We already know everything we need to know about this. There’s nothing relevant left to be known. It’s time to find another scam to promote.

This is true, so with that being the case, why do you persist in lying about what happened? And making shit up and saying things like Clinton engaged in obstruction, and that there was "no" evidence indicating Trump or his campaign engaged in a conspiracy? Those two things, for instance, are things you've repeatedly written in this thread, that are DEMONSTRABLY false.

 

[Tahuyaman]

This is true, so with that being the case, why do you persist in lying about what happened? And making shit up and saying things like Clinton engaged in obstruction, and that there was "no" evidence indicating Trump or his campaign engaged in a conspiracy? Those two things, for instance, are things you've repeatedly written in this thread, that are DEMONSTRABLY false.

Once again. I have not lied or misrepresented anything.

Also I never said Hillary Clinton was guilty of obstruction of justice. I said she should be charged with illegal handling of classified information and destroying evidence.