• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

...aide to John Durham's Trump-Russia investigation, quietly resigns amid concern about pressure fr

post said:
Just watched Rudy G. appearance on Chris Cuomo's 9:00 PM EDT nightly hour on CNN, invited by Cuomo to remember 9/11 and Rudy's mayoral "leadership".

Rudy spun the Woodward revelations in a manner most favorable to Trump. Cuomo attempted to keep it real by reminding Rudy over and over that he purpose
of Rudy's appearance was related to 9/11. It got heated but stayed cordial.

"The Mooch" came on next and agreed that Trump and Rudy inhabit an alternate universe.
Click to expand...

Normally I'd be fascinated but I am weary of the bull**** right now and I am only focusing on one thing, the fact that a sitting President intentionally lied and admitted to doing so on tape, in order to politicize a pandemic for his political advantage.
And millions learned of this news, and just reached for the orange juice.

Proof that there's actually TWO pandemics.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Normally I'd be fascinated but I am weary of the bull**** right now and I am only focusing on one thing, the fact that a sitting President intentionally lied and admitted to doing so on tape, in order to politicize a pandemic for his political advantage.
And millions learned of this news, and just reached for the orange juice.

Proof that there's actually TWO pandemics.
Click to expand...

Dr. Jonathan Reiner of Johns Hopkins appeared minutes ago on CNN's Don Lemon's nightly show. Dr. Reiner is described in this April video.:

Doctor: New study indicates everyone should get tested for Covid-19 - CNN Video

He explained that Germany did not have a model response to the covid-19 epidemic. He said despite 9,000 deaths in that country of approx. 80 million residents,
schools and other public venues are returning to normal because the government followed the direction of medical experts and fully embraced wearing of face masks.

He went through the math, the U.S. having approx. 4X the German population and near 200,000 deaths.

He said Trump refused to publicly wear a face mask, belittling others, (such as Joe Biden) who did, from mid-March when Dr. Reiner recalled he, himself had canceled a reservation to take a cruise, on the day there were a total of 28 reported U.S. pandemic related deaths.

He pointed out that Trump finally and begrudgingly appeared voluntarily wearing a face mask on news cameras only in July during a visit to Walter Reed hospital Trump resisted attending.
Dr. Reiner said that Trump has enormous influence on his supporters and some influence over everyone else as POTUS, and had Trump simply followed emerging advice on the efficacy of face masks in containing the spread of virus during those precious four months, and since, the U.S. would be returning to as close to normal as Germany is and might only have suffered 4X the German death toll, approx. 36,000 deaths!
 
Athanasius68 said:
There is no such policy.
There is an unofficial policy that the DOJ should take great care in such a circumstance with candidates for office.
But Barr has already said that Biden is not under investigation and I do not believe anyone else who was in the government 2016- to Mueller's appointment in 2017 is running for office. So the concern is moot.
Click to expand...

This isn't true.

You are the absolute worst liar on this forum, and whether it's your deceit or your ignorance that causes you to say such profoundly stupid things you should be ashamed of yourself. In any case, I don't know why you try to do stuff like this. There is always going to be someone here to correct you when you screw up so why do you even bother lying or talking about topics you know absolutely nothing about? Why bother?

It is the official policy of the DOJ that Department employees "may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party."

Employees are also encouraged to contact the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division for further guidance regarding "the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election."

That was DOJ policy in 2008 through 2012

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2009/02/10/ag-030508.pdf

That was DOJ policy in 2012 through 2016

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...07/23/ag-memo-election-year-sensitivities.pdf

That was DOJ policy from 2016 until the present:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4439553/Election-Year-Sensitivities-2016.pdf

There is no period of time mentioned anywhere in any of these DOJ policy memos. So, therefore, there is no so-called 60-day rule. However, 60 days has been a common rule of thumb that the DOJ has followed.

The question isn't whether or not there is a policy, because there is, and for good reason, the question is as follows: what stunt is Barr going to pull to try in order to cheat for Trump before the election in November?
 
Last edited:
W_Heisenberg said:
This isn't true.

You are the absolute worst liar on this forum, and whether it's your deceit or your ignorance that causes you to say such profoundly stupid things you should be ashamed of yourself. In any case, I don't know why you try to do stuff like this. There is always going to be someone here to correct you when you screw up so why do you even bother lying or talking about topics you know absolutely nothing about? Why bother?

It is the official policy of the DOJ that Department employees "may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party."

Employees are also encouraged to contact the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division for further guidance regarding "the timing of charges or overt investigative steps near the time of a primary or general election."

That was DOJ policy in 2008 through 2012

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2009/02/10/ag-030508.pdf

That was DOJ policy in 2012 through 2016

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...07/23/ag-memo-election-year-sensitivities.pdf

That was DOJ policy from 2016 until the present:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4439553/Election-Year-Sensitivities-2016.pdf

There is no period of time mentioned anywhere in any of these DOJ policy memos. So, therefore, there is no so-called 60-day rule. However, 60 days has been a common rule of thumb that the DOJ has followed.

The question isn't whether or not there is a policy, because there is, and for good reason, the question is as follows: what stunt is Barr going to pull to try in order to cheat for Trump before the election in November?
Click to expand...

Durham time frame of investigation is between the commencement of Crossfire Hurricane until the appt. of Mueller.
The only person who might be involved in the types of decisions during that timeframe that Durham is investigating who is running for office (that I am aware) is Biden. And Barr has said Biden is not under investigation.
So there is no issue here.
 
Athanasius68 said:
There is no such policy.
There is an unofficial policy that the DOJ should take great care in such a circumstance with candidates for office.
But Barr has already said that Biden is not under investigation and I do not believe anyone else who was in the government 2016- to Mueller's appointment in 2017 is running for office. So the concern is moot.
Click to expand...
The poster is right only in that the election will be delayed because of mail-in ballots, and this is when the Democrats will tie up the country with legal arguments in every State they didn't win, which will be most of the them.

Thy no longer have to 'defund the police' because many leaders have resigned and recruitment is low. The rioters will own the streets.

Trump is also being falsely accused for calling members of the military 'suckers', creating genocide against Americans, and no doubt more false accusations of a very serious nature will come in the next two months.

Trump will win the popular vote but that will not be accepted by the Democrats. The country has held together during these soft coup attempts (the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion, the phony impeachment attempt and the discussions around the 25th Amendment) but this time it will became harder.

The Democrats have already created a lengthy contingency plan based on the assumption that Trump will not leave office after the popular vote is held and you can bet they'll put this plan into place. Expect more riots if Trump wins, as he will, and more legal wranglings until Joe Biden is named President.

These are the Democratic plans, and with probable outside help. https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Transition-Integrity-Project-Report.pdf
 
Athanasius68 said:
Durham has spoke once during his investigation.
Barr has answered questions related to timeframes.
He has said Biden is not under investigation.
Click to expand...

In comparison to Mueller's investigation the Durham investigation has been leaking like a sieve. There have been scores of incidents where Barr, justice department officials, the President, and 'people familiar with the investigation' have offered opinions and factually unsupported damning public commentary that has named names and drawn conclusions of an ongoing investigation that is at least partially a criminal investigation. And throughout all of it Barr has placed his heavy thumb on it's scale. Barr's running commentary has violated several justice department rules and norms. Barr knows this and he knows that he is doing reputational harm to the people who have been named as being under investigation. And he must know that his conduct will not only further damage the justice department. But will also render whatever findings Durham makes as being far more questionable and contestable than they otherwise would have been absent his heavy handed involvement and oversight.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Don't get complacent.
I'm treating this election as a 90 percent chance Trump will attempt things never imagined by anyone in recorded history to get his cheats to work.
We will be seeing footage from polling places in swing states that will make the dogs of Birmingham look like a Cub Scout outing.
Only this time it won't have to wait for the 6 o'clock news, it will be in real time, and the whole world will be watching.
Click to expand...
Do you have any indications as to why Trump would do this; any reasons for your suspicions?
 
Atomic Kid said:
In comparison to Mueller's investigation the Durham investigation has been leaking like a sieve. There have been scores of incidents where Barr, justice department officials, the President, and 'people familiar with the investigation' have offered opinions and factually unsupported damning public commentary that has named names and drawn conclusions of an ongoing investigation that is at least partially a criminal investigation. And throughout all of it Barr has placed his heavy thumb on it's scale. Barr's running commentary has violated several justice department rules and norms. Barr knows this and he knows that he is doing reputational harm to the people who have been named as being under investigation. And he must know that his conduct will not only further damage the justice department. But will also render whatever findings Durham makes as being far more questionable and contestable than they otherwise would have been absent his heavy handed involvement and oversight.
Click to expand...
Were you not aware of anyone related to Trump, in even the slightest way, who was under investigation?

Did you not hear former CIA head John Brennan a ccuse the President of "Treason"? Think that might have been prejudential?
 
Fletch said:
Durham should come up with a report before the election
Click to expand...

I think we all know that its entire purpose is to do just that.
 
Linc said:
Is that DoJ policy, not that it matters?
Click to expand...

DoJ policy used to be that they'd try to stay out of electoral politics, and that would mean no October Surprises. Of course with Hillary DoJ notified the world about the EMAILS!!!! on the laptop at the last minute, so that wasn't followed then, and of course we all know Barr's goal here will be to put something out helpful to Trump at the optimal time. So DoJ's policies appear to be that if they hurt Democrats, it's fine to do whatever, whenever.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Were you not aware of anyone related to Trump, in even the slightest way, who was under investigation?

Did you not hear former CIA head John Brennan a ccuse the President of "Treason"? Think that might have been prejudential?
Click to expand...

Not the nearly same thing whatsoever. John Brennan left the CIA and US government in January 2017. Therefore he had no part or any role in Mueller's investigation and had no direct knowledge of any of the details of Mueller's investigation and always stated so when asked about it. He always said that he could only speak to what he had observed his final months as CIA Director and cautioned that he did not know how much more information had been developed or had not been developed since the time he left. He was always cautious about speculating about the Mueller investigation. As to President Trump's character, Brennan as a private citizen is free to express his opinion of Mr Trump's moral character, just as you and I are free to do.

What Barr, the President and various Justice Department and White House officials are doing however is entirely different and wholly inappropriate because they are US government officials.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Exactly. It will help people to arrive at a better informed decision.
Click to expand...

Republicans don't have facts on their side so they rely on late thrown accusations. It worked last time. It will fail this time.

So sad to see that cons believe in politicizing every single aspect of the government so that they can use all of government for their own elections. The toothpaste is out of the tube now on that and they will fully regret having done that.
 
poweRob said:
Republicans don't have facts on their side so they rely on late thrown accusations. It worked last time. It will fail this time.

So sad to see that cons believe in politicizing every single aspect of the government so that they can use all of government for their own elections. The toothpaste is out of the tube now on that and they will fully regret having done that.
Click to expand...
We'll just have to wait and see where the evidence leads.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
We'll just have to wait and see where the evidence leads.
Click to expand...

Nowhere like usual. But with a lot of initial noise. Barr can continue snuffing out evidence but he can't invent any that will stick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom