• 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!

Bill Barr Says Evidence 'Building' Against Trump in DOJ's Jan. 6 Probe

ouch said:
Not that this article convinces most members in DP that evidence is building against DJT, because many here already believed that this is the case, but it adds to the fact that Bill Barr keeps tip toeing to the right side of history by letting the public know that he rejected any notion that there was election fraud 2020 while hinting that DJT caused 1/6/21 to take place.

(y)(y):geek:(y)(y)



MSN

www.msn.com
View attachment 67405228
Speaking to CBS News, Barr gave his assessment on the latest reported developments of the Justice Department's probe, and said recent grand jury subpoenas for high-ranking Trump administration officials are "significant."

"This suggests to me that they're taking a hard look at the group at the top, including the president and the people immediately around him who were involved in this," the legal expert said.

Barr went on to say that he thinks the "evidence definitely has been building" against Trump. However, the former attorney general said that what he's seen from the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack in its publicly televised hearings has not yet convinced that there is enough to prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that the former president committed a crime. He went on to say that the Justice Department continues to probe the events of January 6.
Click to expand...
F*ck bill barr. He did the exact same thing with the Mueller investigation that djt is doing with this search.
 
mrjurrs said:
F*ck bill barr. He did the exact same thing with the Mueller investigation that djt is doing with this search.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no love lost on Barr, but it's still good that once in a while he contributes a little truth. Mainly because DJT is so bad, this is when they momentarily tip toe into the right side of history.
 
ouch said:
Yeah, no love lost on Barr, but it's still good that once in a while he contributes a little truth. Mainly because DJT is so bad, this is when they momentarily tip toe into the right side of history.
Click to expand...

It’s calculated. On the one hand he says he thinks the case is building. On the other, he claims he hasn’t seen enough to make a case.

He doesn’t see anything the DoJ has anymore, which begs the point.

But it’s the exact same two step he played with the Mueller Report. Factually correct, but highly misleading. And since you can’t actually see what he is talking about (nor can he) he can pretend there’s not case for the fox/trump crowd.
 
Paradoxical said:
And..............?
Click to expand...
Not speaking for the poster that you (and .... ?) but my guess would be that subpoenas crimp DJT's style because he mostly ignores them.
 
ouch said:
Yeah, no love lost on Barr, but it's still good that once in a while he contributes a little truth. Mainly because DJT is so bad, this is when they momentarily tip toe into the right side of history.
Click to expand...
Couldn't disagree more. It's all about image rehabilitation imo.
 
mrjurrs said:
Couldn't disagree more. It's all about image rehabilitation imo.
Click to expand...
That's cool. However, it hasn't patched up my image about him. Same goes for M Pence. He did something right in his political life but he's still a numbnut.
 
ouch said:
Not speaking for the poster that you (and .... ?) but my guess would be that subpoenas crimp DJT's style because he mostly ignores them.
Click to expand...
Seems funny he complied with them taking out 15 boxes. If there were more there, why did they make him lock it up instead of taking them?
 
Paradoxical said:
If there were more there, why did they make him lock it up instead of taking them?
Click to expand...
Because they were making every effort to let him comply with the law on his own. He refused to do so. This is public knowledge that anyone can read for themselves. Are you here to discuss the topic, or are you here to make up lies about it and force people to correct you with basic, public knowledge?
 
Paradoxical said:
Seems funny he complied with them taking out 15 boxes. If there were more there, why did they make him lock it up instead of taking them?
Click to expand...
You do know that we're speculating about what actually took place inside Mar-a-Lago. You know, minute by minute stuff. Since there had to be a legal search warrant served on DJT, that suggests that he did not turn everything over prior to the search. Plus, whether it's true or not, word has it that the DOJ was tipped off by somebody close to DJT that he had more serious docs from the White House hidden. We may not have even found out about the safe if it hadn't been DJT blabbing about his safe being broken into that evening. I imagine a month or two from now we'll know much more about this.
 
ouch said:
You do know that we're speculating about what actually took place inside Mar-a-Lago. You know, minute by minute stuff. Since there had to be a legal search warrant served on DJT, that suggests that he did not turn everything over prior to the search. Plus, whether it's true or not, word has it that the DOJ was tipped off by somebody close to DJT that he had more serious docs from the White House hidden. We may not have even found out about the safe if it hadn't been DJT blabbing about his safe being broken into that evening. I imagine a month or two from now we'll know much more about this.
Click to expand...
Prolly Cassie Hutchinson would be my guess. Hell, anyone could have claimed he had nuclear documents, amirite? How could we know since they are classified? As long as WaPo and the other propaganda media run with the story 24/7 like Joseph Goebbels, they got it covered.
 
Paradoxical said:
Prolly Cassie Hutchinson would be my guess. Hell, anyone could have claimed he had nuclear documents, amirite? How could we know since they are classified? As long as WaPo and the other propaganda media run with the story 24/7 like Joseph Goebbels, they got it covered.
Click to expand...
Regardless who knew where to aim the FBI agents with locating the hidden docs, said docs were found. To be honest, there may be more docs still hidden at Mar-a-Lago or at other locations.

Here's a fun 'what if' to ponder about. Since AG Barr apparently came to some of his sense since Dec 2020, what if he continued being the AG under Pres Biden? Would AG Barr pursue justice v DJT after seeing what took place on 1/6/22 and also learning that DJT illegally removed docs from the White House? I almost think that he would conduct a legal search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. I say that because he knew that DJT lied about election fraud. He even feels that there is growing evidence against DJT over his involvement with 1/6/21. Wouldn't Barr be doing the right thing just as AG Garland has? Speculate my friend.
 
Paradoxical said:
They have not yet allowed any opposing witnesses or cross examination. If they had that lady who lied about Trump grabbing the steering wheel would be up on a perjury charge.
Click to expand...
Have those SS agents testified under oath?
 
Paradoxical said:
Prolly Cassie Hutchinson would be my guess. Hell, anyone could have claimed he had nuclear documents, amirite? How could we know since they are classified? As long as WaPo and the other propaganda media run with the story 24/7 like Joseph Goebbels, they got it covered.
Click to expand...
They aren’t classified. According to your media.
 
ouch said:
Regardless who knew where to aim the FBI agents with locating the hidden docs, said docs were found. To be honest, there may be more docs still hidden at Mar-a-Lago or at other locations.

Here's a fun 'what if' to ponder about. Since AG Barr apparently came to some of his sense since Dec 2020, what if he continued being the AG under Pres Biden? Would AG Barr pursue justice v DJT after seeing what took place on 1/6/22 and also learning that DJT illegally removed docs from the White House? I almost think that he would conduct a legal search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. I say that because he knew that DJT lied about election fraud. He even feels that there is growing evidence against DJT over his involvement with 1/6/21. Wouldn't Barr be doing the right thing just as AG Garland has? Speculate my friend.
Click to expand...
Um, the documents were declassified by none other than Trump. He can do that. Sorry if you don't like it.
 
Paradoxical said:
Um, the documents were declassified by none other than Trump. He can do that. Sorry if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but bypassing the nonsense of your claim and assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is not stupid, there is a list of sections in the US code which do not even require classification

www.justsecurity.org

Expert Backgrounder: Criminal Statutes that Could Apply to Trump's Retention of Government Documents

Experts survey the possible crimes underlying search warrants executed at Mar-a-Lago.
www.justsecurity.org www.justsecurity.org

One example from the list

A third potential subsection is 793(e). This subsection is identical to subsection (d) except that it applies to information that is in the subject’s unauthorized possession. This would be unlikely to apply to Trump’s conduct while in office, of course. However, it could be considered for his continued possession of the record after January 20, 2021, particularly given the indication Trump was informed he had no right to the documents, was asked to return them, and chose not to do so.

Unlike Hillary, Trump's actions expose him to way more different and diverse sections.
 
pamak said:
Sorry, but bypassing the nonsense of your claim and assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is not stupid, there is a list of sections in the US code which do not even require classification

www.justsecurity.org

Expert Backgrounder: Criminal Statutes that Could Apply to Trump's Retention of Government Documents

Experts survey the possible crimes underlying search warrants executed at Mar-a-Lago.
www.justsecurity.org www.justsecurity.org

One example from the list

A third potential subsection is 793(e). This subsection is identical to subsection (d) except that it applies to information that is in the subject’s unauthorized possession. This would be unlikely to apply to Trump’s conduct while in office, of course. However, it could be considered for his continued possession of the record after January 20, 2021, particularly given the indication Trump was informed he had no right to the documents, was asked to return them, and chose not to do so.

Unlike Hillary, Trump's actions expose him to way more different and diverse sections.
Click to expand...
He was president up to January 20th of 2020. He says they were declassified. he has that power. Try to prove he didn't. There are NO procedures for a president. The Nationa Archive cubicle workers have no say in this. No doubt another agency filled with gubment lefties.

Here ya go folks:


Ric Grenell, who was Trump's acting director of national intelligence, told NBC News that documents can be declassified if the president simply says they are.

"There is no approval process for the president of the United States to declassify intelligence," Grenell told NBC News. "There is this phony idea that he must provide notification for declassification, but that's just silly. Who is he supposed to notify? I think it's the height of swampism to think the president should seek bureaucrats' approval."

Kash Patel, a Pentagon chief of staff during the Trump administration, in May said that documents previously recovered from Mar-a-Lago had been declassified by Trump, but their markings were not updated.

"Trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves," Patel told Breitbart News.




Once again, Lucy pulled the football out from under Charlie Brown's kick that he just knew THIS time was it.
 
Paradoxical said:
He was president up to January 20th of 2020. He says they were declassified. he has that power. Try to prove he didn't. There are NO procedures for a president. The Nationa Archive cubicle workers have no say in this. No doubt another agency filled with gubment lefties.

Here ya go folks:


Ric Grenell, who was Trump's acting director of national intelligence, told NBC News that documents can be declassified if the president simply says they are.

"There is no approval process for the president of the United States to declassify intelligence," Grenell told NBC News. "There is this phony idea that he must provide notification for declassification, but that's just silly. Who is he supposed to notify? I think it's the height of swampism to think the president should seek bureaucrats' approval."

Kash Patel, a Pentagon chief of staff during the Trump administration, in May said that documents previously recovered from Mar-a-Lago had been declassified by Trump, but their markings were not updated.

"Trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves," Patel told Breitbart News.




Once again, Lucy pulled the football out from under Charlie Brown's kick that he just knew THIS time was it.
Click to expand...



You do not address what I said.


A third potential subsection is 793(e). This subsection is identical to subsection (d) except that it applies to information that is in the subject’s unauthorized possession. This would be unlikely to apply to Trump’s conduct while in office, of course. However, it could be considered for his continued possession of the record after January 20, 2021, particularly given the indication Trump was informed he had no right to the documents, was asked to return them, and chose not to do so.


My point stands. Trump is not anymore the president and has NOT been authorized by the current administration to hold the documents he has
 
pamak said:
You do not address what I said.


A third potential subsection is 793(e). This subsection is identical to subsection (d) except that it applies to information that is in the subject’s unauthorized possession. This would be unlikely to apply to Trump’s conduct while in office, of course. However, it could be considered for his continued possession of the record after January 20, 2021, particularly given the indication Trump was informed he had no right to the documents, was asked to return them, and chose not to do so.


My point stands. Trump is not anymore the president and has NOT been authorized by the current administration to hold the documents he has
Click to expand...
So?
 
Paradoxical said:
So?
Click to expand...

Do not play the dummy!

So, read the last sentence you chose to leave out of the quote and address it.

Trump is not anymore the president and has NOT been authorized by the current administration to hold the documents he has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom