- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 69,443
- Reaction score
- 53,855
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yeah, that's definitely a bit concerning. I missed that part of the questioning so I don't know if there was any context added or not.
Well yes, they were if you've forgotten. Comey, Page, Skrozk, McCabe, Sessions and James Mattis are all gone.
Former FBI lawyer James Baker is under criminal investigation by the DOJ for allegedly leaking information to the press
Oh you were in support of the firing and prosecution of the corrupt crossfire hurricane members that actively abused their power in colluding with one campaign in manufacturing lies to generate FISA warrants against another?
*golf clap*
Low fruit indeed.
I'm sure you won't understand this because it will diffuse your argument, but in the opinion of most liberals, they hold the belief that anyone who is found guilty of any crimes whether it's fraud, lying under oath, or even high crimes and misdemeanors, should indeed be punished to the full extent of the law and that includes anyone whether they're a democrat, republic, independent or whatever. The law is the law and those guilty of breaking it should suffer the consequences. We will never defend anyone that is found guilty of any crimes, that's not how we roll.
I have to say that being a liberal and a definite anti-Trump advocate, if I were a Senate on that hearing, I am leaning to voting to confirm his appointment but only if he assures the Senate that he allow Mueller to continue his investigation and he will allow Mueller himself to release his report to the public when it's finished.
There's some misgivings on the left about his appointment since he wrote a pro-Trump memo last year that became public knowledge. In his 20 page memo, he gave the opinion that as president of the U.S., that Donald Trump should not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. It has also been reported that William Barr shared this memo with Donald Trump personally.
I have to say that being a liberal and a definite anti-Trump advocate, if I were a Senate on that hearing, I am leaning to voting to confirm his appointment but only if he assures the Senate that he allow Mueller to continue his investigation and he will allow Mueller himself to release his report to the public when it's finished. This is important for many reason. It can't be edited by anyone else, not Giuliani, not Barr, not anyone. We can't have Mueller writing a 400 page report then have either Giuliani, Barr or any of Trump's lawyers editing it. William Barr should also agree to subject himself to the ethics people at the Justice Dept and do what they say, that's not what Whitaker has said he had the power to do.
The democrats really don't have the votes to stop him but despite that, I feel he's an institutionalist and would abide by the rules by not interfering in any way with the Mueller investigation. This is an important appointment in many ways, William Barr will also be 3rd in line of succession for the presidency.
Should he be confirmed? Probably not. Will he be confirmed? Probably so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?