• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

"Unmasking" probe by Barr concludes without charges or report

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
70,199
Reaction score
79,238
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
‘Unmasking’ probe commissioned by Barr quietly concludes without charges or any public report

The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.The revelation that U.S. Attorney John Bash, who left the department last week, had concluded his review without criminal charges or any public report will rankle President Trump at a moment when he is particularly upset at the Justice Department. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bash’s work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the “unmasking” of names — a common practice in government to help understand classified documents — as a political conspiracy.

The president in recent days has pressed federal law enforcement to move against his political adversaries and complained that a different prosecutor tapped by Barr to investigate the FBI’s 2016 investigation of his campaign will not be issuing any public findings before the election. Legal analysts feared Bash’s review was yet another attempt by Trump’s Justice Department to target political opponents of the president. Even if it ultimately produced no results of consequence, legal analysts said, it allowed Trump and other conservatives to say Obama-era officials were under scrutiny, as long as the case stayed active. The department — both under Barr and Trump’s previous attorney general, Jeff Sessions — has repeatedly turned to U.S. Attorneys across the country to investigate matters of Republican concern, distressing current and former Justice Department officials, who fear department leaders are repeatedly caving to Trump’s pressure to benefit his allies and target those he perceives as political enemies.


[cont].


It was also in alleged provision of information to reporters. Guy who was looking into this announced he was buggering off last week, getting out of his U.S. Attorney gig; declined to comment. Apparently DOJ is holding back his findings, because reasons. Who knows. But absent indictments, you can at least rest assured that it was just another load of Trumpist bullshit. Those who accuse everyone else of hoaxing are, themselves, the hoaxers. If they tried to convene a grand jury, I guess said jury told them to get stuffed.

Yet again, Trumpist allegations turn out to be a nothingburger. Yet again, I get to note that Team Trump is the most criminal administration in U.S. history whether we measure by indictments or convictions.




“I’m talking with 50-year sentences,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network.

Nah, you're talking shit that's festered under the Florida sun for a good week, and probably was also regurgitated by some sorry dog.

Wompity-****ing-womp.




Watch President Biden - damn I hope I'm not wrong to write that - release Durham's report in Feb. Watch it be a "nothing to see here", from Durham.
 
‘Unmasking’ probe commissioned by Barr quietly concludes without charges or any public report

The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.The revelation that U.S. Attorney John Bash, who left the department last week, had concluded his review without criminal charges or any public report will rankle President Trump at a moment when he is particularly upset at the Justice Department. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bash’s work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the “unmasking” of names — a common practice in government to help understand classified documents — as a political conspiracy.

The president in recent days has pressed federal law enforcement to move against his political adversaries and complained that a different prosecutor tapped by Barr to investigate the FBI’s 2016 investigation of his campaign will not be issuing any public findings before the election. Legal analysts feared Bash’s review was yet another attempt by Trump’s Justice Department to target political opponents of the president. Even if it ultimately produced no results of consequence, legal analysts said, it allowed Trump and other conservatives to say Obama-era officials were under scrutiny, as long as the case stayed active. The department — both under Barr and Trump’s previous attorney general, Jeff Sessions — has repeatedly turned to U.S. Attorneys across the country to investigate matters of Republican concern, distressing current and former Justice Department officials, who fear department leaders are repeatedly caving to Trump’s pressure to benefit his allies and target those he perceives as political enemies.


[cont].


It was also in alleged provision of information to reporters. Guy who was looking into this announced he was buggering off last week, getting out of his U.S. Attorney gig; declined to comment. Apparently DOJ is holding back his findings, because reasons. Who knows. But absent indictments, you can at least rest assured that it was just another load of Trumpist bullshit. Those who accuse everyone else of hoaxing are, themselves, the hoaxers. If they tried to convene a grand jury, I guess said jury told them to get stuffed.

Yet again, Trumpist allegations turn out to be a nothingburger. Yet again, I get to note that Team Trump is the most criminal administration in U.S. history whether we measure by indictments or convictions.




“I’m talking with 50-year sentences,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network.

Nah, you're talking shit that's festered under the Florida sun for a good week, and probably was also regurgitated by some sorry dog.

Wompity-****ing-womp.




Watch President Biden - damn I hope I'm not wrong to write that - release Durham's report in Feb. Watch it be a "nothing to see here", from Durham.

So, if the above is true, it means that basically Barr announces the opening of the investigation while Trump and his minions falsely accuse Obama but when the investigation does not find something that can support Trump's rants, he quietly closes the case without even revealing in public the outcome.

Barr must be one of the first to be investigated by (hopefully) a new AG after the elections
 
So, if the above is true, it means that basically Barr announces the opening of the investigation while Trump and his minions falsely accuse Obama but when the investigation does not find something that can support Trump's rants, he quietly closes the case without even revealing in public the outcome.

Barr must be one of the first to be investigated by (hopefully) a new AG after the elections

I doubt Barr committed any crimes.

It's just a partisan shitshow.
 
Republicans attached to trump sitting in jail convicted of crimes, yes.
Obama administration, no, no matter how many investigations.

Another defeat, sad, This time I thought for sure the most corrupt administration in history would finally pay for all of their crimes.
 
I doubt Barr committed any crimes.

It's just a partisan shitshow.

Investigations can and should open even when there is no crime involved. We have to see to what extend political influence affected an AG's decisions as for example in Flynn's case and change procedures if we see a picture of an AG becoming too much attached to the whims of a president.
 
I doubt Barr committed any crimes.

It's just a partisan shitshow.

Investigations can and should open even when there is no crime involved. We have to see to what extend political influence affected an AG's decisions as for example in Flynn's case and change procedures if we see a picture of an AG becoming too much attached to the whims of a president.

I assumed this was about a criminal investigation. But, hold up. There is:

1. The idea of criminal investigation into whether Barr committed crimes;

2. The idea of "investigation" - in the sense of congress's general fact-finding and executive-monitoring duty - in general.

I'm guessing you mean #2. I was talking about #1. If the idea is not to nail Barr with a crime, and I don't see how you could, but you wanted to see whether he was improperly influenced and consider what legislation you might pass as a congressperson to prevent that in the future, then I don't disagree.

BUT, it would require careful consideration in light of the APA, the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how executive agencies operate; also, the constitutional limits on what congress can delegate and what congress can appropriate. The main issue would be that the DOJ is an executive agency, already subject to the APA. The APA has already been interpreted to grant a lot of quasi-legislative ("rulemaking" that fills in legislative gaps) and quasi-judicial (determining when someone broke a rule) functions. I'd have to get out a textbook from decades ago and think some more about what they might do if the problem is DOJ's head doing something the President says that is bad. Perhaps they could snatch back some authority from the DOJ.

But I have to express doubts. Who to go after and what to seek is an executive function. The APA's limits on executive agencies are focused on the quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions, rulemaking and rule enforcement. This wouldn't be that. This is about regulating a decision about how to enforce the law, an explicit function of the executive. I'm not sure much or anything could be done. I would guess that the legislature has more limited power there.
 
Republicans attached to trump sitting in jail convicted of crimes, yes.
Obama administration, no, no matter how many investigations.

Another defeat, sad, This time I thought for sure the most corrupt administration in history would finally pay for all of their crimes.

Rush and Sean build a false reality for them daily. If it wasn't so ****ing dangerous for our country I would just laugh at the suckers.
 
Rush and Sean build a false reality for them daily. If it wasn't so ****ing dangerous for our country I would just laugh at the suckers.
I'm pretty sure they don't realize how crazy they sound. Now just imagine how bad it's going to get when trump loses and the gop loses the senate to boot.
 
I'm pretty sure they don't realize how crazy they sound. Now just imagine how bad it's going to get when trump loses and the gop loses the senate to boot.

i have some family that just sound TOTALLY crazy these days. yeah, they don't even realize it.

so, should we all keep their crazy texts, etc?
 
I assumed this was about a criminal investigation. But, hold up. There is:

1. The idea of criminal investigation into whether Barr committed crimes;

2. The idea of "investigation" - in the sense of congress's general fact-finding and executive-monitoring duty - in general.

I'm guessing you mean #2. I was talking about #1. If the idea is not to nail Barr with a crime, and I don't see how you could, but you wanted to see whether he was improperly influenced and consider what legislation you might pass as a congressperson to prevent that in the future, then I don't disagree.

BUT, it would require careful consideration in light of the APA, the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how executive agencies operate; also, the constitutional limits on what congress can delegate and what congress can appropriate. The main issue would be that the DOJ is an executive agency, already subject to the APA. The APA has already been interpreted to grant a lot of quasi-legislative ("rulemaking" that fills in legislative gaps) and quasi-judicial (determining when someone broke a rule) functions. I'd have to get out a textbook from decades ago and think some more about what they might do if the problem is DOJ's head doing something the President says that is bad. Perhaps they could snatch back some authority from the DOJ.

But I have to express doubts. Who to go after and what to seek is an executive function. The APA's limits on executive agencies are focused on the quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions, rulemaking and rule enforcement. This wouldn't be that. This is about regulating a decision about how to enforce the law. I'm not sure much or anything could be done.

I meant investigation in general which of course can change to a criminal investigation at any point

They tried to do the same thing with Obama and the DOJ in his term. Let's see also something similar about the myriad cases that took place during the Trump administration. WE still have almost zero knowledge of the DOJ role in the Ukraine impeachment related case. Same with the Flynn case and the list goes on...

The fact that a decision to go after somebody is an executive function does not preclude corrupt motives behind such decision. Nobody would argue that a president can simply order somebody to kill his political opponent and then tell his AG to refuse to prosecute the murdered even when the murder takes place in 5th avenue in broad daylight.
 
I meant investigation in general which of course can change to a criminal investigation at any point

They tried to do the same thing with Obama and the DOJ in his term. Let's see also something similar about the myriad cases that took place during the Trump administration. WE still have almost zero knowledge of the DOJ role in the Ukraine impeachment related case. Same with the Flynn case and the list goes on...

The fact that a decision to go after somebody is an executive function does not preclude corrupt motives behind such decision. Nobody would argue that a president can simply order somebody to kill his political opponent and then tell his AG to refuse to prosecute the murdered even when the murder takes place in 5th avenue in broad daylight.

My point is about constitutional authority. I do not want to defend Barr. Barr is awful. But the point is I don't know just how much authority the legislature has to oversee a purely executive function like charging decisions.
 
Damn, another "October Surprise" dud.
 
My point is about constitutional authority. I do not want to defend Barr. Barr is awful. But the point is I don't know just how much authority the legislature has to oversee a purely executive function like charging decisions.

There is no Constitutional authority to act based on corrupt motives even when the act is part of the normal duties.
As for the legislature, notice that you mentioned an Act. A legislature can always try to change an Act (and even override a presidential veto) in order to address political issues. This is why I do not tie the investigation just to a criminal one. The concentration of power to the president (with the cooperation of Congress during the last decades) has to be re-examined in light of the Trump experience.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom