All things Spygate

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
14,091
Reaction score
957
Points
113
Ah, the new standard for determining political bias is whether you can prove it doesn't exist.
Is that the best you can come up with? Mueller was a Republican. Yeah...ALL establishment Republicans love Trump.

Jeb Bush
Mitt Romney
Bill Kristol
George Conway

I supposed Jennifer Rubin is a ”Republican“ too? :LOL::ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
43,517
Reaction score
1,116
Points
113
Ah, the new standard for determining political bias is whether you can prove it doesn't exist.
The moment Trump won the nomination, a whole bunch of people in the justice and intelligence departments broke precedent and norm and violated the law. Political bias is the likely motive, but speaking for myself, it's not critical that this be proven. The wrongdoing is at this point very obvious. And I wouldn't want to get sidetracked away from that. My problem with you and Howie is that you're denying the obvious. Quibbling over the motives is the argument you'd like to have. It's either bias, or more concerning, going along with the bias is the way to get ahead and advance your career. But I wouldn't be able to prove it, so it's find if you disagree.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
14,091
Reaction score
957
Points
113
The moment Trump won the nomination, a whole bunch of people in the justice and intelligence departments broke precedent and norm and violated the law. Political bias is the likely motive, but speaking for myself, it's not critical that this be proven. The wrongdoing is at this point very obvious. And I wouldn't want to get sidetracked away from that. My problem with you and Howie is that you're denying the obvious. Quibbling over the motives is the argument you'd like to have. It's either bias, or more concerning, going along with the bias is the way to get ahead and advance your career. But I wouldn't be able to prove it, so it's find if you disagree.
My problem with them is that they want to have it both ways and are big hypocrites.

Being a hardcore Democrat doesn’t prove that they are biased against Trump, but being a Republican proves that they are?

They claim Barr is a ”bootlicking Trump hack, doing Trump’s bidding”, and no proof is required other than being a Republican, despite the fact that there was no concern about that in his past, and as AG.
Jeff Jensen gave to the GOP so his decision is biased.

But the lefty stacked Mueller team is pure as the driven snow.
HHS Grimm is pure.
IG’s couldn’t be politically motivated against Trump despite the likelihood that most of Wash DC hates him.

JTF just dropped the ball in his accusations about Jensen and forgot that he vehemently defended the Mueller team against those same accusations and tried to deflect by rewriting my posting history.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
9,229
Reaction score
584
Points
113
My problem with them is that they want to have it both ways and are big hypocrites.

Being a hardcore Democrat doesn’t prove that they are biased against Trump, but being a Republican proves that they are?

They claim Barr is a ”bootlicking Trump hack, doing Trump’s bidding”, and no proof is required other than being a Republican, despite the fact that there was no concern about that in his past, and as AG.
Jeff Jensen gave to the GOP so his decision is biased.

But the lefty stacked Mueller team is pure as the driven snow.
HHS Grimm is pure.
IG’s couldn’t be politically motivated against Trump despite the likelihood that most of Wash DC hates him.

JTF just dropped the ball in his accusations about Jensen and forgot that he vehemently defended the Mueller team against those same accusations and tried to deflect by rewriting my posting history.
I never made any accusations about Jensen. Nor did I vehemently defend the Mueller team.

I did, however, take an actual screenshot of your posting history.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
14,091
Reaction score
957
Points
113
I never made any accusations about Jensen. Nor did I vehemently defend the Mueller team.

I did, however, take an actual screenshot of your posting history.
You want to pretend that your post of Jensen’s donor list wasn’t suggesting that he was biased?

You never defended the Mueller team‘s conclusions against accusations of bias?

You keep wanting to suggest that “Trump” promoted Grimm b/c it was some conscious decision on the administration’s part.

Now you are a liar too.

My posting history was in reference to the general bias of federal employees and officials, not to Grimm specifically. Along with the fact that she’s surrounded by other lefties in DC, her promotion was a system promotion, not a political one.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
9,229
Reaction score
584
Points
113
You want to pretend that your post of Jensen’s donor list wasn’t suggesting that he was biased?

You never defended the Mueller team‘s conclusions against accusations of bias?

You keep wanting to suggest that “Trump” promoted Grimm b/c it was some conscious decision on the administration’s part.

Now you are a liar too.

My posting history was in reference to the general bias of federal employees and officials, not to Grimm specifically. Along with the fact that she’s surrounded by other lefties in DC, her promotion was a system promotion, not a political one.
I was pointing out your hypocrisy. When it was federal employees donating to Democrats, they were biased. When it's a Republican, it doesn't mean anything.

You can pretend it wasn't about Grimm, but you were engaged in long discussion about Grimm. You quoted a post about the HHS OIG. Not sure why it matters, since you're now stating that Mueller's team members were definitely biased because they donated to Democrats.

If you can find a post from me that says that people on Team Mueller who donated to Democrats weren't biased, please cite it. I searched and couldn't find one.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
14,091
Reaction score
957
Points
113
I was pointing out your hypocrisy. When it was federal employees donating to Democrats, they were biased. When it's a Republican, it doesn't mean anything.

You can pretend it wasn't about Grimm, but you were engaged in long discussion about Grimm. You quoted a post about the HHS OIG. Not sure why it matters, since you're now stating that Mueller's team members were definitely biased because they donated to Democrats.

If you can find a post from me that says that people on Team Mueller who donated to Democrats weren't biased, please cite it. I searched and couldn't find one.
I fully explained the difficulties for one investigator making a biased determination versus a large group of mostly nameless investigators coming to a potentially biased determination. A group is more protected by the other members of the group. A single investigator’s judgment and reputation are on the line, solely. And again, no one has questioned Jensen’s integrity except you.

You think revisiting the big Grimm discussion is a victory for you. :cool03: :ROFLMAO:

Only in your mind JTF...only in your mind.

Grimm was just a pawn in the political game and has faded into insignificance, like all the rest of the Trump WB’s.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
43,517
Reaction score
1,116
Points
113
My problem with them is that they want to have it both ways and are big hypocrites.

Being a hardcore Democrat doesn’t prove that they are biased against Trump, but being a Republican proves that they are?

They claim Barr is a ”bootlicking Trump hack, doing Trump’s bidding”, and no proof is required other than being a Republican, despite the fact that there was no concern about that in his past, and as AG.
Jeff Jensen gave to the GOP so his decision is biased.

But the lefty stacked Mueller team is pure as the driven snow.
HHS Grimm is pure.
IG’s couldn’t be politically motivated against Trump despite the likelihood that most of Wash DC hates him.

JTF just dropped the ball in his accusations about Jensen and forgot that he vehemently defended the Mueller team against those same accusations and tried to deflect by rewriting my posting history.
Of course, the TDS sufferers show their hand when they go against Barr. Who has no Trump ties, owes him nothing, and has been a career servant. There is no person in the Trump admin that has done a better job or had a harder job. So to call him a Trumpist and a hack exposes that person as a hack themself. Same way going after Kavanaugh exposed people. There have been a ton or bad Trump appointees that you could argue were bootlickers or Trumpists. But those two in particular stand out. So when you tar them, you tar yourself.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
14,091
Reaction score
957
Points
113
Of course, the TDS sufferers show their hand when they go against Barr. Who has no Trump ties, owes him nothing, and has been a career servant. There is no person in the Trump admin that has done a better job or had a harder job. So to call him a Trumpist and a hack exposes that person as a hack themself. Same way going after Kavanaugh exposed people. There have been a ton or bad Trump appointees that you could argue were bootlickers or Trumpists. But those two in particular stand out. So when you tar them, you tar yourself.
Oh, but it’s all very proven to JTF. The decisions that Barr has made are proof themselves. Perfect circular logic. I wish he’d apply the same logic to lefties, but for some reason he never comes to that conclusion with lefties. Behavior and outcomes aren’t proof then.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
41,900
Reaction score
1,710
Points
113
Is that the best you can come up with? Mueller was a Republican. Yeah...ALL establishment Republicans love Trump.

Jeb Bush
Mitt Romney
Bill Kristol
George Conway

I supposed Jennifer Rubin is a ”Republican“ too? :LOL::ROFLMAO:
Yes. They are. You and Ricky Rubio are the cultist sellouts. Among others.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
41,900
Reaction score
1,710
Points
113
Question for both of you hacks, JTF and howie.

Are you now saying that the Mueller team was, in fact, a tainted group of investigating prosecutors out to get Trump b/c they were Democrats and Democrat donors?
I don't believe Mueller was "tainted" I believe he tried to be a by the book Boy Scout and bowed to a BS memo from the 70's and punted to Congress. A bit of a coward perhaps, but not tainted.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
41,900
Reaction score
1,710
Points
113
Yeah, you’re right, there’s no enthusiasm. That‘s why those polls having him ahead don’t mean much unless they can record their vote by someone calling them.
Was there a Romney cult? Hillary? McCain? Bush? Dukakis? It's a phenomenon of Obama and made worse by Trump. Voting is a civic duty, not a fan-boy contest.

This election is 100% a referrendum about the unfit incompetent fool in the White House. The only way he can win is to make it about someone/something else. Biden is boring and doesn't allow him that, no matter how many fake scandals you throw at the wall.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
14,091
Reaction score
957
Points
113
Was there a Romney cult? Hillary? McCain? Bush? Dukakis? It's a phenomenon of Obama and made worse by Trump. Voting is a civic duty, not a fan-boy contest.

This election is 100% a referrendum about the unfit incompetent fool in the White House. The only way he can win is to make it about someone/something else. Biden is boring and doesn't allow him that, no matter how many fake scandals you throw at the wall.
Yeah, Obama didn’t have any cultist support. SMH
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
14,091
Reaction score
957
Points
113
Are you having reading comprehension issues? I literally said that.
Maybe you’re having writing issues? It sounded like you were blaming Trump and Trump supporters for reacting to the Obama phenomenon.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
41,900
Reaction score
1,710
Points
113
Maybe you’re having writing issues? It sounded like you were blaming Trump and Trump supporters for reacting to the Obama phenomenon.
The cult stuff started with Obama, it got much worse under Trump. Other than those two, we haven't had to have cultist devotion to get votes for President. Bernie has a cult. It's too small to win.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
14,091
Reaction score
957
Points
113
The cult stuff started with Obama, it got much worse under Trump. Other than those two, we haven't had to have cultist devotion to get votes for President. Bernie has a cult. It's too small to win.
I never described Obama’s support as “cultist”. This is a recent invention by the left for Trump. I would say both have a group of voters that would support them through thick or thin.

Reagan had that kind of support too. Hillary certainly had it, just not nearly broad enough. I don’t find it inherently bad or unusual, but I’m not inclined to be that way.

You confused my desire to avoid progressive Democrat power for Trump support. I will admit, the former is a major concern of mine. But Trump has done more than my chosen candidate could’ve done, just with the style of a bull in a china shop.
 

Donovan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,356
Reaction score
196
Points
63
Since Mueller ultimately decided not to charge Trump, are you now saying that they were a bunch of upstanding, impartial investigators?
I think we will discover that the Mueller investigation should have wrapped up in a matter of a couple months (versus years) due to zero evidence of collusion and the team knew it. I actually think Robert Mueller was simply a figurehead, and the investigation was run by Andrew Weissmann. Anyone who watched Mueller being questioned after the report was released knows he had not read the report.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
416
Points
83
Barr Dismisses Trump’s Claim That Russia Inquiry Was an Obama Plot
The attorney general said that an investigation into the Russia inquiry was focusing on others, not the former president.

PLAY VIDEO 01:36
Barr Addresses Pensacola Shooting and Russia Inquiry
Attorney General William P. Barr discussed new developments in the investigation of a deadly shooting at a military base in Florida, and dismissed President Trump’s claim about former President Barack Obama.May 18, 2020Image by Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times
Katie BennerAdam Goldman
By Katie Benner and Adam Goldman
  • May 18, 2020
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr dismissed President Trump’s attempts to rebrand the Russia investigation as a criminal plot engineered by former President Barack Obama, saying on Monday that he expected no charges against either Mr. Obama or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as a result of an investigation into how their administration handled Russian election interference.

“As long as I’m attorney general, the criminal justice system will not be used for partisan political ends,” Mr. Barr said during a news conference announcing that the gunman in last year’s shooting at Florida military base had links to Al Qaeda.

Mr. Barr said that John H. Durham, the federal prosecutor investigating how law enforcement and intelligence officials confronted Russia’s operations to meddle in the 2016 election, was examining some aspects of the case for potential crimes, but that he was focused on other people, not Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden.

“I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Mr. Barr said. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”


Mr. Barr did not say who Mr. Durham might be focusing on, but the Justice Department inspector general has previously referred findings about an F.B.I. lawyer’s conduct during the Russia investigation for potential prosecution.

Mr. Barr’s comments served as an unmistakable rebuttal to escalating efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reframe the Russia investigation as a plot to sabotage his presidency by Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden and officials in their administration. Mr. Trump has targeted Mr. Obama in a way that no modern sitting president has, accusing his most recent predecessor of unspecified crimes under a vague but politically charged catchphrase, “Obamagate.”

Asked later at the White House about Mr. Barr’s comments, Mr. Trump stood firm in attacking the previous administration. “Obama knew everything that was happening,” Mr. Trump told reporters, again saying ambiguously that “it was a takedown of a president.”

But while Mr. Barr was unwilling to fuel speculation that the Justice Department would target Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, he himself has done perhaps more than any other Trump administration official to undermine the overall credibility of the Russia investigation.


The attorney general’s handling of the Russia inquiry has come under fire since he first emphasized its findings last year in a way that was more favorable to Mr. Trump than investigators had found.

He has also intervened in cases involving former Trump advisers, including moving this month to withdraw the case against Michael T. Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.

Mr. Barr has explained his undoing of the Flynn case and other moves, like intervening to recommend a more lenient sentence for the president’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr., as correcting overreach by other law enforcement officials. Mr. Stone was convicted of seven felonies in a bid to impede a congressional inquiry that threatened the president.

The highly unusual Justice Department move to withdraw the charge against Mr. Flynn spurred accusations that Mr. Barr was further politicizing law enforcement and prompted a federal judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, to appoint an outsider, the former federal judge John Gleeson, to oppose the department in the case.


Judge Gleeson said in a motion filed on Monday that he would submit a brief by June 10 addressing issues in the case, including whether Judge Sullivan has the authority to deny the Justice Department’s motion, any additional investigating he may need to do and whether Judge Sullivan should order Mr. Flynn to show why he should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury. That timetable means that the Flynn matter could drag on into the fall campaign season.

Mr. Barr has also moved to replace Timothy Shea as head of the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. Mr. Shea, a longtime adviser to Mr. Barr, was the only prosecutor to sign the motion to dismiss the Flynn case after career prosecutors withdrew from it.

On Monday, the White House announced that Mr. Trump planned to nominate Justin E. Herdman, the U.S. attorney for northern Ohio, to replace Mr. Shea, who will become the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Mr. Herdman, a former intelligence officer in the Navy Reserve, is known as a relatively apolitical prosecutor who has made a name for himself by pursuing domestic terrorism cases.

Mr. Barr emphasized on Monday, as he has previously, that he believed that law enforcement and intelligence officials unfairly targeted Mr. Trump as they sought in 2016 to understand links between his campaign and Russia.

“We saw two different standards of justice emerge: one that applies to President Trump and his associates, and the other that applied to everybody else,” Mr. Barr said. “We can’t allow this ever to happen again.”

Mr. Barr called the Russia investigation and the investigation of Mr. Trump “a grave injustice” that was “unprecedented in American history.” He also spoke of a trend in recent decades of “increasing attempts to use the criminal justice system as a political weapon.”

“This is not a good development,” he said. “This is not good for our political life. And it’s not good for the criminal justice system.”

Even so, Mr. Barr would not criminally implicate Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden, and he said that improper actions by the previous administration may not turn out to be criminal offenses. “Not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime,” the attorney general said.

He said that voters should be able to choose between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, “based on a robust debate of policy issues,” rather than “efforts to drum up criminal investigations of either candidate.”

Mr. Barr’s public statements on the Russia investigation have outraged Democrats and former national security officials from both parties. He has said that the inquiry was not properly predicated — though an inspector general report found that it was — and that the Trump campaign was spied on, perhaps illegally.

Joshua A. Geltzer, the executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School and a former Obama administration national security official, said he was unconvinced that Mr. Barr would not use the Justice Department for partisan ends.

“From an ordinary attorney general, I’d find these reassurances comforting; but, frankly, Attorney General Barr doesn’t seem to use language responsibly,” Mr. Geltzer said. “I’m glad Barr said what he said, but that doesn’t erase the egregious politicization of federal law enforcement he’s overseen.”

Other Trump administration officials and allies have also sought in recent days to undermine the origins of the Russia investigation.

Richard Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence, declassified a document last week that listed the names of some Obama administration officials who made requests during the presidential transition to see fuller versions of classified intelligence reports. The release of the document by Republican senators prompted accusations that Mr. Trump’s supporters were wielding the information for his political benefit.

Katie Benner covers the Justice Department. She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for public service for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. @ktbenner
Adam Goldman reports on the F.B.I. from Washington and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. @adamgoldmanNYT
 

Donovan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,356
Reaction score
196
Points
63
Susan Rice’s last minute “do everything by the book” email was meant to protect Obama and through Comey under the bus:
 
Last edited:

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,025
Reaction score
1,980
Points
113
The headline to that article was extremely misleading: "Barr Dismisses Trump’s Claim That Russia Inquiry Was an Obama Plot"
Barr did no such thing. He said that he did not "expect" the investigation to go after Obama or Biden.
That's a far cry from saying that Barr dismissed a claim that Obama was behind it. In fact if anything he alludes to the idea that Obama abused power in a way that they might not pursue criminally.

There is no doubt that Obama soiled every agency and was corrupt to the core. If you listen to what we have said here from the beginning, Obama was behind this but he will never be held responsible. It just would not be good for the country. What Barr is attempting to do is restore faith in the DOJ as a non political body.

It is obvious to all but the utterly uninformed or the willfully stupid that there were crimes committed against our nation and against Trump and his campaign and administration by Obama and his holdovers. There is no doubt in the texts (POTUS wants to know everything we are doing) or in the information that is publicly available about the January 5th meeting that Obama was fully aware and in charge of what was going on.

Barr is simply saying that for the good of the country, he is going to try to end that cycle started by Obama of corrupt interference in elections and using the DOJ and spy agencies politically. Barr is a hero.

Here is the most misguided paragraph in the article:

Mr. Barr’s comments served as an unmistakable rebuttal to escalating efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reframe the Russia investigation as a plot to sabotage his presidency by Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden and officials in their administration. Mr. Trump has targeted Mr. Obama in a way that no modern sitting president has, accusing his most recent predecessor of unspecified crimes under a vague but politically charged catchphrase, “Obamagate.”

1. It is not a rebuttal to Trump.
2. Obama did fully attempt to sabotage Trump and Barr has stated that it was the biggest travesty in American political history.
3. So yeah- Trump is the first President to go after his predecessor like this- specifically because Obama was the first president to attempt to not peacefully transfer power. What Obama did was criminal, it was treason and it was abuse of power. It has put our country through 3 years of political hell.
 
Last edited:

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
14,091
Reaction score
957
Points
113
Barr Dismisses Trump’s Claim That Russia Inquiry Was an Obama Plot
The attorney general said that an investigation into the Russia inquiry was focusing on others, not the former president.

PLAY VIDEO 01:36
Barr Addresses Pensacola Shooting and Russia Inquiry
Attorney General William P. Barr discussed new developments in the investigation of a deadly shooting at a military base in Florida, and dismissed President Trump’s claim about former President Barack Obama.May 18, 2020Image by Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times
Katie BennerAdam Goldman
By Katie Benner and Adam Goldman
  • May 18, 2020
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr dismissed President Trump’s attempts to rebrand the Russia investigation as a criminal plot engineered by former President Barack Obama, saying on Monday that he expected no charges against either Mr. Obama or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as a result of an investigation into how their administration handled Russian election interference.

“As long as I’m attorney general, the criminal justice system will not be used for partisan political ends,” Mr. Barr said during a news conference announcing that the gunman in last year’s shooting at Florida military base had links to Al Qaeda.

Mr. Barr said that John H. Durham, the federal prosecutor investigating how law enforcement and intelligence officials confronted Russia’s operations to meddle in the 2016 election, was examining some aspects of the case for potential crimes, but that he was focused on other people, not Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden.

“I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Mr. Barr said. “Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.”


Mr. Barr did not say who Mr. Durham might be focusing on, but the Justice Department inspector general has previously referred findings about an F.B.I. lawyer’s conduct during the Russia investigation for potential prosecution.

Mr. Barr’s comments served as an unmistakable rebuttal to escalating efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reframe the Russia investigation as a plot to sabotage his presidency by Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden and officials in their administration. Mr. Trump has targeted Mr. Obama in a way that no modern sitting president has, accusing his most recent predecessor of unspecified crimes under a vague but politically charged catchphrase, “Obamagate.”

Asked later at the White House about Mr. Barr’s comments, Mr. Trump stood firm in attacking the previous administration. “Obama knew everything that was happening,” Mr. Trump told reporters, again saying ambiguously that “it was a takedown of a president.”

But while Mr. Barr was unwilling to fuel speculation that the Justice Department would target Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, he himself has done perhaps more than any other Trump administration official to undermine the overall credibility of the Russia investigation.


The attorney general’s handling of the Russia inquiry has come under fire since he first emphasized its findings last year in a way that was more favorable to Mr. Trump than investigators had found.

He has also intervened in cases involving former Trump advisers, including moving this month to withdraw the case against Michael T. Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.

Mr. Barr has explained his undoing of the Flynn case and other moves, like intervening to recommend a more lenient sentence for the president’s longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr., as correcting overreach by other law enforcement officials. Mr. Stone was convicted of seven felonies in a bid to impede a congressional inquiry that threatened the president.

The highly unusual Justice Department move to withdraw the charge against Mr. Flynn spurred accusations that Mr. Barr was further politicizing law enforcement and prompted a federal judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, to appoint an outsider, the former federal judge John Gleeson, to oppose the department in the case.


Judge Gleeson said in a motion filed on Monday that he would submit a brief by June 10 addressing issues in the case, including whether Judge Sullivan has the authority to deny the Justice Department’s motion, any additional investigating he may need to do and whether Judge Sullivan should order Mr. Flynn to show why he should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury. That timetable means that the Flynn matter could drag on into the fall campaign season.

Mr. Barr has also moved to replace Timothy Shea as head of the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. Mr. Shea, a longtime adviser to Mr. Barr, was the only prosecutor to sign the motion to dismiss the Flynn case after career prosecutors withdrew from it.

On Monday, the White House announced that Mr. Trump planned to nominate Justin E. Herdman, the U.S. attorney for northern Ohio, to replace Mr. Shea, who will become the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Mr. Herdman, a former intelligence officer in the Navy Reserve, is known as a relatively apolitical prosecutor who has made a name for himself by pursuing domestic terrorism cases.

Mr. Barr emphasized on Monday, as he has previously, that he believed that law enforcement and intelligence officials unfairly targeted Mr. Trump as they sought in 2016 to understand links between his campaign and Russia.

“We saw two different standards of justice emerge: one that applies to President Trump and his associates, and the other that applied to everybody else,” Mr. Barr said. “We can’t allow this ever to happen again.”

Mr. Barr called the Russia investigation and the investigation of Mr. Trump “a grave injustice” that was “unprecedented in American history.” He also spoke of a trend in recent decades of “increasing attempts to use the criminal justice system as a political weapon.”

“This is not a good development,” he said. “This is not good for our political life. And it’s not good for the criminal justice system.”

Even so, Mr. Barr would not criminally implicate Mr. Obama or Mr. Biden, and he said that improper actions by the previous administration may not turn out to be criminal offenses. “Not every abuse of power, no matter how outrageous, is necessarily a federal crime,” the attorney general said.

He said that voters should be able to choose between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, “based on a robust debate of policy issues,” rather than “efforts to drum up criminal investigations of either candidate.”

Mr. Barr’s public statements on the Russia investigation have outraged Democrats and former national security officials from both parties. He has said that the inquiry was not properly predicated — though an inspector general report found that it was — and that the Trump campaign was spied on, perhaps illegally.

Joshua A. Geltzer, the executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School and a former Obama administration national security official, said he was unconvinced that Mr. Barr would not use the Justice Department for partisan ends.

“From an ordinary attorney general, I’d find these reassurances comforting; but, frankly, Attorney General Barr doesn’t seem to use language responsibly,” Mr. Geltzer said. “I’m glad Barr said what he said, but that doesn’t erase the egregious politicization of federal law enforcement he’s overseen.”

Other Trump administration officials and allies have also sought in recent days to undermine the origins of the Russia investigation.

Richard Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence, declassified a document last week that listed the names of some Obama administration officials who made requests during the presidential transition to see fuller versions of classified intelligence reports. The release of the document by Republican senators prompted accusations that Mr. Trump’s supporters were wielding the information for his political benefit.

Katie Benner covers the Justice Department. She was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for public service for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. @ktbenner
Adam Goldman reports on the F.B.I. from Washington and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. @adamgoldmanNYT
That Obama bootlicking rat...er ah...wait what?

I suspect the ONLY way that the MSM will thoroughly publish Bill Barr’s logic on justice is if he says something contradictory regarding Trump’s opinion of Obama. Very shrewd. 😎
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
14,091
Reaction score
957
Points
113
The headline to that article was extremely misleading: "Barr Dismisses Trump’s Claim That Russia Inquiry Was an Obama Plot"
Barr did no such thing. He said that he did not "expect" the investigation to go after Obama or Biden.
That's a far cry from saying that Barr dismissed a claim that Obama was behind it. In fact if anything he alludes to the idea that Obama abused power in a way that they might not pursue criminally.

There is no doubt that Obama soiled every agency and was corrupt to the core. If you listen to what we have said here from the beginning, Obama was behind this but he will never be held responsible. It just would not be good for the country. What Barr is attempting to do is restore faith in the DOJ as a non political body.

It is obvious to all but the utterly uninformed or the willfully stupid that there were crimes committed against our nation and against Trump and his campaign and administration by Obama and his holdovers. There is no doubt in the texts (POTUS wants to know everything we are doing) or in the information that is publicly available about the January 5th meeting that Obama was fully aware and in charge of what was going on.

Barr is simply saying that for the good of the country, he is going to try to end that cycle started by Obama of corrupt interference in elections and using the DOJ and spy agencies politically. Barr is a hero.

Here is the most misguided paragraph in the article:

Mr. Barr’s comments served as an unmistakable rebuttal to escalating efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to reframe the Russia investigation as a plot to sabotage his presidency by Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden and officials in their administration. Mr. Trump has targeted Mr. Obama in a way that no modern sitting president has, accusing his most recent predecessor of unspecified crimes under a vague but politically charged catchphrase, “Obamagate.”

1. It is not a rebuttal to Trump.
2. Obama did fully attempt to sabotage Trump and Barr has stated that it was the biggest travesty in American political history.
3. So yeah- Trump is the first President to go after his predecessor like this- specifically because Obama was the first president to attempt to not peacefully transfer power. What Obama did was criminal, it was treason and it was abuse of power. It has put our country through 3 years of political hell.
The media knows that headlines are all the proof that lefties need.
 
Top Bottom