I know it will be decades before we know the whole truth, but one step closer due to the soon to be made public, the secret memo Barr used to undercut the Mueller Report and claim it was insufficient to find Trump obstructed justice.
On August 19, 2022, the appeals court upheld the district court, ruling that the DOJ had failed to justify its reliance on the deliberative process privilege for keeping the memo secret.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal ... n-justice/
BARR
Re: BARR
DOJ improperly redacted a memo to AG Barr that related to whether former President Trump obstructed the special counsel probe into his campaign's dealings with Russia during the 2016 presidential election, a unanimous DC Circ. panel just ruled.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... struction/
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... struction/
Re: BARR
BILLY BARR PERFORMED THE CORRUPTION HE WAS TRYING TO DENY
..
RICO! Lock them all up...The other reason this memo embodies corruption is that corruption lays at the core of the statute Mueller rested his obstruction analysis on: 18 USC 1512(c)(2) — the same statute DOJ is using in the January 6 prosecutions. So Barr’s 9-page memo had to find a way to claim those actions weren’t corrupt, without entirely parroting the analysis he did in the audition memo he used to get the job, and without acknowledging Barr’s three statements — made under oath during his confirmation hearing — that trading pardons for false testimony would be obstruction (the word “pardon” does not appear in this memo).
Predictably, that discussion was really shoddy. In a key passage, for example, they adopt just one possible measure of corrupt intent, personal embarrassment, something that is only mentioned four times in the Report, always in conjunction with a discussion of at least marginal criminal exposure. Then they use that as a straw man central to their dismissal of Mueller’s lengthy analysis and their decision not to actually engage with Mueller’s analysis.
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: BARR
HOW TO BE A HANDMAIDEN TO CORRUPTION, BARR MEMO PRESS COVERAGE EDITION
A "Performance of Corruption"
One more Chapter in the RICO prosecution?
..
A "Performance of Corruption"
One more Chapter in the RICO prosecution?
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: BARR
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4616
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: BARR
More:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/30/opin ... ticleShare
"Former Attorney General William Barr has spent the last year in a desperate salvage operation for what’s left of his legal and ethical reputation. During his 22 months in office, he allowed his Justice Department to become a personal protection racket for his boss, Donald Trump, and left prosecutors, the F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials subject to the worst impulses of the president. But then, in his 2022 memoir, Mr. Barr did an about-face, bashing Mr. Trump for lacking a presidential temperament and singling out his “self-indulgence and lack of self-control.”
In the book, he urged Republicans not to renominate Mr. Trump in 2024, accusing the former president of going “off the rails” with his stolen-election claims by preferring the counsel of “sycophants” and “whack jobs” to that of his real advisers. Clearly concerned that history was paying attention, he was even stronger in his videotaped testimony to the Jan. 6 committee, loosing a variety of barnyard epithets and bitter insults to describe Mr. Trump’s legal strategy. He said the president had become “detached from reality” and was doing a disservice to the nation.
The hollow and self-serving nature of this turnabout was always apparent. Mr. Barr never made these concerns public at a time when his dissent would have made a difference. Instead, he left office in 2020 showering compliments on his boss, praising Mr. Trump’s “unprecedented achievements” and promising that Justice would continue to pursue claims of voter fraud that he must have known were baseless.
But if Mr. Barr harbored any fantasy that he might yet be credited with a wisp of personal integrity for standing up for democracy, that hope was thoroughly demolished on Thursday when The Times published the details of what really happened when Mr. Barr launched a counter-investigation into the origins of Robert Mueller’s report on the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. The reporting demonstrated a staggering abuse of the special counsel system and the attorney general’s office, all in a failed attempt by Mr. Barr to rewrite the sour truths of Mr. Trump’s history.
It was bad enough when, in March 2019, Mr. Barr tried to mislead the public into thinking the forthcoming Mueller report exonerated Mr. Trump, when in fact the report later showed just how strong the links were between the campaign and the Russian government, which worked to help defeat Hillary Clinton. A few months later Mr. Barr assigned John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, as a special counsel to investigate Mr. Mueller’s investigation, hoping to prove Mr. Trump’s wild public allegations that the federal intelligence officials had helped instigate the claims of Russian interference to damage him.
Attorneys general are not supposed to interfere in a special counsel’s investigation. The whole point of the system is to isolate the prosecution of sensitive cases from the appearance of political meddling. But the new Times reporting shows that Mr. Barr did the opposite, regularly meeting with Mr. Durham to discuss his progress and advocating on his behalf with intelligence officials when they were unable to come up with the nonexistent proof Mr. Barr wanted to see. (Aides told Times reporters that Mr. Barr was certain from the beginning that U.S. spy agencies were behind the allegations of collusion.)
When the Justice Department’s own inspector general prepared to issue a report saying that, while the F.B.I. made some ethical mistakes, the investigation was legitimate and not politically motivated, Mr. Durham lobbied him to drop the finding. When that effort was unsuccessful, Mr. Barr reverted to his usual pattern of trying to spin the report before it was issued, disagreeing with its finding before it was even out. Mr. Durham then followed up with a similar statement, shattering the clear department principle of staying silent about a current investigation.
The two men even traveled to Britain and Italy together, pressuring government agencies there to disclose what they told U.S. spy agencies about the Trump-Russia connections. That infuriated officials of those governments, who said they had done nothing of the kind, and no evidence was ever found that they had. But on one of those trips, The Times reported, Italian officials gave the men a tip which, people familiar with the matter said, linked Mr. Trump to possible serious financial crimes. (It is not clear what those crimes were, and more reporting will be necessary to reveal the details.) Did Mr. Barr follow protocol and turn the tip over to regular prosecutors in his department for investigation? No. Instead, he gave it to his traveling companion, Mr. Durham, who opened a criminal investigation but never made it public and never filed charges, and when word began to trickle out that a suspected crime had been discovered, he falsely let the world think it had something to do with his original goal.
The Durham investigation, of course, has never presented any evidence that the F.B.I. or intelligence agencies committed any misconduct in the course of the Russia investigation, bitterly disappointing Mr. Barr and especially his patron, Mr. Trump, who had assured his supporters for months that it would produce something big. Desperate for some kind of success, Mr. Durham indicted Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who had worked for Democrats in their dealings with the F.B.I., over the objections of two prosecutors on the special counsel team who said the case was far too thin and who later left the staff.
Mr. Sussmann was acquitted last May of lying to the bureau, and the jury forewoman told reporters that bringing the case had been unwise. Mr. Barr later tried to justify the trial by saying it served another purpose in exposing the Clinton campaign’s starting the Russia narrative as a “dirty trick.” The trial did nothing of the kind, but it did expose Mr. Barr’s willingness to abuse the gratuitous prosecution of an individual to score political points against one of Mr. Trump’s most prominent enemies.
One of the other casualties of this deceitful crusade was the deliberate damage it did to the reputations of the F.B.I., the intelligence agencies and officials in Mr. Barr’s own department. All of these agencies have had many problematic episodes in their pasts, but there is no evidence in this case that they willfully tried to smear Mr. Trump and his campaign with false allegations of collusion. They were trying to do their jobs, on which the nation’s security depends, but because they got in Mr. Trump’s way, Mr. Barr aided in degrading their image through a deep-state conspiracy theory before an entire generation of Trump supporters. Republicans in the House are launching a new snipe hunt for proof that these same government offices were “weaponized” against conservatives, an expedition that is likely to be no more effective than Mr. Durham’s and Mr. Barr’s.
But weakening the country’s institutions and safeguards for political benefit is how Mr. Barr did business in the nearly two years he served as the nation’s top law enforcement official under Mr. Trump. He has a long history of making the Justice Department an instrument of his ideology and politics; when he was attorney general in 1992 during the Bush administration, the Times columnist William Safire accused him of leading a “Criminal Cover-up Division” in refusing to appoint an independent counsel to investigate whether the Bush administration had knowingly provided aid to Saddam Hussein that was used to finance the military before Iraq invaded Kuwait. Under Mr. Trump, Mr. Barr did the opposite, demanding that an unnecessary special counsel do the bidding of the White House and trying to steer the investigation to Mr. Trump’s advantage. His efforts came to naught, and so will his campaign to be remembered as a defender of the Constitution."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/30/opin ... ticleShare
"Former Attorney General William Barr has spent the last year in a desperate salvage operation for what’s left of his legal and ethical reputation. During his 22 months in office, he allowed his Justice Department to become a personal protection racket for his boss, Donald Trump, and left prosecutors, the F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials subject to the worst impulses of the president. But then, in his 2022 memoir, Mr. Barr did an about-face, bashing Mr. Trump for lacking a presidential temperament and singling out his “self-indulgence and lack of self-control.”
In the book, he urged Republicans not to renominate Mr. Trump in 2024, accusing the former president of going “off the rails” with his stolen-election claims by preferring the counsel of “sycophants” and “whack jobs” to that of his real advisers. Clearly concerned that history was paying attention, he was even stronger in his videotaped testimony to the Jan. 6 committee, loosing a variety of barnyard epithets and bitter insults to describe Mr. Trump’s legal strategy. He said the president had become “detached from reality” and was doing a disservice to the nation.
The hollow and self-serving nature of this turnabout was always apparent. Mr. Barr never made these concerns public at a time when his dissent would have made a difference. Instead, he left office in 2020 showering compliments on his boss, praising Mr. Trump’s “unprecedented achievements” and promising that Justice would continue to pursue claims of voter fraud that he must have known were baseless.
But if Mr. Barr harbored any fantasy that he might yet be credited with a wisp of personal integrity for standing up for democracy, that hope was thoroughly demolished on Thursday when The Times published the details of what really happened when Mr. Barr launched a counter-investigation into the origins of Robert Mueller’s report on the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. The reporting demonstrated a staggering abuse of the special counsel system and the attorney general’s office, all in a failed attempt by Mr. Barr to rewrite the sour truths of Mr. Trump’s history.
It was bad enough when, in March 2019, Mr. Barr tried to mislead the public into thinking the forthcoming Mueller report exonerated Mr. Trump, when in fact the report later showed just how strong the links were between the campaign and the Russian government, which worked to help defeat Hillary Clinton. A few months later Mr. Barr assigned John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, as a special counsel to investigate Mr. Mueller’s investigation, hoping to prove Mr. Trump’s wild public allegations that the federal intelligence officials had helped instigate the claims of Russian interference to damage him.
Attorneys general are not supposed to interfere in a special counsel’s investigation. The whole point of the system is to isolate the prosecution of sensitive cases from the appearance of political meddling. But the new Times reporting shows that Mr. Barr did the opposite, regularly meeting with Mr. Durham to discuss his progress and advocating on his behalf with intelligence officials when they were unable to come up with the nonexistent proof Mr. Barr wanted to see. (Aides told Times reporters that Mr. Barr was certain from the beginning that U.S. spy agencies were behind the allegations of collusion.)
When the Justice Department’s own inspector general prepared to issue a report saying that, while the F.B.I. made some ethical mistakes, the investigation was legitimate and not politically motivated, Mr. Durham lobbied him to drop the finding. When that effort was unsuccessful, Mr. Barr reverted to his usual pattern of trying to spin the report before it was issued, disagreeing with its finding before it was even out. Mr. Durham then followed up with a similar statement, shattering the clear department principle of staying silent about a current investigation.
The two men even traveled to Britain and Italy together, pressuring government agencies there to disclose what they told U.S. spy agencies about the Trump-Russia connections. That infuriated officials of those governments, who said they had done nothing of the kind, and no evidence was ever found that they had. But on one of those trips, The Times reported, Italian officials gave the men a tip which, people familiar with the matter said, linked Mr. Trump to possible serious financial crimes. (It is not clear what those crimes were, and more reporting will be necessary to reveal the details.) Did Mr. Barr follow protocol and turn the tip over to regular prosecutors in his department for investigation? No. Instead, he gave it to his traveling companion, Mr. Durham, who opened a criminal investigation but never made it public and never filed charges, and when word began to trickle out that a suspected crime had been discovered, he falsely let the world think it had something to do with his original goal.
The Durham investigation, of course, has never presented any evidence that the F.B.I. or intelligence agencies committed any misconduct in the course of the Russia investigation, bitterly disappointing Mr. Barr and especially his patron, Mr. Trump, who had assured his supporters for months that it would produce something big. Desperate for some kind of success, Mr. Durham indicted Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who had worked for Democrats in their dealings with the F.B.I., over the objections of two prosecutors on the special counsel team who said the case was far too thin and who later left the staff.
Mr. Sussmann was acquitted last May of lying to the bureau, and the jury forewoman told reporters that bringing the case had been unwise. Mr. Barr later tried to justify the trial by saying it served another purpose in exposing the Clinton campaign’s starting the Russia narrative as a “dirty trick.” The trial did nothing of the kind, but it did expose Mr. Barr’s willingness to abuse the gratuitous prosecution of an individual to score political points against one of Mr. Trump’s most prominent enemies.
One of the other casualties of this deceitful crusade was the deliberate damage it did to the reputations of the F.B.I., the intelligence agencies and officials in Mr. Barr’s own department. All of these agencies have had many problematic episodes in their pasts, but there is no evidence in this case that they willfully tried to smear Mr. Trump and his campaign with false allegations of collusion. They were trying to do their jobs, on which the nation’s security depends, but because they got in Mr. Trump’s way, Mr. Barr aided in degrading their image through a deep-state conspiracy theory before an entire generation of Trump supporters. Republicans in the House are launching a new snipe hunt for proof that these same government offices were “weaponized” against conservatives, an expedition that is likely to be no more effective than Mr. Durham’s and Mr. Barr’s.
But weakening the country’s institutions and safeguards for political benefit is how Mr. Barr did business in the nearly two years he served as the nation’s top law enforcement official under Mr. Trump. He has a long history of making the Justice Department an instrument of his ideology and politics; when he was attorney general in 1992 during the Bush administration, the Times columnist William Safire accused him of leading a “Criminal Cover-up Division” in refusing to appoint an independent counsel to investigate whether the Bush administration had knowingly provided aid to Saddam Hussein that was used to finance the military before Iraq invaded Kuwait. Under Mr. Trump, Mr. Barr did the opposite, demanding that an unnecessary special counsel do the bidding of the White House and trying to steer the investigation to Mr. Trump’s advantage. His efforts came to naught, and so will his campaign to be remembered as a defender of the Constitution."
Re: BARR
Barr appeared on Bill Maher two weeks ago as, I guess, part of his ongoing salvage efforts. Oh, and also to hawk his book.
When pressed however, he said he would still vote for Trump in 2024 if he were the nominee.
One step forward and 10 steps back.
When pressed however, he said he would still vote for Trump in 2024 if he were the nominee.
One step forward and 10 steps back.
Re: BARR
NORA DANNEHY CONFIRMS THAT BILL BARR ATTEMPTED TO SWAY 2020 ELECTION WITH DUBIOUS INTERIM REPORT
WE knew it all along, well, all of us except Saltine...
..
WE knew it all along, well, all of us except Saltine...
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4616
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: BARR
The weaponization of the DOJ? It’s always projection with these GOP assh@les.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:53 pm NORA DANNEHY CONFIRMS THAT BILL BARR ATTEMPTED TO SWAY 2020 ELECTION WITH DUBIOUS INTERIM REPORT
WE knew it all along, well, all of us except Saltine...
..
Re: BARR
Recycled old news.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:53 pm NORA DANNEHY CONFIRMS THAT BILL BARR ATTEMPTED TO SWAY 2020 ELECTION WITH DUBIOUS INTERIM REPORT
WE knew it all along, well, all of us except Saltine...
Did Durham issue an interim report before the election ?
Re: BARR
Like Jim Comey did? Clown Car GOP is 100% unfit to govern. Why ANYONE would support that mess is an enduring mystery.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 8:13 pmRecycled old news.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2023 4:53 pm NORA DANNEHY CONFIRMS THAT BILL BARR ATTEMPTED TO SWAY 2020 ELECTION WITH DUBIOUS INTERIM REPORT
WE knew it all along, well, all of us except Saltine...
Did Durham issue an interim report before the election ?
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
Re: BARR
Heard a very enlightening & engaging long form interview with Bill Barr on CSPAN Radio this evening, about his time before, during & after the Trump Admin. No recording posted yet, so I'm posting this link as a bookmark in case they post something tomorrow or in the future.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?531413-1/ ... nt-service
https://www.c-span.org/video/?531413-1/ ... nt-service
Re: BARR
The video & captioned text transcript are now up & available.old salt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 10:37 pm Heard a very enlightening & engaging long form interview with Bill Barr on CSPAN Radio this evening, about his time before, during & after the Trump Admin. No recording posted yet, so I'm posting this link as a bookmark in case they post something tomorrow or in the future.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?531413-1/ ... nt-service
Worth a listen. Barr answers all the questions & issues, including Hunter (at the end).
On leaks & Hunter :
William P. Barr
A LOT OF WHAT TRUMP SAID WAS RIGHT AND STRIKE AS LOT OF AMERICANS ON THE MONEY. WHEN HE SAYS HEY, IF THIS WAS ALREADY ONE OF MY KIDS, HE'D BE WEARING AN ORANGE JUMPSUIT, HE'S RIGHT ON THAT. THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD IN OUR SYSTEM. IT'S NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE FREQUENTLY PORTRAY IS BUT IT'S THERE. THE BEST WAY FOR ME TO DESCRIBE IT IS TO SAY THIS IS NOT JUST AN F.B.I.-D.O.J. PROBLEM, THIS IS INSTITUTIONS. ALL INSTITUTIONS HAVE CERTAIN -- A CERTAIN VALUE THEY HAVE TO UPHOLD BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE BIGGER PICTURE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, MEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO GET AT THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. THAT SHOULD BE THE VALUE THAT DRIVES COVERAGE. AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS TO UPHOLD CERTAIN THINGS LIKE DUE PROCESS AND SO FORTH. BUT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO TRY TO COME AT IT WITH THE BEST IDEA OF WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND HOW THE LAW SHOULD APPLY. NOW CORRUPTION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS THAT IS HAPPENING IN EVERY INSTITUTION IS WHERE PEOPLE GET INTO THE INSTITUTION AND THEY SACRIFICE THE INSTITUTIONAL VALUE FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER A HIGHER POLITICAL GOAL, AND THEY JUSTIFY THEIR BEHAVIOR THAT WAY. SO A NEWSPAPER REPORTER SHADES THE STORY OR IS MORE COMMITTED WITH THE NARRATIVE OR LESS CONCERNED WITH WHAT THE NARRATIVE CORRESPONDS TO OBJECTIVE TRUTH. AND THE SAME THING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT CAN CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT SOME HIGHER POLITICAL PURPOSE JUSTIFIES PUTTING THEIR THUMB ON THE SCALE ON A PARTICULAR CASE. OR BY LEAKING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE. WHEN I WAS AT THE DEPARTMENT, ANY CASE THAT WAS EMBARRASSING FOR THE REPUBLICANS WAS LEAKED. THE CASES THAT WERE EMBARRASSING FOR THE DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING HUNTER BIDEN, WAS NOT LEAKED. THAT SORT OF TELLS YOU ABOUT THE MAKEUP. SO THAT'S THE BASIC PHENOMENON HAPPENING IN ALL INSTITUTIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IMMUNE FROM IT. PART OF IT IS THE PEOPLE COMING INTO THE DEPARTMENT ARE MORE ON THE LEFT THAN THEY HAD BEEN IN THE PAST. YOU SEE A BUNCH OF BARBARIANS AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL -- THESE ARE LAW STUDENTS, PEOPLE APPLYING FOR JOBS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. SO, YOU KNOW, KEEPING IT ON TRACK IS A FULL TIME JOB. SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES OVERRULING THE CAREER LAWYERS IF YOU FEEL THEY'RE BEING POLITICAL. WHICH I DID. I PERSONALLY DETEST ROGER STONE. I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL. BUT WHEN THE PROSECUTORS, TWO WORKED FOR OBAMA AND ONE FOR MUELLER, RECOMMENDED A SENTENCE THREE TIMES LONGER THAN THE NORM, I SAID NO, YOU KNOW. HE'S NOT GETTING SPECIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE HE'S A FRIEND OF TRUMP'S BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE TREATED WORSE EITHER. THAT'S WHAT THE RULE OF LAW IS. BUT I WAS ROASTED FOR THAT FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG.
THE HUNTER BIDEN INVESTIGATION ?
YEAH. WELL, YOU KNOW, I, THAT'S ANOTHER AREA THAT I FEEL REALLY HAS TO BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED. I THOUGHT IT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED WHEN I LEFT THE DEPARTMENT. THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THAT INVESTIGATION WAS GOING TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF AND, YOU KNOW, HURRYING UP TO GET SOMETHING TO WIN THE 2020 ELECTION THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE DONE BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. AND THEREFORE, REALLY THE ONUS AT THAT POINT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T PREMATURELY LEAK OUT BEFORE ANY CONCLUSIONS WERE REACHED, WHICH WAS ACCOMPLISHED. BUT AFTER THE ELECTION, I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE VIGOROUSLY PURSUED BY THE DELAWARE US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND I'M WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT COMES OUT NOW APPEAR TO BE HUGE RED FLAGS, AND I HOPE THERE'S A GOOD ANSWER AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHY THOSE, YOU KNOW, WERE -- WAS THAT KNOWN WAS THAT DID THE INVEST WAS THE INVESTIGATION THOROUGH? AND DO THEY HAVE ANSWERS FOR THAT. IF THEY'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE'S NO, THERE THERE, THEY, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT AND UNTIL I HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHAT THEY FOUND AND WHAT THEIR CONCLUSIONS AND JUDGMENTS ARE, BUT CERTAINLY THE STUFF YOU'RE LOOKING AT COMING OUT IS PRETTY DAMNING. AT LEAST IT RAISES A LOT OF RED FLAGS AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING THERE, OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, I, I'VE ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY, I, I'LL BE SURPRISED IF BIDEN IS THE NOMINEE AND IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE OF HIS OBVIOUS DEGENERATION OF HIS HEALTH AND HIS, YOU KNOW, UH, AND -- BUT I THINK COUPLED WITH IT AND, AND HIS UNPOPULARITY AND THE UNPOPULARITY OF HIS VICE PRESIDENT, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE COULD BE TRACTION ON THIS SCANDAL AND, AND WHY HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE DEMOCRATS MAY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT. SO --
Re: BARR
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 5:21 pmThe video & captioned text transcript are now up & available.old salt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 10:37 pm Heard a very enlightening & engaging long form interview with Bill Barr on CSPAN Radio this evening, about his time before, during & after the Trump Admin. No recording posted yet, so I'm posting this link as a bookmark in case they post something tomorrow or in the future.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?531413-1/ ... nt-service
Worth a listen. Barr answers all the questions & issues, including Hunter (at the end).
On leaks & Hunter :
William P. Barr
A LOT OF WHAT TRUMP SAID WAS RIGHT AND STRIKE AS LOT OF AMERICANS ON THE MONEY. WHEN HE SAYS HEY, IF THIS WAS ALREADY ONE OF MY KIDS, HE'D BE WEARING AN ORANGE JUMPSUIT, HE'S RIGHT ON THAT. THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD IN OUR SYSTEM. IT'S NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE FREQUENTLY PORTRAY IS BUT IT'S THERE. THE BEST WAY FOR ME TO DESCRIBE IT IS TO SAY THIS IS NOT JUST AN F.B.I.-D.O.J. PROBLEM, THIS IS INSTITUTIONS. ALL INSTITUTIONS HAVE CERTAIN -- A CERTAIN VALUE THEY HAVE TO UPHOLD BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE BIGGER PICTURE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, MEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO GET AT THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. THAT SHOULD BE THE VALUE THAT DRIVES COVERAGE. AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS TO UPHOLD CERTAIN THINGS LIKE DUE PROCESS AND SO FORTH. BUT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO TRY TO COME AT IT WITH THE BEST IDEA OF WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND HOW THE LAW SHOULD APPLY. NOW CORRUPTION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS THAT IS HAPPENING IN EVERY INSTITUTION IS WHERE PEOPLE GET INTO THE INSTITUTION AND THEY SACRIFICE THE INSTITUTIONAL VALUE FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER A HIGHER POLITICAL GOAL, AND THEY JUSTIFY THEIR BEHAVIOR THAT WAY. SO A NEWSPAPER REPORTER SHADES THE STORY OR IS MORE COMMITTED WITH THE NARRATIVE OR LESS CONCERNED WITH WHAT THE NARRATIVE CORRESPONDS TO OBJECTIVE TRUTH. AND THE SAME THING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT CAN CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT SOME HIGHER POLITICAL PURPOSE JUSTIFIES PUTTING THEIR THUMB ON THE SCALE ON A PARTICULAR CASE. OR BY LEAKING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE. WHEN I WAS AT THE DEPARTMENT, ANY CASE THAT WAS EMBARRASSING FOR THE REPUBLICANS WAS LEAKED. THE CASES THAT WERE EMBARRASSING FOR THE DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING HUNTER BIDEN, WAS NOT LEAKED. THAT SORT OF TELLS YOU ABOUT THE MAKEUP. SO THAT'S THE BASIC PHENOMENON HAPPENING IN ALL INSTITUTIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IMMUNE FROM IT. PART OF IT IS THE PEOPLE COMING INTO THE DEPARTMENT ARE MORE ON THE LEFT THAN THEY HAD BEEN IN THE PAST. YOU SEE A BUNCH OF BARBARIANS AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL -- THESE ARE LAW STUDENTS, PEOPLE APPLYING FOR JOBS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. SO, YOU KNOW, KEEPING IT ON TRACK IS A FULL TIME JOB. SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES OVERRULING THE CAREER LAWYERS IF YOU FEEL THEY'RE BEING POLITICAL. WHICH I DID. I PERSONALLY DETEST ROGER STONE. I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL. BUT WHEN THE PROSECUTORS, TWO WORKED FOR OBAMA AND ONE FOR MUELLER, RECOMMENDED A SENTENCE THREE TIMES LONGER THAN THE NORM, I SAID NO, YOU KNOW. HE'S NOT GETTING SPECIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE HE'S A FRIEND OF TRUMP'S BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE TREATED WORSE EITHER. THAT'S WHAT THE RULE OF LAW IS. BUT I WAS ROASTED FOR THAT FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG.
THE HUNTER BIDEN INVESTIGATION ?
YEAH. WELL, YOU KNOW, I, THAT'S ANOTHER AREA THAT I FEEL REALLY HAS TO BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED. I THOUGHT IT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED WHEN I LEFT THE DEPARTMENT. THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THAT INVESTIGATION WAS GOING TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF AND, YOU KNOW, HURRYING UP TO GET SOMETHING TO WIN THE 2020 ELECTION THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE DONE BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. AND THEREFORE, REALLY THE ONUS AT THAT POINT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T PREMATURELY LEAK OUT BEFORE ANY CONCLUSIONS WERE REACHED, WHICH WAS ACCOMPLISHED. BUT AFTER THE ELECTION, I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE VIGOROUSLY PURSUED BY THE DELAWARE US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND I'M WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT COMES OUT NOW APPEAR TO BE HUGE RED FLAGS, AND I HOPE THERE'S A GOOD ANSWER AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHY THOSE, YOU KNOW, WERE -- WAS THAT KNOWN WAS THAT DID THE INVEST WAS THE INVESTIGATION THOROUGH? AND DO THEY HAVE ANSWERS FOR THAT. IF THEY'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE'S NO, THERE THERE, THEY, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT AND UNTIL I HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHAT THEY FOUND AND WHAT THEIR CONCLUSIONS AND JUDGMENTS ARE, BUT CERTAINLY THE STUFF YOU'RE LOOKING AT COMING OUT IS PRETTY DAMNING. AT LEAST IT RAISES A LOT OF RED FLAGS AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING THERE, OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, I, I'VE ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY, I, I'LL BE SURPRISED IF BIDEN IS THE NOMINEE AND IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE OF HIS OBVIOUS DEGENERATION OF HIS HEALTH AND HIS, YOU KNOW, UH, AND -- BUT I THINK COUPLED WITH IT AND, AND HIS UNPOPULARITY AND THE UNPOPULARITY OF HIS VICE PRESIDENT, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE COULD BE TRACTION ON THIS SCANDAL AND, AND WHY HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE DEMOCRATS MAY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT. SO --
"Answers all questions". Right.Hey Bill: can you name another financial fraud case where you don't pull financial records to determine the fraud for 2 full years?
And if you didn't have access to Hunter's financial information for two full years of "investigating"...what the F were you doing in those years?
Start there. Then I have LOTS more questions, in addition to addressing his multiple lies in the above two paragraphs.
Re: BARR
If that's his opinion way didn't he investigate further? He had jurisdiction and supervision for two yearsold salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 5:21 pmThe video & captioned text transcript are now up & available.old salt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 10:37 pm Heard a very enlightening & engaging long form interview with Bill Barr on CSPAN Radio this evening, about his time before, during & after the Trump Admin. No recording posted yet, so I'm posting this link as a bookmark in case they post something tomorrow or in the future.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?531413-1/ ... nt-service
Worth a listen. Barr answers all the questions & issues, including Hunter (at the end).
On leaks & Hunter :
William P. Barr
A LOT OF WHAT TRUMP SAID WAS RIGHT AND STRIKE AS LOT OF AMERICANS ON THE MONEY. WHEN HE SAYS HEY, IF THIS WAS ALREADY ONE OF MY KIDS, HE'D BE WEARING AN ORANGE JUMPSUIT, HE'S RIGHT ON THAT. THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD IN OUR SYSTEM. IT'S NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE FREQUENTLY PORTRAY IS BUT IT'S THERE. THE BEST WAY FOR ME TO DESCRIBE IT IS TO SAY THIS IS NOT JUST AN F.B.I.-D.O.J. PROBLEM, THIS IS INSTITUTIONS. ALL INSTITUTIONS HAVE CERTAIN -- A CERTAIN VALUE THEY HAVE TO UPHOLD BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE BIGGER PICTURE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, MEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO GET AT THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. THAT SHOULD BE THE VALUE THAT DRIVES COVERAGE. AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS TO UPHOLD CERTAIN THINGS LIKE DUE PROCESS AND SO FORTH. BUT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO TRY TO COME AT IT WITH THE BEST IDEA OF WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND HOW THE LAW SHOULD APPLY. NOW CORRUPTION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS THAT IS HAPPENING IN EVERY INSTITUTION IS WHERE PEOPLE GET INTO THE INSTITUTION AND THEY SACRIFICE THE INSTITUTIONAL VALUE FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER A HIGHER POLITICAL GOAL, AND THEY JUSTIFY THEIR BEHAVIOR THAT WAY. SO A NEWSPAPER REPORTER SHADES THE STORY OR IS MORE COMMITTED WITH THE NARRATIVE OR LESS CONCERNED WITH WHAT THE NARRATIVE CORRESPONDS TO OBJECTIVE TRUTH. AND THE SAME THING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT CAN CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT SOME HIGHER POLITICAL PURPOSE JUSTIFIES PUTTING THEIR THUMB ON THE SCALE ON A PARTICULAR CASE. OR BY LEAKING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE. WHEN I WAS AT THE DEPARTMENT, ANY CASE THAT WAS EMBARRASSING FOR THE REPUBLICANS WAS LEAKED. THE CASES THAT WERE EMBARRASSING FOR THE DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING HUNTER BIDEN, WAS NOT LEAKED. THAT SORT OF TELLS YOU ABOUT THE MAKEUP. SO THAT'S THE BASIC PHENOMENON HAPPENING IN ALL INSTITUTIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IMMUNE FROM IT. PART OF IT IS THE PEOPLE COMING INTO THE DEPARTMENT ARE MORE ON THE LEFT THAN THEY HAD BEEN IN THE PAST. YOU SEE A BUNCH OF BARBARIANS AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL -- THESE ARE LAW STUDENTS, PEOPLE APPLYING FOR JOBS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. SO, YOU KNOW, KEEPING IT ON TRACK IS A FULL TIME JOB. SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES OVERRULING THE CAREER LAWYERS IF YOU FEEL THEY'RE BEING POLITICAL. WHICH I DID. I PERSONALLY DETEST ROGER STONE. I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL. BUT WHEN THE PROSECUTORS, TWO WORKED FOR OBAMA AND ONE FOR MUELLER, RECOMMENDED A SENTENCE THREE TIMES LONGER THAN THE NORM, I SAID NO, YOU KNOW. HE'S NOT GETTING SPECIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE HE'S A FRIEND OF TRUMP'S BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE TREATED WORSE EITHER. THAT'S WHAT THE RULE OF LAW IS. BUT I WAS ROASTED FOR THAT FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG.
THE HUNTER BIDEN INVESTIGATION ?
YEAH. WELL, YOU KNOW, I, THAT'S ANOTHER AREA THAT I FEEL REALLY HAS TO BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED. I THOUGHT IT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED WHEN I LEFT THE DEPARTMENT. THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THAT INVESTIGATION WAS GOING TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF AND, YOU KNOW, HURRYING UP TO GET SOMETHING TO WIN THE 2020 ELECTION THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE DONE BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. AND THEREFORE, REALLY THE ONUS AT THAT POINT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T PREMATURELY LEAK OUT BEFORE ANY CONCLUSIONS WERE REACHED, WHICH WAS ACCOMPLISHED. BUT AFTER THE ELECTION, I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE VIGOROUSLY PURSUED BY THE DELAWARE US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND I'M WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT COMES OUT NOW APPEAR TO BE HUGE RED FLAGS, AND I HOPE THERE'S A GOOD ANSWER AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHY THOSE, YOU KNOW, WERE -- WAS THAT KNOWN WAS THAT DID THE INVEST WAS THE INVESTIGATION THOROUGH? AND DO THEY HAVE ANSWERS FOR THAT. IF THEY'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE'S NO, THERE THERE, THEY, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT AND UNTIL I HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHAT THEY FOUND AND WHAT THEIR CONCLUSIONS AND JUDGMENTS ARE, BUT CERTAINLY THE STUFF YOU'RE LOOKING AT COMING OUT IS PRETTY DAMNING. AT LEAST IT RAISES A LOT OF RED FLAGS AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING THERE, OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, I, I'VE ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY, I, I'LL BE SURPRISED IF BIDEN IS THE NOMINEE AND IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE OF HIS OBVIOUS DEGENERATION OF HIS HEALTH AND HIS, YOU KNOW, UH, AND -- BUT I THINK COUPLED WITH IT AND, AND HIS UNPOPULARITY AND THE UNPOPULARITY OF HIS VICE PRESIDENT, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE COULD BE TRACTION ON THIS SCANDAL AND, AND WHY HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE DEMOCRATS MAY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT. SO --
Re: BARR
Oh, because (insert nonsense Old Salt explanation).Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 6:06 pmIf that's his opinion way didn't he investigate further? He had jurisdiction and supervision for two yearsold salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 5:21 pmThe video & captioned text transcript are now up & available.old salt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 10:37 pm Heard a very enlightening & engaging long form interview with Bill Barr on CSPAN Radio this evening, about his time before, during & after the Trump Admin. No recording posted yet, so I'm posting this link as a bookmark in case they post something tomorrow or in the future.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?531413-1/ ... nt-service
Worth a listen. Barr answers all the questions & issues, including Hunter (at the end).
On leaks & Hunter :
William P. Barr
A LOT OF WHAT TRUMP SAID WAS RIGHT AND STRIKE AS LOT OF AMERICANS ON THE MONEY. WHEN HE SAYS HEY, IF THIS WAS ALREADY ONE OF MY KIDS, HE'D BE WEARING AN ORANGE JUMPSUIT, HE'S RIGHT ON THAT. THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD IN OUR SYSTEM. IT'S NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE FREQUENTLY PORTRAY IS BUT IT'S THERE. THE BEST WAY FOR ME TO DESCRIBE IT IS TO SAY THIS IS NOT JUST AN F.B.I.-D.O.J. PROBLEM, THIS IS INSTITUTIONS. ALL INSTITUTIONS HAVE CERTAIN -- A CERTAIN VALUE THEY HAVE TO UPHOLD BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE BIGGER PICTURE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, MEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO GET AT THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. THAT SHOULD BE THE VALUE THAT DRIVES COVERAGE. AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS TO UPHOLD CERTAIN THINGS LIKE DUE PROCESS AND SO FORTH. BUT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO TRY TO COME AT IT WITH THE BEST IDEA OF WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND HOW THE LAW SHOULD APPLY. NOW CORRUPTION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS THAT IS HAPPENING IN EVERY INSTITUTION IS WHERE PEOPLE GET INTO THE INSTITUTION AND THEY SACRIFICE THE INSTITUTIONAL VALUE FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER A HIGHER POLITICAL GOAL, AND THEY JUSTIFY THEIR BEHAVIOR THAT WAY. SO A NEWSPAPER REPORTER SHADES THE STORY OR IS MORE COMMITTED WITH THE NARRATIVE OR LESS CONCERNED WITH WHAT THE NARRATIVE CORRESPONDS TO OBJECTIVE TRUTH. AND THE SAME THING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT CAN CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT SOME HIGHER POLITICAL PURPOSE JUSTIFIES PUTTING THEIR THUMB ON THE SCALE ON A PARTICULAR CASE. OR BY LEAKING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE. WHEN I WAS AT THE DEPARTMENT, ANY CASE THAT WAS EMBARRASSING FOR THE REPUBLICANS WAS LEAKED. THE CASES THAT WERE EMBARRASSING FOR THE DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING HUNTER BIDEN, WAS NOT LEAKED. THAT SORT OF TELLS YOU ABOUT THE MAKEUP. SO THAT'S THE BASIC PHENOMENON HAPPENING IN ALL INSTITUTIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IMMUNE FROM IT. PART OF IT IS THE PEOPLE COMING INTO THE DEPARTMENT ARE MORE ON THE LEFT THAN THEY HAD BEEN IN THE PAST. YOU SEE A BUNCH OF BARBARIANS AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL -- THESE ARE LAW STUDENTS, PEOPLE APPLYING FOR JOBS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. SO, YOU KNOW, KEEPING IT ON TRACK IS A FULL TIME JOB. SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES OVERRULING THE CAREER LAWYERS IF YOU FEEL THEY'RE BEING POLITICAL. WHICH I DID. I PERSONALLY DETEST ROGER STONE. I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL. BUT WHEN THE PROSECUTORS, TWO WORKED FOR OBAMA AND ONE FOR MUELLER, RECOMMENDED A SENTENCE THREE TIMES LONGER THAN THE NORM, I SAID NO, YOU KNOW. HE'S NOT GETTING SPECIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE HE'S A FRIEND OF TRUMP'S BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE TREATED WORSE EITHER. THAT'S WHAT THE RULE OF LAW IS. BUT I WAS ROASTED FOR THAT FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG.
THE HUNTER BIDEN INVESTIGATION ?
YEAH. WELL, YOU KNOW, I, THAT'S ANOTHER AREA THAT I FEEL REALLY HAS TO BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED. I THOUGHT IT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED WHEN I LEFT THE DEPARTMENT. THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THAT INVESTIGATION WAS GOING TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF AND, YOU KNOW, HURRYING UP TO GET SOMETHING TO WIN THE 2020 ELECTION THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE DONE BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. AND THEREFORE, REALLY THE ONUS AT THAT POINT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T PREMATURELY LEAK OUT BEFORE ANY CONCLUSIONS WERE REACHED, WHICH WAS ACCOMPLISHED. BUT AFTER THE ELECTION, I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE VIGOROUSLY PURSUED BY THE DELAWARE US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND I'M WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT COMES OUT NOW APPEAR TO BE HUGE RED FLAGS, AND I HOPE THERE'S A GOOD ANSWER AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHY THOSE, YOU KNOW, WERE -- WAS THAT KNOWN WAS THAT DID THE INVEST WAS THE INVESTIGATION THOROUGH? AND DO THEY HAVE ANSWERS FOR THAT. IF THEY'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE'S NO, THERE THERE, THEY, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT AND UNTIL I HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHAT THEY FOUND AND WHAT THEIR CONCLUSIONS AND JUDGMENTS ARE, BUT CERTAINLY THE STUFF YOU'RE LOOKING AT COMING OUT IS PRETTY DAMNING. AT LEAST IT RAISES A LOT OF RED FLAGS AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING THERE, OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, I, I'VE ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY, I, I'LL BE SURPRISED IF BIDEN IS THE NOMINEE AND IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE OF HIS OBVIOUS DEGENERATION OF HIS HEALTH AND HIS, YOU KNOW, UH, AND -- BUT I THINK COUPLED WITH IT AND, AND HIS UNPOPULARITY AND THE UNPOPULARITY OF HIS VICE PRESIDENT, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE COULD BE TRACTION ON THIS SCANDAL AND, AND WHY HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE DEMOCRATS MAY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT. SO --
Barr didn't even pull warrants under his tenure. How comically hilarious is that? Oh yeah, things were "so fishy" the Barr didn't bother pulling a single warrant.
Oh yeah, that's reasonable, and not a partisan nonsense answer alright.
But sure: Deep State. And naturally, Barr isn't in the Deep State that he claims is there. Because of course it's not him.
Re: BARR
He's telling you what the state of the investigation when he was in office. At that point, he didn't yet know if "there was any there, there".a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 6:35 pmOh, because (insert nonsense Old Salt explanation).Kismet wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 6:06 pmIf that's his opinion way didn't he investigate further? He had jurisdiction and supervision for two yearsold salt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 5:21 pmThe video & captioned text transcript are now up & available.old salt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 10:37 pm Heard a very enlightening & engaging long form interview with Bill Barr on CSPAN Radio this evening, about his time before, during & after the Trump Admin. No recording posted yet, so I'm posting this link as a bookmark in case they post something tomorrow or in the future.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?531413-1/ ... nt-service
Worth a listen. Barr answers all the questions & issues, including Hunter (at the end).
On leaks & Hunter :
William P. Barr
A LOT OF WHAT TRUMP SAID WAS RIGHT AND STRIKE AS LOT OF AMERICANS ON THE MONEY. WHEN HE SAYS HEY, IF THIS WAS ALREADY ONE OF MY KIDS, HE'D BE WEARING AN ORANGE JUMPSUIT, HE'S RIGHT ON THAT. THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD IN OUR SYSTEM. IT'S NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE FREQUENTLY PORTRAY IS BUT IT'S THERE. THE BEST WAY FOR ME TO DESCRIBE IT IS TO SAY THIS IS NOT JUST AN F.B.I.-D.O.J. PROBLEM, THIS IS INSTITUTIONS. ALL INSTITUTIONS HAVE CERTAIN -- A CERTAIN VALUE THEY HAVE TO UPHOLD BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE BIGGER PICTURE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, MEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO GET AT THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. THAT SHOULD BE THE VALUE THAT DRIVES COVERAGE. AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS TO UPHOLD CERTAIN THINGS LIKE DUE PROCESS AND SO FORTH. BUT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO TRY TO COME AT IT WITH THE BEST IDEA OF WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND HOW THE LAW SHOULD APPLY. NOW CORRUPTION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS THAT IS HAPPENING IN EVERY INSTITUTION IS WHERE PEOPLE GET INTO THE INSTITUTION AND THEY SACRIFICE THE INSTITUTIONAL VALUE FOR WHAT THEY CONSIDER A HIGHER POLITICAL GOAL, AND THEY JUSTIFY THEIR BEHAVIOR THAT WAY. SO A NEWSPAPER REPORTER SHADES THE STORY OR IS MORE COMMITTED WITH THE NARRATIVE OR LESS CONCERNED WITH WHAT THE NARRATIVE CORRESPONDS TO OBJECTIVE TRUTH. AND THE SAME THING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT CAN CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT SOME HIGHER POLITICAL PURPOSE JUSTIFIES PUTTING THEIR THUMB ON THE SCALE ON A PARTICULAR CASE. OR BY LEAKING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE. WHEN I WAS AT THE DEPARTMENT, ANY CASE THAT WAS EMBARRASSING FOR THE REPUBLICANS WAS LEAKED. THE CASES THAT WERE EMBARRASSING FOR THE DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING HUNTER BIDEN, WAS NOT LEAKED. THAT SORT OF TELLS YOU ABOUT THE MAKEUP. SO THAT'S THE BASIC PHENOMENON HAPPENING IN ALL INSTITUTIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IMMUNE FROM IT. PART OF IT IS THE PEOPLE COMING INTO THE DEPARTMENT ARE MORE ON THE LEFT THAN THEY HAD BEEN IN THE PAST. YOU SEE A BUNCH OF BARBARIANS AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL -- THESE ARE LAW STUDENTS, PEOPLE APPLYING FOR JOBS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. SO, YOU KNOW, KEEPING IT ON TRACK IS A FULL TIME JOB. SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES OVERRULING THE CAREER LAWYERS IF YOU FEEL THEY'RE BEING POLITICAL. WHICH I DID. I PERSONALLY DETEST ROGER STONE. I THINK HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL. BUT WHEN THE PROSECUTORS, TWO WORKED FOR OBAMA AND ONE FOR MUELLER, RECOMMENDED A SENTENCE THREE TIMES LONGER THAN THE NORM, I SAID NO, YOU KNOW. HE'S NOT GETTING SPECIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE HE'S A FRIEND OF TRUMP'S BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE TREATED WORSE EITHER. THAT'S WHAT THE RULE OF LAW IS. BUT I WAS ROASTED FOR THAT FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG.
THE HUNTER BIDEN INVESTIGATION ?
YEAH. WELL, YOU KNOW, I, THAT'S ANOTHER AREA THAT I FEEL REALLY HAS TO BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED. I THOUGHT IT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED WHEN I LEFT THE DEPARTMENT. THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THAT INVESTIGATION WAS GOING TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF AND, YOU KNOW, HURRYING UP TO GET SOMETHING TO WIN THE 2020 ELECTION THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE DONE BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION. AND THEREFORE, REALLY THE ONUS AT THAT POINT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T PREMATURELY LEAK OUT BEFORE ANY CONCLUSIONS WERE REACHED, WHICH WAS ACCOMPLISHED. BUT AFTER THE ELECTION, I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE VIGOROUSLY PURSUED BY THE DELAWARE US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND I'M WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT COMES OUT NOW APPEAR TO BE HUGE RED FLAGS, AND I HOPE THERE'S A GOOD ANSWER AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHY THOSE, YOU KNOW, WERE -- WAS THAT KNOWN WAS THAT DID THE INVEST WAS THE INVESTIGATION THOROUGH? AND DO THEY HAVE ANSWERS FOR THAT. IF THEY'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE'S NO, THERE THERE, THEY, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT AND UNTIL I HEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHAT THEY FOUND AND WHAT THEIR CONCLUSIONS AND JUDGMENTS ARE, BUT CERTAINLY THE STUFF YOU'RE LOOKING AT COMING OUT IS PRETTY DAMNING. AT LEAST IT RAISES A LOT OF RED FLAGS AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING THERE, OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, I, I'VE ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY, I, I'LL BE SURPRISED IF BIDEN IS THE NOMINEE AND IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE OF HIS OBVIOUS DEGENERATION OF HIS HEALTH AND HIS, YOU KNOW, UH, AND -- BUT I THINK COUPLED WITH IT AND, AND HIS UNPOPULARITY AND THE UNPOPULARITY OF HIS VICE PRESIDENT, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE COULD BE TRACTION ON THIS SCANDAL AND, AND WHY HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE DEMOCRATS MAY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT. SO --
Barr didn't even pull warrants under his tenure. How comically hilarious is that? Oh yeah, things were "so fishy" the Barr didn't bother pulling a single warrant.
Oh yeah, that's reasonable, and not a partisan nonsense answer alright.
But sure: Deep State. And naturally, Barr isn't in the Deep State that he claims is there. Because of course it's not him.
The investigation was not opened until late in 2018.
Evidence needed to be collected & established as grounds for warrants. It took time to independently verify the strands of the laptop evidence. Don't blame Barr for Weiss & his office slow walking the case. If Barr pushed them, it would have leaked as a witch hunt. You continue to ignore the fact that there was plenty of time remaining within the SOL when Barr left office.
Re: BARR
We've been over this before.....if you HONESTLY believe this, explain how Mueller got all of his investigations finished and in the can in under two years.
How is that possible? Warrants pulled, indictments handed out, all in under two years. Mueller have magic beans?
Your ground for a warrant is a Reuters report telling the whole wide world that (not kidding) Hunter got a job with Burisma, coupled with (drumroll) he didn't file taxes. Boy, that was hard. I need another year to pull a warrant for his bank records.
I didn't. The Whistelblowers did. The whistleblowers YOU believe. Remember them?
Do you not understand how delusional this sounds?
On one hand, you're lecturing me about "gee whiz, it takes a long time to do this stuff...you're insane to think you can pull warrants in two years".....yet at the same time, you're claiming that there's a conspiracy because the case took too long.
How does this square in your head, OS? It's just bonkers that this is your argument.
And the answer is: this ain't your argument. This is FoxNation's argument, and as usual, you've bought what they are selling you.
Re: BARR
Barr also said he wanted to prevent the investigation from leaking during the campaign.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:18 pmWe've been over this before.....if you HONESTLY believe this, explain how Mueller got all of his investigations finished and in the can in under two years.
How is that possible? Warrants pulled, indictments handed out, all in under two years. Mueller have magic beans?
Your ground for a warrant is a Reuters report telling the whole wide world that (not kidding) Hunter got a job with Burisma, coupled with (drumroll) he didn't file taxes. Boy, that was hard. I need another year to pull a warrant for his bank records.
I didn't. The Whistelblowers did. The whistleblowers YOU believe. Remember them?
Do you not understand how delusional this sounds?
On one hand, you're lecturing me about "gee whiz, it takes a long time to do this stuff...you're insane to think you can pull warrants in two years".....yet at the same time, you're claiming that there's a conspiracy because the case took too long.
How does this square in your head, OS? It's just bonkers that this is your argument.
And the answer is: this ain't your argument. This is FoxNation's argument, and as usual, you've bought what they are selling you.
Are you claiming that Barr was micro-managing Weiss' investigation ? Would that have leaked ?
2020 was the height of the covid lockdown. Was the DE Fed Grand Jury even in session then ?
You keep trying to blame Barr for Weiss letting the SOL lapse.
The IRS WB's didn't care if the investigation became public during the campaign. They didn't work for DoJ.
After what the DoJ/FBI had done to Trump AND Clinton in the 2016 campaign, Barr wasn't going to do the same thing to Biden in 2020.
There was still ample time to complete the investigation after the election before the SOL ran.
Bogus comparison to Mueller who was assigned as a SC with an entire team to do a specific investigation. Barr (in his own words) did not even yet know if there was any there, there.