I'm ok with my "demons".cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:48 pmWhen did Barr graduate to your level of a "slippery one"? Richard Nixon was always one of the " slippery ones" Yet as a dumb teenage skull full of mush you supported him. Where did you gain this infinite wisdom from your foolish support for Richard Nixon and your newfound contempt for Bill Barr? IMO a guy like you that supported Richard Nixon back in the day has a credibility problem you can't possibly overcome. I'm anxiously awaiting your bullchit excuse, I've already read it before but an encore performance is worth reading one more time. In the land that I grew up in being a Nixon supporter was even more despicable that being a WNC. FTR I'm not being mean to you. I'm just pointing out that any person who was a Nixon accolade back in the day has his own personal demons to deal with.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 2:50 pmHowever, I've been quite clear that I think the best explanation is the whistle blowers were frustrated that the sorts of evidence they produced was not compelling to the prosecutors and read into their exchanges reasons for not getting the enthusiasm they wanted that were not accurate. Not lies, just wrong. Conflicts between investigators and prosecutors are common.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 2:38 pmof course I allow for alternative explanations as well as facts to emerge.youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 1:30 pmYou don't sound so sure yourself....just look at all your uncertainties and assumptions in bold. Gives you a bunch of wiggle room to play both sides of the room; I like it.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 11:57 am tech, a fan keeps reminding us, correctly, that the whistleblowers' claim is that the slow down, the resistance to more aggressive investigation and prosecution, began during Barr's tenure...and continued into Garland's tenure.
Either they are lying (or Barr and Weiss are lying and are "in on" a cover-up) or they were simply wrong in their assessment of why the prosecutors were skeptical of their chances to establish probable cause, much less justification for prosecution. Both under Barr and under Garland...same prosecutor Weiss who says there was no interference...directly to Congress, a felony if he's lying to them.
The latter explanation, that they just didn't have sufficient strong credible evidence that wouldn't get tossed by any honest judge, makes the most sense to me, absent some proof they are lying.
Likewise, I assume Weiss is an honest prosecutor, and more likely than not motivated to prosecute big fish like Hunter and Joe if he could do so with confidence in court. So, I believe him when he says his prosecutorial decisions have been his own and he hasn't been interfered with, told what to do from higher ups.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about whether Weiss might be susceptible to "public" pressure from one or more quarters...certainly he was getting a ton of heat about his decision to enter into a plea deal...I'm a bit concerned that he pulled it because of that pressure, not because he hadn't actually agreed to the immunity that Hunter's team understood. At a minimum, I can see why he'd be concerned about the claims that he didn't have full prosecutorial discretion...the new arrangement assures that he will, as well as gives him the opportunity, indeed duty, to report in writing his findings and the basis for his decisions. And if that's the case, we'll see his rationale in due course.
Meanwhile, a fan's original challenge has been to ask why Comer and his House committee have NOT called Barr and IRS Commissioner Rettig to testify. Surely, they would have insight into what the IRS and DOJ knew and when they knew it, during their respective tenures. What is their assessment of the whistleblower's claims that the investigation was slow walked while they were in office?
The most obvious reason is that Comer et al don't actually want these guys under oath in a public forum, don't want to hear their answers to questions that press them.
They much prefer the allegations un-refuted.
And I'm inviting critique of my logic, not shutting it off.
Guess that makes me one of those "big pu$$ie$" ?
Likewise, I don't think Weiss lied to Congress in his two letters to them. Nor did Garland in his testimony.
I dunno about Barr as he's a slippery one, but my hunch is he's just been careful to posture without actually lying...and he's not been under oath or questioned thoroughly.
But Barr and Rettig are available for Congress to subpoena...and yet they won't do so...and that speaks volumes IMO
I also doubt that Hunter's perfidies actually involved Joe in any bribery scheme. But I do think Hunter acted unethically and may well have given people the impression that he had actual sway with dad on policy. But I don't think he ever did.
However, I always allow for the possibility that I'm wrong in some way.
Contrary to some people on here...
I was 14 turning 15 when I was canvassing for Nixon. As a 9th grader I was taking a Government elective populated mostly by seniors and a requirement that fall was to work in a campaign. My parents were Republicans in Maryland, which meant a generally progressive point of view relative to today's GOP. But conservative relative to a handful of their friends...but much more progressive than a bunch of others. And I was already more progressive than they were given youth and exposure. But more conservative than many young folks of that era.
And Nixon, putting aside what I was later to learn, had a pretty darn progressive/centrist agenda and got a heck of a lot done. But there was a lot to be disenchanted with in the late '60's and then '70's...of course, it helped that it was the GOP heavyweights that took Nixon out of office. That's who I identified with at that point. Not the fire breathers who were Nixon do or die types through the bitter end and beyond.
Until recently I've been fully comfortable being a member of a party with a big tent, that wasn't perfect, as the other party wasn't either. I wasn't an ideologue, just a moderate with more progressive social views than the right hand side of my party...but more conservative than the left hand side of the Dem party. Had I been living in Alabama or Mississipi I'd have likely been a Dem as the GOP there would have been pretty alien by the 1990's, but in MD and MA I was quite at hone being in the minority party in those states, as the party competed with centrist candidates being those who could actually win. Hogan is a recent example of the sort of Republican I favored, competent, not a hard line ideologue.
As to Barr, he was seen as an ideologue in his first stint in office, though not a flamer. He lost me when he was auditioning to join the Trump Admin, and then his actions under Trump confirmed my assessment. I can't put him in the "straight shooter" class.