Well a Fan... let the investigators figure it out. If you ever watched the TV show House you are familiar with the phrase Dr House used all of the time... "everybody lies" In Washington DC that is even more true than most places in America. There is a good chance a number of FBI folks went rogue and may have taken their contempt of Trump to another level that abused the authority given to them. I think that is the point that AG Barr was making. Everybody lies and his ultimate responsibility is to find what the truth is. Maybe as Americans... we can't handle the truth.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:00 pm Dude, come on. Investigating. The word is investigating. Notice the phrase "...The bureau also received a warrant". You know, like a government agent would do when they're doing their freaking jobs.
This word was intentionally used to fan the flames, and give Fox their headline.....all while not allowing anyone to dispute the assertion, because he alone controls who gets to see it.
It was a *hitty, hyper-partisan thing to do.
BARR
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15489
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: BARR
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: BARR
That's what they said about Trump and a conspiracy with Russia, remember? That there was a "good chance" he conspired.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:09 pm There is a good chance a number of FBI folks went rogue and may have taken their contempt of Trump to another level that abused the authority given to them. I think that is the point that AG Barr was making.
And yet how annoyed were Trump fans at this forum by this speculation?
Now that the shoes on the other foot, instead of counseling patience...... let the "new" witch hunt begin!!!
It's all so stupid
Re: BARR
See if this pops up in the news again :
...any chance Fusion GPS & Nellie Ohr were among the contractors ?https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation ... 48259.html
Secret court rebukes NSA for 5-year illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens
MAY 26,2017
U.S. intelligence agencies conducted illegal surveillance on American citizens over a five-year period, a practice that earned them a sharp rebuke from a secret court that called the matter a “very serious” constitutional issue.
The criticism is in a lengthy secret ruling that lays bare some of the frictions between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and U.S. intelligence agencies obligated to obtain the court’s approval for surveillance activities.
The ruling, dated April 26 (2017) and bearing the label “top secret,” was obtained and published Thursday by the news site Circa.
It is rare that such rulings see the light of day, and the lengthy unraveling of issues in the 99-page document opens a window on how the secret federal court oversees surveillance activities and seeks to curtail those that it deems overstep legal authority.
The document, signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, said the court had learned in a notice filed Oct. 26, 2016, that National Security Agency analysts had been conducting prohibited queries of databases “with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the court.”
It said a judge chastised the NSA’s inspector general and Office of Compliance for Operations for an “institutional ‘lack of candor’ ” for failing to inform the court. It described the matter as “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”
The prohibited searches the court mentioned involved NSA queries into the upstream databanks, which constitute a fraction of all the data NSA captures around the globe but are more likely to contain the emails and phone calls of people in the United States.
Federal law empowers the NSA and CIA to battle foreign terrorist actions against the United States by collecting the electronic communications of targets believed to be outside the country. While communications of U.S. citizens or residents may get hoovered up in such sweeps, they are considered “incidental” and must be “minimized” – removing the identities of Americans – before broader distribution.
The court filing noted an NSA decision March 30 to narrow collection of “upstream” data within the United States. Under that decision, the NSA acknowledged that it had erred in sweeping up the communications of U.S. citizens or residents but said those errors “were not willful.” Even so, the NSA said it would no longer collect certain kinds of data known as “about” communications, in which a U.S. citizen was merely mentioned.
The NSA announced that change publicly on April 28, two days after the court ruling, saying the agency would limit its sweeps to communications either directly to or from a foreign intelligence target. That change would reduce “the likelihood that NSA will acquire communications of U.S. persons or others who are not in direct contact with one of the agency’s foreign intelligence targets.”
The court document also criticized the FBI’s distribution of intelligence data, saying it had disclosed raw surveillance data to sectors of its bureaucracy “largely staffed by private contractors.”
The “contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI’s requests,” it said, adding that the bureau discontinued the practice on April 18, 2016.
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15489
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: BARR
I was never annoyed by the investigation. They could investigate Trump until the cows come home for all I care. I will make one point about the folks investigating Trump... a lot of them have bigtime personal animosity against the guy. It almost seems that they want very badly to find something...anything and I understand why. Trump is an aberration to all of the usual suspects in DC of both parties. Rs and Ds alike hate the guy and want him gone. If they can expedite that then so be it. The ironic part is that it is possible in their passion to get rid of Trump, some of these people may have behaved just as badly as trump in their methodology in trying to get rid of him. Now these people have the spotlight on them and now they have to defend or justify their actions. That old cliché comes to mind... two wrongs will never make a right.a fan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:21 pmThat's what they said about Trump and a conspiracy with Russia, remember? That there was a "good chance" he conspired.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:09 pm There is a good chance a number of FBI folks went rogue and may have taken their contempt of Trump to another level that abused the authority given to them. I think that is the point that AG Barr was making.
And yet how annoyed were Trump fans at this forum by this speculation?
Now that the shoes on the other foot, instead of counseling patience...... let the "new" witch hunt begin!!!
It's all so stupid
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: BARR
I know you weren't. You've been consistent as hell, and I really respect that.
You can say the exact same thing about those wanted them to go after Hilllary, or anyone who deigned to be mean to Trump....FBI, DoJ, anyone who was mean to Trump...FoxNation wants their heads mounted on a wall.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:08 pm I will make one point about the folks investigating Trump... a lot of them have bigtime personal animosity against the guy. It almost seems that they want very badly to find something...anything and I understand why.
It's the carbon copy of the libs. Always will be. Ever notice that FoxNation does the exact same things they complain about when the libs do it? And vice versa?
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15489
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: BARR
As a counter point a Fan there are a bunch of folks at CNN and MSNBC that are working tirelessly out of their contempt for Trump to get him removed from office or make certain he can't be re-elected. Are their actions less controversial than what Fox is doing? I read this a very long time ago but the point was that any journalist when reporting on a story should present what they are reporting on in a manner that the people they are reporting to have no idea what their personal opinion is. That is why Walter Cronkite was such a beloved icon. He had his point of view but except when he expressed his opinion we were losing in Vietnam, when he ended with "and that's the way it is" well you believed that that's the way it really was. I would argue that today in America, we have no idea what is really going on. Journalists are not reporting the news, they are often times trying to define what it all means to the American people.a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:01 pmI know you weren't. You've been consistent as hell, and I really respect that.
You can say the exact same thing about those wanted them to go after Hilllary, or anyone who deigned to be mean to Trump....FBI, DoJ, anyone who was mean to Trump...FoxNation wants their heads mounted on a wall.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:08 pm I will make one point about the folks investigating Trump... a lot of them have bigtime personal animosity against the guy. It almost seems that they want very badly to find something...anything and I understand why.
It's the carbon copy of the libs. Always will be. Ever notice that FoxNation does the exact same things they complain about when the libs do it? And vice versa?
BTW, thank you for your advice to tone my rhetoric down. I was embarrassed a bit when I backtracked and read some of the things I wrote. I needed that kick in the pants.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: BARR
I agree on MSNBC---they're anti-Trump. Not the same as moving left, btw. CNN, not nearly as much.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:10 am
As a counter point a Fan there are a bunch of folks at CNN and MSNBC that are working tirelessly out of their contempt for Trump to get him removed from office or make certain he can't be re-elected. Are their actions less controversial than what Fox is doing?
FoxNews was anti-Obama. No matter what he did was wrong. I agree, that MSNBC has placed themselves in that position vis a vis Trump. And no, it's not helpful, and is hurting our nation.
We all do it from time to time. This stuff i very frustrating and times-----and over beers, we'd never get this worked at the Forum. It's difficult to put thoughts in writing without making errors or leaving things out.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:10 am BTW, thank you for your advice to tone my rhetoric down. I was embarrassed a bit when I backtracked and read some of the things I wrote. I needed that kick in the pants.
Best part about the forum is that we are very engaged in what is happening in our country....and you get to hear different views as to what these news really means. It's a pretty cool thing, if you ask me!
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15489
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: BARR
Thank you for your thoughts a Fan. It is good to have a friend out there that keeps me honest. I do lose track of the big picture from time to time. On a side note I am grilling Zweigles white hots on the grill tonight. My wife has made her home made mac salad and hot sauce. Life is good my friend, life is good.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:23 pmI agree on MSNBC---they're anti-Trump. Not the same as moving left, btw. CNN, not nearly as much.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:10 am
As a counter point a Fan there are a bunch of folks at CNN and MSNBC that are working tirelessly out of their contempt for Trump to get him removed from office or make certain he can't be re-elected. Are their actions less controversial than what Fox is doing?
FoxNews was anti-Obama. No matter what he did was wrong. I agree, that MSNBC has placed themselves in that position vis a vis Trump. And no, it's not helpful, and is hurting our nation.
We all do it from time to time. This stuff i very frustrating and times-----and over beers, we'd never get this worked at the Forum. It's difficult to put thoughts in writing without making errors or leaving things out.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:10 am BTW, thank you for your advice to tone my rhetoric down. I was embarrassed a bit when I backtracked and read some of the things I wrote. I needed that kick in the pants.
Best part about the forum is that we are very engaged in what is happening in our country....and you get to hear different views as to what these news really means. It's a pretty cool thing, if you ask me!
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: BARR
Bad Faith Actor
"On Friday the thirteenth October 1989, by happenstance the same day as the “Black Friday” market crash, news leaked of a legal memo authored by William Barr. He was then serving as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It is highly uncommon for any OLC memo to make headlines. This one did because it was issued in “unusual secrecy” and concluded that the FBI could forcibly abduct people in other countries without the consent of the foreign state. The headline also noted the implication of the legal opinion at that moment in time. It appeared to pave the way for abducting Panama’s leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega.
Members of Congress asked to see the full legal opinion. Barr refused, but said he would provide an account that “summarizes the principal conclusions.” Sound familiar? In March 2019, when Attorney General Barr was handed Robert Mueller’s final report, he wrote that he would “summarize the principal conclusions” of the special counsel’s report for the public.
When Barr withheld the full OLC opinion in 1989 and said to trust his summary of the principal conclusions, Yale law school professor Harold Koh wrote that Barr’s position was “particularly egregious.” Congress also had no appetite for Barr’s stance, and eventually issued a subpoena to successfully wrench the full OLC opinion out of the Department."
Full story here...
..
"On Friday the thirteenth October 1989, by happenstance the same day as the “Black Friday” market crash, news leaked of a legal memo authored by William Barr. He was then serving as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). It is highly uncommon for any OLC memo to make headlines. This one did because it was issued in “unusual secrecy” and concluded that the FBI could forcibly abduct people in other countries without the consent of the foreign state. The headline also noted the implication of the legal opinion at that moment in time. It appeared to pave the way for abducting Panama’s leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega.
Members of Congress asked to see the full legal opinion. Barr refused, but said he would provide an account that “summarizes the principal conclusions.” Sound familiar? In March 2019, when Attorney General Barr was handed Robert Mueller’s final report, he wrote that he would “summarize the principal conclusions” of the special counsel’s report for the public.
When Barr withheld the full OLC opinion in 1989 and said to trust his summary of the principal conclusions, Yale law school professor Harold Koh wrote that Barr’s position was “particularly egregious.” Congress also had no appetite for Barr’s stance, and eventually issued a subpoena to successfully wrench the full OLC opinion out of the Department."
Full story here...
..
"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
Probably need a "Bad Actors" thread. You would, no doubt, place stories about all our nation's intell services in there TOOT de SUITE, right?
If and when Horowitz gets it wrong, you better BELIEVE he'll get called out on it...
..
If and when Horowitz gets it wrong, you better BELIEVE he'll get called out on it...
..
"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 Ways William Barr Misled The Public About The Mueller Report
Did Don and his henchmen KNOW about Russian willingness to help with his campaign?
..
Did Don and his henchmen KNOW about Russian willingness to help with his campaign?
..
"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
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27129
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: BARR
Oops.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:51 am The Ways William Barr Misled The Public About The Mueller Report
Did Don and his henchmen KNOW about Russian willingness to help with his campaign?
..
Let's see if any of the Trump apologists on here would like to answer that question...honestly.
Re: BARR
Looks like Barr doesn't mind committing a little "obstruction of justice" on his own. His pre-release judgements when juxtaposed with the actual Mueller report make one wonder if he actually even read the report he made himself so available to front run. I hope the Trump tin-hats pursue their attempts to smear the Mueller's investigation and the intelligence services as keeping these matters in the news looks like a bigly losing strategy. The Dumpster has already undermined his "the Mueller report shows total exoneration and vindication" campaign based on Barr's mind-numbingly fact dismissing appraisal with his totally expected, vindictive tweet sh*tstorm about the report this morning. I'm loving the ongoing rollout.
Last edited by calourie on Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: BARR
Best part of this entire mess is that in two years, we may have a new President.
What are the Forum Trump apologists going to be able to complain about?
Nothing. There is nothing negative a new President can possibly do that Trump didn't do, while these Forumites cheered it on.
Lying is ok. Out of control spending is ok. Deficits are ok. Socialism is ok. Handouts are super awesome. Union protection is ok. Protectionist tariffs are ok. Leaving the border open is ok. Conflicts of interest are ok. Lecturing is ok. Condescension and smugness is ok. Anything that's not illegal is ok. And if it's illegal, it doesn't count because they were trapped into breaking the law. And on, and on.
Remember when the Forum right feigned outrage that Obama lied about keeping your doctor, and we believed them? How hilarious is that complaint knowing what they now wave through if you have a R by your name?
What are the Forum Trump apologists going to be able to complain about?
Nothing. There is nothing negative a new President can possibly do that Trump didn't do, while these Forumites cheered it on.
Lying is ok. Out of control spending is ok. Deficits are ok. Socialism is ok. Handouts are super awesome. Union protection is ok. Protectionist tariffs are ok. Leaving the border open is ok. Conflicts of interest are ok. Lecturing is ok. Condescension and smugness is ok. Anything that's not illegal is ok. And if it's illegal, it doesn't count because they were trapped into breaking the law. And on, and on.
Remember when the Forum right feigned outrage that Obama lied about keeping your doctor, and we believed them? How hilarious is that complaint knowing what they now wave through if you have a R by your name?
Last edited by a fan on Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: BARR
https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/171/17164/1716453.gif
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/01/63/43/ ... wImage.jpg
https://www.caglecartoons.com/media/car ... 32_600.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4dehUPXkAEbXr3.jpg
https://www.caglecartoons.com/media/car ... 31_600.jpg
https://www.caglecartoons.com/media/car ... 28_600.jpg
Right wingers have really lowered the barr in their politricks.
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Re: BARR
At least Trump hasn't worn that tan summer suit. Obama should have been impeached for that.Remember when the Forum right feigned outrage that Obama lied about keeping your doctor, and we believed them?
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
Re: BARR
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... -the-case/
"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/
"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."
"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/
"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27129
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: BARR
Ah, so now Barr's the good guy for letting us see the redacted report...tech37 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:10 am https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... -the-case/
"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/
"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."
"cleared the President of the vacant collusion allegation"...really? He's "cleared" of "collusion"?
Mueller flat said that "collusion" was not the bar. He provides tremendous amounts of evidence of "collusion"...but not to the level of being able to prove criminal conspiracy. Huge difference.
The stupidity being peddled by the Trumpists is really disgraceful.