Garland, "I am not the president's lawyer"

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Three "Mincing Morons" have thrashed marty began. It has been said. It has been so,

 

[berg80]

This is what someone who thinks he is the prez's lawyer looks like.

"I think the president has every right to be frustrated," Barr said in the Fox interview, "because I think what happened to him was one of the greatest travesties in American history."

While the attorney general asserted that investigators had no "basis" to launch the investigation into the Trump campaign, the Justice Department's inspector general concluded last year that the FBI was legally justified in launching its inquiry.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...abuse-spying-russia-trump-inquiry/5129855002/

Billy the Bagman's attempt to defend Trump went so far as to name John Durham SC, to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the FBI and well..........pretty much every top Obama admin official if the hype was to be believed. Ultimately, the whole endeavor was a total bust with respect to its intended purpose. To give Trump cover for the upcoming election in 2020.

The political nature of the investigation led Nora Dannehy, a longtime loyal aid to Durham, to resign.

Nora Dannehy, top prosecutor on John Durham team, resigns
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/11/politics/nora-dannehy-john-durham/index.html

Now we have some details about why she resigned.

Nora Dannehy says she resigned from Trump-Russia probe over concerns with Barr

Dannehy, who was the first woman to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, told Connecticut lawmakers that politics had “never played a role” in how she was expected to carry out her job as a federal prosecutor and “that was the Justice Department I thought I was returning to” when she ultimately joined Durham's team.

“I had been taught and spent my entire career at Department of Justice conducting any investigation in an objective and apolitical manner,” she said. "In the spring and summer of 2020, I had growing concerns that this Russia investigation was not being conducted in that way. Attorney General Barr began to speak more publicly and specifically about the ongoing criminal investigation. I thought these public comments violated DOJ guidelines.”
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news...russia-probe-over-concerns-with-barr/3108707/

 

[August West]

Still spewing those lies, huh traitor?

Ask Stewart (I shot my eye out) Rhodes why he`s serving 18 years in the big house.

 

[miketx]

Ask Stewart (I shot my eye out) Rhodes why he`s serving 18 years in the big house.

Lol, how would I do that liar?

 

[martybegan]

Irrelevant.

There were three officers standing in front of those doors that moved seconds before the rioters broke through them. Do you know why they moved? They felt threatened.

And they didn't open fire, unlike Mr. Triggerhappy.

 

[miketx]

Irrelevant.

There were three officers standing in front of those doors that moved seconds before the rioters broke through them. Do you know why they moved? They felt threatened.

Liar's a mind reader now.

 

[Marener]

And they didn't open fire, unlike Mr. Triggerhappy.

They weren’t armed, moron.

The officers in the hallway couldn’t just run away. They were protecting members of Congress.

It’s not clear what you think should have happened. Letting rioters stream through that door wasn’t much of an option.

 

[miketx]

They weren’t armed, moron.

The officers in the hallway couldn’t just run away. They were protecting members of Congress.

It’s not clear what you think should have happened. Letting rioters stream through that door wasn’t much of an option.

Unarmed cops? Lmao.

 

[martybegan]

They weren’t armed, moron.

The officers in the hallway couldn’t just run away. They were protecting members of Congress.

It’s not clear what you think should have happened. Letting rioters stream through that door wasn’t much of an option.

Why weren't they armed if they were security officers?

You don't think the heavily armed tactical officers on the same side of the door as the protesters/rioters wouldn't have been able to respond if the door broke?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

martybegan asks the weirdest questions. Is he on the spectrum?

 

[berg80]

Why weren't they armed if they were security officers?

You don't think the heavily armed tactical officers on the same side of the door as the protesters/rioters wouldn't have been able to respond if the door broke?

So you're saying Babbit being shot saved the lives of other nitwit, traitor, rioters because if the door was breached, heavily armed tactical officers would have taken down all the treasonous a-holes who came through it?

 

[martybegan]

martybegan asks the weirdest questions. Is he on the spectrum?

Nope. JE Horseface refuses to answer anything that may intrude on his SJW worldview.

 

[martybegan]

So you're saying Babbit being shot saved the lives of other nitwit, traitor, rioters because if the door was breached, heavily armed tactical officers would have taken down all the treasonous a-holes who came through it?

They would have probably done something, direction to halt. You don't think that would have given them pause, as opposed to the "encouragement les autres" shooting of a helpless unarmed woman?

 

[Marener]

You don't think the heavily armed tactical officers on the same side of the door as the protesters/rioters wouldn't have been able to respond if the door broke?

Not really. What are three officers standing among a crowd of dozens going to do to control the crowd? They'd be immediately overwhelmed. That's why you saw so many officers inside the Capitol just standing around. They couldn't rationally do anything to control the crowd that outnumbered them 100:1.

Not that it matters because the presence of the "heavily armed" (lol) officers behind the door were unknown to the officers in the hallway and therefore bear no relevance on the reasonableness of the decision to use deadly force.

You lack rational thought about this, it's because you're a biased hack.

 

[martybegan]

Not really. What are three officers standing among a crowd of dozens going to do to control the crowd? They'd be immediately overwhelmed. That's why you saw so many officers inside the Capitol just standing around. They couldn't rationally do anything to control the crowd that outnumbered them 100:1.

Not that it matters because the presence of the "heavily armed" (lol) officers behind the door were unknown to the officers in the hallway and therefore bear no relevance on the reasonableness of the decision to use deadly force.

You lack rational thought about this, it's because you're a biased hack.

With assault rifles and tac gear?

Yeah right.

If they were actually being overwhelmed and someone attempted to disarm them, then they could open up. That's part of the rules.

Shooting one woman halfway through a broken window simply isn't justified. Also just one shot is enough force in some situations not to stop things, but to escalate them, and there were more protesters than bullets in his gun.

 

[Marener]

Shooting one woman halfway through a broken window simply isn't justified. Also just one shot is enough force in some situations not to stop things, but to escalate them, and there were more protesters than bullets in his gun.

Again, you seem to think that the officers in the hallway should have just let the mob swarm through the door and do nothing about it. They were the last handful of officers left to defend the members of Congress in the chamber.

To any rational person, that's simply not an option.

 

[berg80]

They would have probably done something, direction to halt.

Right. Seriously? You make it sound as though there was any reasonable expectation the riotous mob would obey the voice commands of the officers. You don't think the mob had been told to stop what they were doing thousands of times that day?
The only person they were willing to listen to was Trump. And he was in the WH dining room gleefully watching the riot on TV.

 

[martybegan]

Again, you seem to think that the officers in the hallway should have just let the mob swarm through the door and do nothing about it. They were the last handful of officers left to defend the members of Congress in the chamber.

To any rational person, that's simply not an option.

So shoot the least threatening one, and hope the others back off?

Again, not included in Lethal Force Use Regulations.

 

[martybegan]

Right. Seriously? You make it sound as though there was any reasonable expectation the riotous mob would obey the voice commands of the officers. You don't think the mob had been told to stop what they were doing thousands of times that day?
The only person they were willing to listen to was Trump. And he was in the WH dining room gleefully watching the riot on TV.

This was a subgroup, in a small area, woefully outgunned by officers WALKING AMONGST THEM.

 

[Marener]

So shoot the least threatening one, and hope the others back off?

Again, not included in Lethal Force Use Regulations.

The least threatening one? She was the one coming through the window, therefore she was the most immediately threatening one.