Kelly and Barr attack Trump

[22lcidw]

General Kelly is pretty fed up:

Joe: Thank you to General Kelly for telling the truth

and today Bill Barr went on TV to complain that Trump's tweets about judges and active court cases is making his job very difficult. Poor souless snowflake.

Waiting for the cult to turn on him in 5, 4, 3, 2 . . .

Your obsession with America is comical. You don’t live here. Get over it. We don’t want you here. Go limp around Canada and leave the US to us.

Neither do you. None of the 1000 post of month posters are real Americans. Americans are working, not posting 40 times a day on a message board.

I propose that we let Canada pay for its own national defense. And that we will not defend that nation if it is attacked. Do you agree? China and Russia see potential.

 

[iceberg]

i'd agree with barr here. to comment / tweet about ongoing cases is wrong. period. end of story. but as usual with trump, he has to comment on about everything. obama did this for his "causes" and it was annoying as hell. trump, the same.

good for barr to more or less say "shut the phuc up".

Liar.

Already plunked your ass on this one.

 

[Olde Europe]

i'd agree with barr here. to comment / tweet about ongoing cases is wrong. period. end of story. but as usual with trump, he has to comment on about everything. obama did this for his "causes" and it was annoying as hell. trump, the same.

good for barr to more or less say "shut the phuc up".

Liar.

Already plunked your ass on this one.

You did, of course, no such thing. You just found a demented click-bait site telling you to hyperventilate about... something.

Trump clearly interfered in the course of justice, resulting in a downgraded sentencing recommendation. President Obama commented on the national security implications of Hillary's server, and it takes an enormous degree of mendacity to equate that to what Trump has done. Isn't that so, liar? Do you even still realize what you are doing? For to me it seems your mind is so befuddled by all the rightarded bullshit you are gobbling up, you actually think you are dealing with wildly different things equitably. Just in case you are in doubt: You do not.

 

[Dragonlady]

General Kelly is pretty fed up:

Joe: Thank you to General Kelly for telling the truth

and today Bill Barr went on TV to complain that Trump's tweets about judges and active court cases is making his job very difficult. Poor souless snowflake.

Waiting for the cult to turn on him in 5, 4, 3, 2 . . .

Your obsession with America is comical. You don’t live here. Get over it. We don’t want you here. Go limp around Canada and leave the US to us.

Neither do you. None of the 1000 post of month posters are real Americans. Americans are working, not posting 40 times a day on a message board.

I propose that we let Canada pay for its own national defense. And that we will not defend that nation if it is attacked. Do you agree? China and Russia see potential.

Don't worry about it. I'm sure the rest of NATO will be there in a heartbeat. We were in both WWI and WWII from the beginning, even though we were never attacked. We went to Rwanda, Bosnia, and anywhere other countries needed help, asking nothing in return.

You can't even stop Russia from attacking the USA, you wouldn't be any help at all.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

General Kelly is pretty fed up:

Joe: Thank you to General Kelly for telling the truth

and today Bill Barr went on TV to complain that Trump's tweets about judges and active court cases is making his job very difficult. Poor souless snowflake.

Waiting for the cult to turn on him in 5, 4, 3, 2 . . .

Your obsession with America is comical. You don’t live here. Get over it. We don’t want you here. Go limp around Canada and leave the US to us.

Neither do you. None of the 1000 post of month posters are real Americans. Americans are working, not posting 40 times a day on a message board.

I propose that we let Canada pay for its own national defense. And that we will not defend that nation if it is attacked. Do you agree? China and Russia see potential.

Don't worry about it. I'm sure the rest of NATO will be there in a heartbeat. We were in both WWI and WWII from the beginning, even though we were never attacked. We went to Rwanda, Bosnia, and anywhere other countries needed help, asking nothing in return.

You can't even stop Russia from attacking the USA, you wouldn't be any help at all.

"we" LOL

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Barr is just blowing smoke. You can bet he coordinated all this with Trump*. Barr didn't suddenly grow a conscience, honor, and integrity. It's all bullshit to help reduce the pressure Barr is facing in the DOJ. Trump* will likely only "pretend" to be upset with what Barr said. I don't believe a word of what Barr said. He's still Trump's corrupt stooge. Barr is "pretending" to push back, Trump will "pretend" to be upset.

Barr blasts Trump's tweets: 'Impossible for me to do my job': ABC News Exclusive

Barr is a fat ass liar. Maybe he (Barr) feels like he doesn't get enough credit for helping his Fat brother in arms.

Or maybe a big fat loser or more, is upset and frustrated with losing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Barr told tramp "call me if you want anything done, but don't tweet it out. I am in trouble because of your tweets, they are on to us, democrats are asking me to resign!"

Bar said he doesn’t get distracted or influenced by anything or anyone. He calls it as he sees it, always. I watched his statement on TV. He snickered at the dims bullshit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wamose]

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions, or maybe I should say inactions.

 

[Dragonlady]

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions.

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions, or maybe I should say inactions.

No one said judges are above the law, but no one has accused the judge of any crime. She didn't file the charges or render the verdict. The Grand Jury filed charges, and the trial jury rendered the verdict.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly. Those defending them are defending the law of the land and the Constitution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions.

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions, or maybe I should say inactions.

No one said judges are above the law, but no one has accused the judge of any crime. She didn't file the charges or render the verdict. The Grand Jury filed charges, and the trial jury rendered the verdict.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly. Those defending them are defending the law of the land and the Constitution.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly.

If she knew about the jury forewoman and still allowed her to be on the jury, she was not doing her job properly.

 

[wamose]

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions.

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions, or maybe I should say inactions.

No one said judges are above the law, but no one has accused the judge of any crime. She didn't file the charges or render the verdict. The Grand Jury filed charges, and the trial jury rendered the verdict.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly. Those defending them are defending the law of the land and the Constitution.

The judge took flimsy evidence and a conviction by a hand picked hit squad of jurors, then handed down a totally ridiculous and unprecedented sentence. Her performance was biased, unreasonable and lacking in judgement. It makes her sentence look like a predetermined decision. The whole thing stinks from Stones entrapment to his stormtrooper arrest to the rigged jury and all brought to you compliments of the coup co conspirators of the Muller investigation. This whole thing was a fucking anti American travesty and anyone defending any part of it doesn't have a clue about the great experiment called America.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions.

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions, or maybe I should say inactions.

No one said judges are above the law, but no one has accused the judge of any crime. She didn't file the charges or render the verdict. The Grand Jury filed charges, and the trial jury rendered the verdict.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly. Those defending them are defending the law of the land and the Constitution.

The judge took flimsy evidence and a conviction by a hand picked hit squad of jurors, then handed down a totally ridiculous and unprecedented sentence. Her performance was biased, unreasonable and lacking in judgement. It makes her sentence look like a predetermined decision. The whole thing stinks from Stones entrapment to his stormtrooper arrest to the rigged jury and all brought to you compliments of the coup co conspirators of the Muller investigation. This whole thing was a fucking anti American travesty and anyone defending any part of it doesn't have a clue about the great experiment called America.

He hasn't been sentenced yet.

 

[wamose]

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions.

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions, or maybe I should say inactions.

No one said judges are above the law, but no one has accused the judge of any crime. She didn't file the charges or render the verdict. The Grand Jury filed charges, and the trial jury rendered the verdict.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly. Those defending them are defending the law of the land and the Constitution.

The judge took flimsy evidence and a conviction by a hand picked hit squad of jurors, then handed down a totally ridiculous and unprecedented sentence. Her performance was biased, unreasonable and lacking in judgement. It makes her sentence look like a predetermined decision. The whole thing stinks from Stones entrapment to his stormtrooper arrest to the rigged jury and all brought to you compliments of the coup co conspirators of the Muller investigation. This whole thing was a fucking anti American travesty and anyone defending any part of it doesn't have a clue about the great experiment called America.

He hasn't been sentenced yet.

You are right. But he was on a fast track for 7 to 9 if Trump didn't speak up.

 

[Dragonlady]

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions.

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions, or maybe I should say inactions.

No one said judges are above the law, but no one has accused the judge of any crime. She didn't file the charges or render the verdict. The Grand Jury filed charges, and the trial jury rendered the verdict.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly. Those defending them are defending the law of the land and the Constitution.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly.

If she knew about the jury forewoman and still allowed her to be on the jury, she was not doing her job properly.

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors. Stone's lawyers knew about the forewoman, her background and her politics aren't some big secret, regardles of how Trump tries to spin this.

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable", but Stone's lawyer knew who she was and didn't object. It is only after the fact, that Trump and other attacked this juror as biased.

Again, this is yet another case of this Administration attacking and vilifying a woman of colour who doesn't do the President's bidding.

This is as corrupt as a President can be. Today Barr re-opened General Flynn's case. Flynn plead guilty, and told a judge he was guilty in his elocution. Now Flynn, who plead guilty to perjury is trying to say he wasn't guilty of lying to the FBI.

Trump is angry that his people are going to jail and those who oppose him are getting away with opposing him, and he's trying to let anyone who broke the law helping him, off the hook.

How long to you think the American people will stand for this level of corruption and criminality?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions.

Barr gotta toughen up. Trump's criticism of Stone's Gulag like sentence is perfectly valid. Our DOJ obviously is still corrupt through and through based on the lack of charges against everyone who was involved in the coup. Wray has been covering up for criminals from the start and Trump doesn't want to see Barr follow the same path. So maybe if Barr doesn't want to be criticized, he should start working more efficiently and get something done instead of dragging everything out. The American people are fucking tired of waiting for justice.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions, or maybe I should say inactions.

No one said judges are above the law, but no one has accused the judge of any crime. She didn't file the charges or render the verdict. The Grand Jury filed charges, and the trial jury rendered the verdict.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly. Those defending them are defending the law of the land and the Constitution.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly.

If she knew about the jury forewoman and still allowed her to be on the jury, she was not doing her job properly.

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors. Stone's lawyers knew about the forewoman, her background and her politics aren't some big secret, regardles of how Trump tries to spin this.

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable", but Stone's lawyer knew who she was and didn't object. It is only after the fact, that Trump and other attacked this juror as biased.

Again, this is yet another case of this Administration attacking and vilifying a woman of colour who doesn't do the President's bidding.

This is as corrupt as a President can be. Today Barr re-opened General Flynn's case. Flynn plead guilty, and told a judge he was guilty in his elocution. Now Flynn, who plead guilty to perjury is trying to say he wasn't guilty of lying to the FBI.

Trump is angry that his people are going to jail and those who oppose him are getting away with opposing him, and he's trying to let anyone who broke the law helping him, off the hook.

How long to you think the American people will stand for this level of corruption and criminality?

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors.

She's not in the room during jury selection?
She doesn't decide whether a juror is acceptable or not?

Are you sure?

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable",

And the judge has to accept or reject their objection.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions.

Au contraire. It is utterly inappropriate for a sitting President to comment on a case before the courts, especially one which involves a friend. This is an attempt to intimmidate the courts.

This is why the Chief Justice for Washington District spoke out against the President's tweets. Why Chuck Schumer asked Justice Roberts to speak out - again. Justice Roberts has already told Trump to stop going after judges.

This is tin pot dictator bullshit, and the American public are appalled and disgusted by this behaviour.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions, or maybe I should say inactions.

No one said judges are above the law, but no one has accused the judge of any crime. She didn't file the charges or render the verdict. The Grand Jury filed charges, and the trial jury rendered the verdict.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly. Those defending them are defending the law of the land and the Constitution.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly.

If she knew about the jury forewoman and still allowed her to be on the jury, she was not doing her job properly.

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors. Stone's lawyers knew about the forewoman, her background and her politics aren't some big secret, regardles of how Trump tries to spin this.

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable", but Stone's lawyer knew who she was and didn't object. It is only after the fact, that Trump and other attacked this juror as biased.

Again, this is yet another case of this Administration attacking and vilifying a woman of colour who doesn't do the President's bidding.

This is as corrupt as a President can be. Today Barr re-opened General Flynn's case. Flynn plead guilty, and told a judge he was guilty in his elocution. Now Flynn, who plead guilty to perjury is trying to say he wasn't guilty of lying to the FBI.

Trump is angry that his people are going to jail and those who oppose him are getting away with opposing him, and he's trying to let anyone who broke the law helping him, off the hook.

How long to you think the American people will stand for this level of corruption and criminality?

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors.

She's not in the room during jury selection?
She doesn't decide whether a juror is acceptable or not?

Are you sure?

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable",

And the judge has to accept or reject their objection.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.

I checked it out because I was curious.

Jury Selection in Criminal Cases

The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship. For example, most states allow a student who might miss critical exams, a person who has an upcoming surgery scheduled, or someone who serves as sole caretaker of an ill or elderly family member to be excused from jury service for undue hardship.


Next, the lawyers for each side question the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge they might have about the case. The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense. But the lawyers aren’t allowed to ask overly personal questions, and they aren't allowed ask the jurors how they would decide the case in advance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions.

Judges aren't above the law and neither is the FBI, CIA, DOJ or any other political office holder. Right now it looks like they're protecting each other from justice. Good for Trump for making them answer for questionable convictions and Gulag sentencing. And if Wray or Barr or any other stonewalling dweeb doesn't like it, get the hell out. They are undermining the integrity of our government by their actions, or maybe I should say inactions.

No one said judges are above the law, but no one has accused the judge of any crime. She didn't file the charges or render the verdict. The Grand Jury filed charges, and the trial jury rendered the verdict.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly. Those defending them are defending the law of the land and the Constitution.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly.

If she knew about the jury forewoman and still allowed her to be on the jury, she was not doing her job properly.

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors. Stone's lawyers knew about the forewoman, her background and her politics aren't some big secret, regardles of how Trump tries to spin this.

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable", but Stone's lawyer knew who she was and didn't object. It is only after the fact, that Trump and other attacked this juror as biased.

Again, this is yet another case of this Administration attacking and vilifying a woman of colour who doesn't do the President's bidding.

This is as corrupt as a President can be. Today Barr re-opened General Flynn's case. Flynn plead guilty, and told a judge he was guilty in his elocution. Now Flynn, who plead guilty to perjury is trying to say he wasn't guilty of lying to the FBI.

Trump is angry that his people are going to jail and those who oppose him are getting away with opposing him, and he's trying to let anyone who broke the law helping him, off the hook.

How long to you think the American people will stand for this level of corruption and criminality?

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors.

She's not in the room during jury selection?
She doesn't decide whether a juror is acceptable or not?

Are you sure?

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable",

And the judge has to accept or reject their objection.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.

I checked it out because I was curious.

Jury Selection in Criminal Cases

The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship. For example, most states allow a student who might miss critical exams, a person who has an upcoming surgery scheduled, or someone who serves as sole caretaker of an ill or elderly family member to be excused from jury service for undue hardship.


Next, the lawyers for each side question the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge they might have about the case. The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense. But the lawyers aren’t allowed to ask overly personal questions, and they aren't allowed ask the jurors how they would decide the case in advance.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.​

In the process known as “striking a jury,” the prosecution and defense take turns arguing their challenges for cause. If the judge grants a challenge, the juror will be struck from the jury panel.

 

[deanrd]

Just to be clear, the DOJ is in chaos. You had four prosecutors quit a case and one of them permanently leaving the organization.

William barr was doing what Trump wanted. All he’s doing now is trying to convince the people that work for him that he’s not a dishonest shill for a criminal president.

It wasn’t aimed at the American people, it was aimed at the president and at the people that work for him. William barr couldn’t care less what the American people think. Or he’d be protecting the constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

No one said judges are above the law, but no one has accused the judge of any crime. She didn't file the charges or render the verdict. The Grand Jury filed charges, and the trial jury rendered the verdict.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly. Those defending them are defending the law of the land and the Constitution.

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly.

If she knew about the jury forewoman and still allowed her to be on the jury, she was not doing her job properly.

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors. Stone's lawyers knew about the forewoman, her background and her politics aren't some big secret, regardles of how Trump tries to spin this.

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable", but Stone's lawyer knew who she was and didn't object. It is only after the fact, that Trump and other attacked this juror as biased.

Again, this is yet another case of this Administration attacking and vilifying a woman of colour who doesn't do the President's bidding.

This is as corrupt as a President can be. Today Barr re-opened General Flynn's case. Flynn plead guilty, and told a judge he was guilty in his elocution. Now Flynn, who plead guilty to perjury is trying to say he wasn't guilty of lying to the FBI.

Trump is angry that his people are going to jail and those who oppose him are getting away with opposing him, and he's trying to let anyone who broke the law helping him, off the hook.

How long to you think the American people will stand for this level of corruption and criminality?

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors.

She's not in the room during jury selection?
She doesn't decide whether a juror is acceptable or not?

Are you sure?

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable",

And the judge has to accept or reject their objection.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.

I checked it out because I was curious.

Jury Selection in Criminal Cases

The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship. For example, most states allow a student who might miss critical exams, a person who has an upcoming surgery scheduled, or someone who serves as sole caretaker of an ill or elderly family member to be excused from jury service for undue hardship.


Next, the lawyers for each side question the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge they might have about the case. The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense. But the lawyers aren’t allowed to ask overly personal questions, and they aren't allowed ask the jurors how they would decide the case in advance.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.​

In the process known as “striking a jury,” the prosecution and defense take turns arguing their challenges for cause. If the judge grants a challenge, the juror will be struck from the jury panel.

Yes but you would have to establish that such a challenge was made and rejected by the judge to make the statement that the judge had anything to do with this particular jurors selection.

I have seen nothing that even hits that this was the case. Do you have a link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is yet another case of a federal employee being attacked and threatened for doing their job properly.

If she knew about the jury forewoman and still allowed her to be on the jury, she was not doing her job properly.

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors. Stone's lawyers knew about the forewoman, her background and her politics aren't some big secret, regardles of how Trump tries to spin this.

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable", but Stone's lawyer knew who she was and didn't object. It is only after the fact, that Trump and other attacked this juror as biased.

Again, this is yet another case of this Administration attacking and vilifying a woman of colour who doesn't do the President's bidding.

This is as corrupt as a President can be. Today Barr re-opened General Flynn's case. Flynn plead guilty, and told a judge he was guilty in his elocution. Now Flynn, who plead guilty to perjury is trying to say he wasn't guilty of lying to the FBI.

Trump is angry that his people are going to jail and those who oppose him are getting away with opposing him, and he's trying to let anyone who broke the law helping him, off the hook.

How long to you think the American people will stand for this level of corruption and criminality?

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors.

She's not in the room during jury selection?
She doesn't decide whether a juror is acceptable or not?

Are you sure?

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable",

And the judge has to accept or reject their objection.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.

I checked it out because I was curious.

Jury Selection in Criminal Cases

The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship. For example, most states allow a student who might miss critical exams, a person who has an upcoming surgery scheduled, or someone who serves as sole caretaker of an ill or elderly family member to be excused from jury service for undue hardship.


Next, the lawyers for each side question the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge they might have about the case. The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense. But the lawyers aren’t allowed to ask overly personal questions, and they aren't allowed ask the jurors how they would decide the case in advance.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.​

In the process known as “striking a jury,” the prosecution and defense take turns arguing their challenges for cause. If the judge grants a challenge, the juror will be struck from the jury panel.

Yes but you would have to establish that such a challenge was made and rejected by the judge to make the statement that the judge had anything to do with this particular jurors selection.

I have seen nothing that even hits that this was the case. Do you have a link?

EVIDENCE: Anti-Stone Juror Lied During Jury Selection, Tweeted About Trump During Trial

Do her lies mean a mistrial?