The Essence Of Dem's Attempt To At Get Barr...

[SAYIT]

"... Trump is a poopy-head."

Yeah, that's the best the poor things could come up with but after 2 years of depending on Mueller to provide them a happy ending there is another DOJ storm coming and it's just as important as discovering that the POTUS is not a Russian agent. The DOJ is investigating the genesis of what became the $30 million witch-hunt for inappropriate or even criminal wrongdoing among high-ranking FBI & DOJ people as well as some elected officials, their aides, and agency/cabinet appointees.

If you listen closely you can hear the swamp monsters starting to sweat.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The worm has turned as they say.....
No wonder hillary was worried about being hanged.

 

[fncceo]

Most women worry about stretch marks.

 

[Claudette]

I think they have a right to worry.

Barr will be looking into the who, what, where, when and how.

I'd bet some folks are already sweating.

 

[Aletheia4u]

I don't trust Barr. Nancy Pelosi, a public figure, publicly stated that Barr is lying without any proof, That Barr has the right to sue her for defamation of character. If Barr doesn't start a lawsuit against her. And so then, that will mean that he is a part of the swamp. They are trying to trick Pres.Trump to make false claims, so that they will have grounds for impeachment.

Pelosi: Barr committed a crime by lying to Congress

” by “acting in league with a hostile foreign power” is clearly a basis for removal. So, too, is any false statement made to impede an investigation into this kind of conspiracy—including false statements to the public. A clear precedent is the article of impeachment on obstruction passed by the House Judiciary Committee in the proceedings against Richard Nixon. It included a charge that Nixon had made “false and misleading public statements,” which were “contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government.”
Some Presidential Lies Are Impeachable Offenses

 

[Claudette]

Pelousy is seven kinds of a useless idiot.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

It's amazing how the right is ok with Barr testilying at the Senate hearings and then spineless Graham trying to turn it into Hillary Clinton instead of what they were actually there to talk about.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The worm has turned as they say.....
No wonder hillary was worried about being hanged.

When was she worried about being hanged?

Links?

Or is this just bullshit you pulled out of your ass?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I don't trust Barr. Nancy Pelosi, a public figure, publicly stated that Barr is lying without any proof, That Barr has the right to sue her for defamation of character. If Barr doesn't start a lawsuit against her. And so then, that will mean that he is a part of the swamp. They are trying to trick Pres.Trump to make false claims, so that they will have grounds for impeachment.

Pelosi: Barr committed a crime by lying to Congress

” by “acting in league with a hostile foreign power” is clearly a basis for removal. So, too, is any false statement made to impede an investigation into this kind of conspiracy—including false statements to the public. A clear precedent is the article of impeachment on obstruction passed by the House Judiciary Committee in the proceedings against Richard Nixon. It included a charge that Nixon had made “false and misleading public statements,” which were “contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government.”
Some Presidential Lies Are Impeachable Offenses

Barr will not sue for defamation...you know why?

Because he is a liar!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The worm has turned as they say.....
No wonder hillary was worried about being hanged.

When was she worried about being hanged?

Links?

Or is this just bullshit you pulled out of your ass?

You need to spread your horizons and watch something other than CNN.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The worm has turned as they say.....
No wonder hillary was worried about being hanged.

When was she worried about being hanged?

Links?

Or is this just bullshit you pulled out of your ass?

You need to spread your horizons and watch something other than CNN.

I don't need to watch CNN

I just need to read Mueller's own letter he sent to Barr asking him why he is lying....

Why do you defend Barr? Because your cult leader told you to?

 

[Zorro!]

No one can claim Barr's summary of findings was inaccurate. Even Mueller conceded as much in a phone call. Mueller instead complained about the press coverage of the Barr summary, which isn’t, strictly speaking, the attorney general’s responsibility.

If Robert Mueller wanted to recommend charging Trump with obstruction of justice, he could have done so. Instead, he punted.

If Democrats disagree with Barr’s conclusion that Trump didn’t commit a chargeable crime, it is fully within their power to impeach the president for abuse of power.

Democrats want someone else to do their work for them. They wanted Mueller to blow Trump out of the water.

Barr is not the one distorting procedure or norms here. It’s the Mueller team that declined to make a call on whether Trump had committed a crime or not, which is the job of a prosecutor, yet catalogued his conduct for public consumption, which prosecutors aren’t supposed to do. Dirty Bob Mueller is more concerned about the media narrative around its report, the partisan questions than the legal one, and that's Mueller's problem, not Barr's.

Scandal over Attorney General William Barr a Farce | National Review

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

No one can claim Barr's summary of findings was inaccurate. Even Mueller conceded as much in a phone call. Mueller instead complained about the press coverage of the Barr summary, which isn’t, strictly speaking, the attorney general’s responsibility.

If Robert Mueller wanted to recommend charging Trump with obstruction of justice, he could have done so. Instead, he punted.

If Democrats disagree with Barr’s conclusion that Trump didn’t commit a chargeable crime, it is fully within their power to impeach the president for abuse of power.

Democrats want someone else to do their work for them. They wanted Mueller to blow Trump out of the water.

Barr is not the one distorting procedure or norms here. It’s the Mueller team that declined to make a call on whether Trump had committed a crime or not, which is the job of a prosecutor, yet catalogued his conduct for public consumption, which prosecutors aren’t supposed to do. Dirty Bob Mueller is more concerned about the media narrative around its report, the partisan questions than the legal one, and that's Mueller's problem, not Barr's.

Scandal over Attorney General William Barr a Farce | National Review

This comment is not going to age well....

 

[Zorro!]

No one can claim Barr's summary of findings was inaccurate. Even Mueller conceded as much in a phone call. Mueller instead complained about the press coverage of the Barr summary, which isn’t, strictly speaking, the attorney general’s responsibility.

If Robert Mueller wanted to recommend charging Trump with obstruction of justice, he could have done so. Instead, he punted.

If Democrats disagree with Barr’s conclusion that Trump didn’t commit a chargeable crime, it is fully within their power to impeach the president for abuse of power.

Democrats want someone else to do their work for them. They wanted Mueller to blow Trump out of the water.

Barr is not the one distorting procedure or norms here. It’s the Mueller team that declined to make a call on whether Trump had committed a crime or not, which is the job of a prosecutor, yet catalogued his conduct for public consumption, which prosecutors aren’t supposed to do. Dirty Bob Mueller is more concerned about the media narrative around its report, the partisan questions than the legal one, and that's Mueller's problem, not Barr's.

Scandal over Attorney General William Barr a Farce | National Review

This comment is not going to age well....

Sure it will.

 

[Zorro!]

Barr on the Intelligence Communities Illegal Spying on a rival political campaign

“What I will say is that I’ve been trying to get answers to questions and I’ve found that a lot of the answers have been inadequate and I’ve also found that some of the explanations I’ve gotten don’t hang together.”​

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Barr is up to his old tricks again, we saw him pull it off before with Bush 41. I hope the Congress is not dumb enough to get tricked twice.

 

[Zorro!]

Barr is up to his old tricks again, we saw him pull it off before with Bush 41. I hope the Congress is not dumb enough to get tricked twice.

The original sin here, and it wasn't Barr's, was a A Prosecutor but No Crime.

Rosenstein made a foundational error in appointing Robert Mueller to be special counsel to investigate without the parameters of a suspected crime and thus no limitations. We do not subject Americans to General Warrants, the 4th amendment protects us from such witchhunts.

Investigations conducted by prosecutors are always rooted in known crimes — or, at the very least, articulable suspicion that known crimes have occurred. The prosecutor is to be given a grant of investigative jurisdiction limited to the crimes specified by the Justice Department — and no other crimes, unless an expansion of jurisdiction is granted.

Barr is looking at potentially wholesale disregard of the regulations in place to secure our protection from corrupt spying and prosecution. We do not unleash spies, investigators and prosecutors to hunt for crimes to prosecute despite the absence of known crimes warranting appointment of a prosecutor.

But, Investigative Excesses Are Usually Not Crimes
It is very bad for investigators to exhibit bias, to allow bias to taint their exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion, to depart from Justice Department guidelines, and to provide unverified information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court). But none of these things is a crime – at least, not obviously so, depending on how badly our safeguards were abused, maybe there should be. We will know much more once AG Barr gets to the bottom of everything.

There is no criminal statute addressing bias on the part of agents and prosecutors. Even if investigators unprofessionally act on their biases, this does not necessarily mean the investigative decisions they make are indefensible on the merits — prejudicial bias is difficult.

As for departing from Justice Department guidelines, such guidelines typically come with a disclaimer that deviations from the guidelines are not grounds for criminal or civil action. Such a disclaimer appears at the very beginning (introductory section 1-1.000) of the U.S. Attorney’s Manual:

The Manual provides only internal Department of Justice guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigative prerogatives of the Department of Justice.​

We have guidelines and manuals because we want our law-enforcement officers to operate within clearly legitimate boundaries, not constantly to test the margins of their lawful authority. Having guidelines provides a standard for internal discipline, guarding against excessive or abusive conduct.

It is a serious dereliction for the FBI and Justice Department to provide the FISA court with unverified information, such as the allegations in the Steele dossier which were essentially uncorroborated. It is a violation of the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide to include anything other than “documented and verified information” in FBI applications for FISA-court surveillance warrants.

There is a big difference between

(a) giving a court information that is unverified because it has not been adequately corroborated and
(b) knowingly giving a court information that is false. ​

The former is abusive; the latter is felony obstruction of justice.

It is not unusual for FBI agents and prosecutors to be accused of including inaccurate information in applications for criminal-law surveillance warrants — claims nearly indistinguishable in kind from the claim that the FBI and Justice Department included dubious Steele-dossier allegations in the FISA warrant applications. These criminal-law claims are such a commonplace that our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has established tests for evaluating them — asking such obvious questions as: whether the allegedly inaccurate information was, in fact, inaccurate; whether, if inaccurate, the information was necessary to the showing of probable cause; and whether the inaccurate information was provided to the court in good-faith error (e.g., an agent reasonably credits an informant who turns out to be wrong) or in a conscious effort to deceive.

If a court has been given faulty information in a criminal case, the remedy is that evidence derived from the warrant is suppressed. The remedy of suppression is preferable to subjecting officials to punishment because, in the vast majority of instances where wrong is done, the wrong involves an overzealous error made in good-faith belief that incriminating evidence would be found. Thankfully, intentional frauds on the court are unusual — although they do happen.

Prosecutors should not withhold material information that should have been disclosed to the judge — the Clinton campaign’s connection to the Steele dossier should have been disclosed to the FISA judges. Such failures to disclose, even when wrong, are generally based on erroneous judgment calls about whether disclosure was required under criminal-law discovery rules, which can be a complex question. Frauds on the court should never occur.

It is much more common that officials screw up than that they malevolently break the law. This is a distinction to which we must be sensitive: If police and prosecutors came to believe enforcement errors would lead to prosecutions or civil lawsuits against them, they would refrain from taking any but the most uncontroversial enforcement actions.

What Attorney General Barr is getting to the bottom of is what were the Good-Faith Grounds for the Trump-Russia Investigation?

It is not inconceivable that crimes have been committed by investigators in the Trump-Russia investigation. We potentially have illegal leaks of investigative or classified information, which the Justice Department says it is already probing. Without concrete grounds for a criminal investigation, this prosecution of Donald Trump's campaign and Administration could not be justified.

If there was a good faith effort to investigation possible Trump-Russia ties of a corrupt nature, it would be very difficult to prove that investigators broke the law in conducting their investigation — it would also be very challenging to establish that they amounted to prosecutable crimes.

None of this would excuse the FBI’s failure to verify Steele’s information before presenting it to the FISA court. None of this would justify the failure to inform the FISA court that Steele’s dossier was an opposition-research project commissioned by the Clinton campaign. Trump–Russia “collusion” exists less as reality than as a political narrative to rationalize Hillary Clinton’s election loss. Moreover, there are more questions about the FBI and Justice Department’s tanking of the Clinton-emails case, which featured solid evidence of crimes, not mere suspicion.

The top FBI/DOJ hierarchy was biased against Trump, and thus too quick to credit sensational allegations of Trump wrongdoing, but there is a lot of sunlight between "I have a visceral disgust of the guy" and proof that Russia was behind the hacking of Democratic emails; that Carter Page was a Russian agent; that Manafort and Gates were choreographing a Trump–Russia conspiracy; or that Trump’s Russia rhetoric was anything more than a Candidate's effort to do what American administrations have been doing for decades — seek better relations with Moscow.

Clearly, Barr needs an investigation. The Justice Department is always responsible for ensuring the integrity and lawfulness of its own operations — it must investigate credible allegations of misconduct by its component agencies, including the FBI. Barr's investigation will rightfully scrutinize the handling of the Clinton-emails probe — how it comported, or failed to, with Justice Department practices and policies.

Attorney General Barr has made an inspired choice in John Durham, the former U.S. attorney for Connecticut. In 2008, when he was that office’s deputy U.S. attorney, he was assigned by Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the Bush administration’s program for interrogating high-level terrorist detainees, specifically, the possible destruction of evidence of the CIA’s mistreatment of prisoners. Durham, a highly regarded career prosecutor, was permitted to continue in this capacity when the Obama Justice Department expanded his inquiry. The investigation was closed without charges in a credible, professional manner in 2011.

He has full jurisdiction to convene a grand jury; investigate any crimes attendant to the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia probes; issue subpoenas and seek other court process (such as search warrants) to secure evidence; and prosecute any violations of law by persons inside or outside of government.

Durham will also have the discretion not to file charges, and to refer any government officials found to have engaged in misconduct for administrative discipline. The attorney general could further require that the U.S. attorney file a report about the investigation’s findings. This report could be shared with Congress; it could also be released to the public to the extent consistent with laws and guidelines that control the disclosure of investigative information regarding uncharged persons. Information about charged persons, of course, would be disclosed in connection with their prosecutions.

There is enough stench around this that the investigators need to be investigated. Barr is engaged in a task that needs doing.