Is the AG the President's "Wingman"?

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,593
Georgia
✟909,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I don't recall that Holder went after Obama's enemies .

I thought it was Obama's IRS that was going after his enemies - Holder was and still is part of the " we will kick them " group when it comes to republicans. Eric Holder Caught On Video Telling Crowd To Kick Republicans…

Holder made the argument that to oppose either himself or Obama politically is to be a racist - at least at some level or for some folks.

"On ABC’s This Week, Holder also dismissed former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s call for President Barack Obama’s impeachment over Obama’s lawlessness on illegal immigration and House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) lawsuit against Obama over his Obamacare lawlessness. Holder said Palin “wasn’t a particularly good vice presidential candidate” and is “an even worse judge of who ought to be impeached and why.”

He did not allege Palin or Boehner of opposing Obama because of his race, but he suggested “there’s a certain racial component to this for some people

“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder said, according to a transcript. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.”
Eric Holder: Some Republicans Oppose Obama Due to 'Racial Animus'

Republicans just were not very good at drumming up an impeachment mob in congress every time Obama had a phone call or Holder said something that they did not agree with.

But what if Holder and Obama did agree on something but then Obama "tweeted"?? Should republicans then demand impeachment charges against Holder ? Does that makes sense even remotely???
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

carl_b_me

Active Member
Feb 7, 2020
121
86
51
New York
✟2,582.00
Country
United States
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
And rapists, drug pushers who really destroy peoples lives sometimes get 1-3 years....and Stone gets 9 for a non-violent offence? Going to his house with a swat team before 6 AM with a CNN camera crew just happened to KNOW somehow about what was to be a secret? Perhaps not you but none of you liberals see absolutely nothing wrong with that?

At least Roger Stone didn't have marijuana!
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,593
Georgia
✟909,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I see something wrong with rapists and murderers getting 1-3 years, and less. 9 years was the outside number and he would qualify for parole earlier. 7 years for 7 felonies does not seem outlandish, but if you think so, then the guidelines should be changed for everyone.

Do you Trumpers not see anything wrong with special, drastically reduced sentences for Donald's friends and cronies?

for doing what?

Yes, I see something wrong with rapists and murderers getting 1-3 years, and less.

Ok but I am pretty sure that Stone was not being accused of murder or rape.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
38,057
17,521
Finger Lakes
✟11,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I thought it was Obama's IRS that was going after his enemies -
Not exactly - there was an enormous influx of 401(c) applications for tax exempt status for PACs. Political PACs were supposed to be excluded. The IRS department in charge of processing the applications took a shortcut and issued a BOLO for applications with certain names associated with political organizations such as "patriot" or "Tea Party" and also "occupy" and "progressive" to be given added scrutiny (source).
The IRS person in charge was fired. Obama never asked that any particular person or group be either targeted or given a pass.

Holder was and still is part of the " we will kick them " group when it comes to republicans. Eric Holder Caught On Video Telling Crowd To Kick Republicans…

Holder made the argument that to oppose either himself or Obama politically is to be a racist - at least at some level or for some folks.
If you're saying he was wrong that means that there was no racism at any level for anybody - which would be blatantly counter-factual.

"On ABC’s This Week, Holder also dismissed former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s call for President Barack Obama’s impeachment over Obama’s lawlessness on illegal immigration and House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) lawsuit against Obama over his Obamacare lawlessness. Holder said Palin “wasn’t a particularly good vice presidential candidate” and is “an even worse judge of who ought to be impeached and why.”

He did not allege Palin or Boehner of opposing Obama because of his race, but he suggested “there’s a certain racial component to this for some people
He wasn't wrong about that either.
“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder said, according to a transcript. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.”
Eric Holder: Some Republicans Oppose Obama Due to 'Racial Animus'

Republicans just were not very good at drumming up an impeachment mob in congress every time Obama had a phone call or Holder said something that they did not agree with.
The difference is that Obama was careful to stay within the boundaries of the law, in which he was well-versed while Donald flouts it through carelessness, ignorance or both.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
38,057
17,521
Finger Lakes
✟11,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
DaisyDay said:
Do you Trumpers not see anything wrong with special, drastically reduced sentences for Donald's friends and cronies?
for doing what?
For committing felonies.

Ok but I am pretty sure that Stone was not being accused of murder or rape.
Did you follow the conversation? He was being compared to people who did.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,593
Georgia
✟909,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
For committing felonies.

for example?... was he driving his car in a parking lot in a manner that made someone nervous?

driving after having had a drink?

disorderly conduct?

violating a liquor law?

Curfew violation? Loitering?

And rapists, drug pushers who really destroy peoples lives sometimes get 1-3 years....and Stone gets 9 for a non-violent offence?

Ok but I am pretty sure that Stone was not being accused of murder or rape.

Did you follow the conversation? He was being compared to people who did.

guilt by accusation? guilt by extreme comparison?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,593
Georgia
✟909,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Not exactly - there was an enormous influx of 401(c) applications for tax exempt status for PACs. Political PACs were supposed to be excluded. The IRS department in charge of processing the applications took a shortcut and issued a BOLO for applications with certain names associated with political organizations such as "patriot" or "Tea Party" and also "occupy" and "progressive" to be given added scrutiny (source).
The IRS person in charge was fired. .

Who was in charge of the IRS under Obama?

After the Justice Department notified Congress in October 2015 that there would be no charges against Lois Lerner or anyone else in the IRS, 19 Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee led by the committee's chairman, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), filed a resolution to impeach Koskinen.[12][13]

Lerner became director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2005, and subsequently became the central figure in the 2013 IRS targeting controversy in the targeting of conservative groups, either denying them tax-exempt status outright or delaying that status until they could no longer take effective part in the 2012 election.

the IRS targeting conservative groups -- for example by making them answer ridiculous amounts of questions such as a list of every post on Facebook and Twitter.

The IRS person in charge was fired. .

I thought Lois was not fired.

======================

IRS releases list of 426 groups targeted for increased scrutiny
"The IRS filed the list of 426 groups last month as part of a class action lawsuit. The names of another 40 to 45 groups that met the agency's criteria for extra scrutiny and delays were not released since they opted out of inclusion in the lawsuit."

ADVERTISEMENT
Sixty of the groups have the word "tea" in their name, 33 have "patriot" and 26 refer to "liberty,"
110 in the target list for conservatives.

Others appear to trend liberal, with three having "occupy" in their name, according to The Washington Times, which first reported the list.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
38,057
17,521
Finger Lakes
✟11,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
for example?... was he driving his car in a parking lot in a manner that made someone nervous?

driving after having had a drink?

disorderly conduct?

violating a liquor law?

Curfew violation? Loitering?
Are any of those felonies?

Ok but I am pretty sure that Stone was not being accused of murder or rape.
And I am pretty sure that no one said he was, so what is the point of repeating this non-sequitur?

guilt by accusation? guilt by extreme comparison?
Please try and follow the conversation. Bobber made the comparison, not I, so if you want to argue whether the comparison is fair or not, take it up with him.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
38,057
17,521
Finger Lakes
✟11,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Who was in charge of the IRS under Obama?
Is your google finger broken?
President Obama on Wednesday demanded and accepted the resignation of the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Miller, as part of a multi-pronged effort to quell controversies that threaten to dominate his second term.

(Source)​

After the Justice Department notified Congress in October 2015 that there would be no charges against Lois Lerner or anyone else in the IRS, 19 Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee led by the committee's chairman, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), filed a resolution to impeach Koskinen.[12][13]

Lerner became director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2005, and subsequently became the central figure in the 2013 IRS targeting controversy in the targeting of conservative groups, either denying them tax-exempt status outright or delaying that status until they could no longer take effective part in the 2012 election.

the IRS targeting conservative groups -- for example by making them answer ridiculous amounts of questions such as a list of every post on Facebook and Twitter.
Cutting and pasting without citing your source? Which part is your own?

I thought Lois was not fired.
She IRS releases list of 426 groups targeted for increased scrutiny
"The IRS filed the list of 426 groups last month as part of a class action lawsuit. The names of another 40 to 45 groups that met the agency's criteria for extra scrutiny and delays were not released since they opted out of inclusion in the lawsuit."

ADVERTISEMENT
Sixty of the groups have the word "tea" in their name, 33 have "patriot" and 26 refer to "liberty,"
110 in the target list for conservatives.

Others appear to trend liberal, with three having "occupy" in their name, according to The Washington Times, which first reported the list.
Eric Holder ordered the investigation into the controversy. None of the scandal had originated in the White House. Obama did not order the IRS or anyone else to target his "enemies". He did not withhold vital aid to a foreign government until it agreed to target his opponent with a phony investigation or, rather, the announcement of an investigation. He did not tell the DOJ who to target and who to let go.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,429.00
Faith
Atheist
Who was in charge of the IRS under Obama?

After the Justice Department notified Congress in October 2015 that there would be no charges against Lois Lerner or anyone else in the IRS, 19 Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee led by the committee's chairman, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), filed a resolution to impeach Koskinen.[12][13]

Lerner became director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2005, and subsequently became the central figure in the 2013 IRS targeting controversy in the targeting of conservative groups, either denying them tax-exempt status outright or delaying that status until they could no longer take effective part in the 2012 election.

the IRS targeting conservative groups -- for example by making them answer ridiculous amounts of questions such as a list of every post on Facebook and Twitter.

I thought Lois was not fired.

======================

IRS releases list of 426 groups targeted for increased scrutiny
"The IRS filed the list of 426 groups last month as part of a class action lawsuit. The names of another 40 to 45 groups that met the agency's criteria for extra scrutiny and delays were not released since they opted out of inclusion in the lawsuit."

ADVERTISEMENT
Sixty of the groups have the word "tea" in their name, 33 have "patriot" and 26 refer to "liberty,"
110 in the target list for conservatives.

Others appear to trend liberal, with three having "occupy" in their name, according to The Washington Times, which first reported the list.

They were correctly questioning the application for tax exempt status for organizations that had overtly political sounding names, as acting on behalf of a political candidate was a specific violation of the status they were trying to obtain. As your article indicates, organizations with political sounding names of liberal and conservative persuasion were scrutinized. The only reason there was a larger number of "tea party" type names was because there were more of those organizations applying for tax exempt status than their were for "occupy" groups.

It wasn't using the IRS for political purposes, it was the IRS working to enforce the rules of non-profits against groups trying to abuse that status.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,593
Georgia
✟909,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It wasn't using the IRS for political purposes, it was the IRS working to enforce the rules of non-profits against groups trying to abuse that status.

That did not turn out to be true - turns out it was abuse of power.

============================
"Lerner betrayed the nation’s trust yet managed to avoid prosecution,” Buchanan said. “Heads should roll and people should be held accountable for this gross abuse of power.”

Peter Roskam, the Illinois chairman of the tax subcommittee, also criticized the decision, terming it "a miscarriage of justice."

Previously, the lawmakers had suggested that the Obama Department of Justice had declined to prosecute Lerner in 2015 because it was taking political cues from Obama. In 2014, their committee had voted to refer Lerner to the Justice Department for prosecution for her role in the targeting scandal.



From 2010 to 2012, Lerner led the division of the IRS that subjected some nonprofit organizations, including Tea Party and conservative groups, to added scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status, a controversy that she acknowledged in response to a question at an event in 2013.

============================
from; Tea Party Groups Targeted by Lerner's IRS Receive Settlement Checks

MADISON, Wis.—Dozens of conservative organizations are receiving late Christmas presents years after the IRS handed them a lump of coal.

The federal government in recent days has been issuing settlement checks to 100 right-of-center groups wrongfully targeted for their political beliefs under the Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service, according to an attorney for the firm that represented plaintiffs in NorCal v. United States.


Most of the claimants will each receive a check for approximately $14,000, Greim said. Five conservative groups that were integrally involved in the lawsuit get a bonus payment of $10,000 each, the attorney said.

About $2 million of the settlement goes to cover the legal costs of five long years of litigation. IRS attorneys attempted delay after delay, objection after objection, trying to use the very taxpayer protection statutes the plaintiffs were suing under to suppress documents.

The agency has admitted no wrongdoing in what a federal report found to be incidents of intrusive inspections of organizations seeking nonprofit status. Greim has said the seven-figure settlement suggests otherwise.

An IRS spokesman declined to comment.

Disgraced former bureaucrat Lois Lerner led the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt groups. A 2013 inspector general’s report found the IRS had singled out conservative and tea party organizations for intense scrutiny, oftentimes simply based on their conservative-sounding or tea party names. The IRS delayed for months, even years, the applications, and some groups were improperly questioned about their donors and their religious affiliations and practices.

===========================

from: 2013 Highlights: IRS scandal

On May 10 the director of the IRS Exempt Organizations division Lois Lerner stated that the IRS was targeting certain conservative Tea Party groups for additional scrutiny as early as 2010. A report by the Treasury inspector general for Tax Administration showed that Lerner was informed about the targeting in June 2011. The audit report was made public on May 14."



"Internal Revenue Service employees were told as early as 2010 to ""Be On the Look Out"" for Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations seeking tax exempt status, according to a lengthy inspector general report released Tuesday. An investigation by the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration found that IRS agents used ""inappropriate criteria"" to flag certain conservative groups for additional scrutiny, including those with ""Tea Party,"" ""Patriot"" and ""9/12"" in their names. The agency also was targeting those groups at least a year longer than previously thought. The report confirms long held suspicions by conservative groups seeking a tax-exempt classification that they have been wrongly targeted by the IRS because of their political leanings."

===========================================
from Report: IRS targeting conservative groups since 2010

The report blamed the targeting on "insufficient oversight provided by [IRS} management" at the agency's offices in Cincinnati, but Republicans say agency officials in Washington knew groups were being targeted.

"The evidence is continuing to point to they did know about it," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Tuesday. "This wasn't just a bunch of insignificant staffers in Ohio. It involved a lot of people and some of them were very high-level people."

The inspector general found that the additional scrutiny the IRS was applying to conservative groups was also significantly delaying those groups from being approved for tax-exempt status. Investigators said they also found that IRS employees were tagging applications from conservative groups with the words "Be On The Look Out," or BOLO, to alert others at the agency that it required additional scrutiny.

It wasn't using the IRS for political purposes, .

I guess that's "one way" to recast the IG's report....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,156
36,476
Los Angeles Area
✟827,693.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
why should congress care?

Centuries of precedent on how Justice is to be impartial. But now we have a modern-day president with his thumb on the scales of Justice.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,593
Georgia
✟909,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Centuries of precedent on how Justice is to be impartial. .

hint: we are not talking about the judicial branch - we are talking about the legislative branch and the fact that the AG "derives its authority" from the President - for whom it serves. No wonder Holder was claiming to be "Obama's wing man"

Even Barr had already agreed that the sentence in Stone's case "was extreme" in a meeting held the day before "a tweet was seen" by fake news outlets
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,156
36,476
Los Angeles Area
✟827,693.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I thought it was Obama's IRS that was going after his enemies

Many people thought so and claimed so, but it didn't turn out to be the case when it was investigated.

Only three groups - all branches of the Democratic group Emerge America - had tax exemptions revoked.[2] Lerner resigned over the controversy. An investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, completed in 2015, found "substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia" but "found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution."
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,156
36,476
Los Angeles Area
✟827,693.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Even Barr had already agreed that the sentence in Stone's case "was extreme" in a meeting held the day before "a tweet

Do you have evidence of this? It seems unlikely, given the timeline.

Monday 6:07 p.m. Justice Department prosecutors argue in a sentencing memo that Roger Stone's crimes warranted a sentence of seven to nine years in prison

Tuesday 1:48 a.m. President Donald Trump complains on Twitter about the Justice Department's sentencing recommendation
 
  • Like
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,429.00
Faith
Atheist
That did not turn out to be true - turns out it was abuse of power.

============================
"Lerner betrayed the nation’s trust yet managed to avoid prosecution,” Buchanan said. “Heads should roll and people should be held accountable for this gross abuse of power.”

Peter Roskam, the Illinois chairman of the tax subcommittee, also criticized the decision, terming it "a miscarriage of justice."

Previously, the lawmakers had suggested that the Obama Department of Justice had declined to prosecute Lerner in 2015 because it was taking political cues from Obama. In 2014, their committee had voted to refer Lerner to the Justice Department for prosecution for her role in the targeting scandal.

From 2010 to 2012, Lerner led the division of the IRS that subjected some nonprofit organizations, including Tea Party and conservative groups, to added scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status, a controversy that she acknowledged in response to a question at an event in 2013.

============================
from; Tea Party Groups Targeted by Lerner's IRS Receive Settlement Checks

MADISON, Wis.—Dozens of conservative organizations are receiving late Christmas presents years after the IRS handed them a lump of coal.

The federal government in recent days has been issuing settlement checks to 100 right-of-center groups wrongfully targeted for their political beliefs under the Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service, according to an attorney for the firm that represented plaintiffs in NorCal v. United States.


Most of the claimants will each receive a check for approximately $14,000, Greim said. Five conservative groups that were integrally involved in the lawsuit get a bonus payment of $10,000 each, the attorney said.

About $2 million of the settlement goes to cover the legal costs of five long years of litigation. IRS attorneys attempted delay after delay, objection after objection, trying to use the very taxpayer protection statutes the plaintiffs were suing under to suppress documents.

The agency has admitted no wrongdoing in what a federal report found to be incidents of intrusive inspections of organizations seeking nonprofit status. Greim has said the seven-figure settlement suggests otherwise.

An IRS spokesman declined to comment.

Disgraced former bureaucrat Lois Lerner led the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt groups. A 2013 inspector general’s report found the IRS had singled out conservative and tea party organizations for intense scrutiny, oftentimes simply based on their conservative-sounding or tea party names. The IRS delayed for months, even years, the applications, and some groups were improperly questioned about their donors and their religious affiliations and practices.

===========================

from: 2013 Highlights: IRS scandal

On May 10 the director of the IRS Exempt Organizations division Lois Lerner stated that the IRS was targeting certain conservative Tea Party groups for additional scrutiny as early as 2010. A report by the Treasury inspector general for Tax Administration showed that Lerner was informed about the targeting in June 2011. The audit report was made public on May 14."

"Internal Revenue Service employees were told as early as 2010 to ""Be On the Look Out"" for Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations seeking tax exempt status, according to a lengthy inspector general report released Tuesday. An investigation by the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration found that IRS agents used ""inappropriate criteria"" to flag certain conservative groups for additional scrutiny, including those with ""Tea Party,"" ""Patriot"" and ""9/12"" in their names. The agency also was targeting those groups at least a year longer than previously thought. The report confirms long held suspicions by conservative groups seeking a tax-exempt classification that they have been wrongly targeted by the IRS because of their political leanings."

===========================================
from Report: IRS targeting conservative groups since 2010

The report blamed the targeting on "insufficient oversight provided by [IRS} management" at the agency's offices in Cincinnati, but Republicans say agency officials in Washington knew groups were being targeted.

"The evidence is continuing to point to they did know about it," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Tuesday. "This wasn't just a bunch of insignificant staffers in Ohio. It involved a lot of people and some of them were very high-level people."

The inspector general found that the additional scrutiny the IRS was applying to conservative groups was also significantly delaying those groups from being approved for tax-exempt status. Investigators said they also found that IRS employees were tagging applications from conservative groups with the words "Be On The Look Out," or BOLO, to alert others at the agency that it required additional scrutiny.

I guess that's "one way" to recast the IG's report....

A hit piece from the right-wing rag "The Washington Examiner" certainly didn't shirk away from putting it's own spin on the actual story.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
...
Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks.

Washington Examiner - Media Bias/Fact Check
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,593
Georgia
✟909,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
A hit piece from the right-wing rag "The Washington Examiner" certainly didn't shirk away from putting it's own spin on the actual story.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes

So many have argued that CNN and MSNBC are biased toward DNC agendas -- is that still "News"?

media watch bias cnn msnbc - Bing video

In any case - I simply point the reader to the inspector general report... You are free to not read it if you like .. going after the Examiner does not change the IG report on the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,593
Georgia
✟909,757.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Centuries of precedent on how Justice is to be impartial. .

hint: we are not talking about the judicial branch - we are talking about the legislative branch and the fact that the AG "derives its authority" from the President - for whom it serves. No wonder Holder was claiming to be "Obama's wing man"

Even Barr had already agreed that the sentence in Stone's case "was extreme" in a meeting held the day before "a tweet was seen" by fake news outlets


Do you have evidence of this? It seems unlikely,

Barr said this on video regarding the timeline - and of course -- I would hope no one is spying on the AG to surveil those meetings ... so we have his word at this point.


========================================================
from: AG Barr says DOJ went behind his back on Stone sentencing – here’s his claim

Barr indicated he supported Stone’s conviction, but told prosecutors to “defer to the discretion of the judge” for sentencing. He said the prosecutors instead disobeyed that directive and filed a sentencing memo seeking the sentence of up to nine years.

“At the end of the day we deferred to [the judge], and that was what the approach was I thought we were going to take,” Barr said.

When news reports first appeared last week indicating prosecutors would seek a sentence of up to nine years, Barr said he thought it was just spin by the news media.

“When I first saw the news reports, I said ‘gee, the news is spinning this. This is not what we were going to do,'” Barr said. “I was very surprised.”

Barr said once he was able to confirm the media reports of a nine-year sentencing recommendation as accurate, he immediately told his staff to prepare to amend the sentencing request by the following morning.

The Attorney General said his efforts to correct the sentencing guidelines, which he felt were excessive for the Stone’s crimes, were complicated by a critical tweet from President Trump.

“This is a horrible and very unfair situation,” Trump said, before calling the sentencing a “miscarriage of justice.”

This is a horrible and very unfair situation. The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice! Chuck Ross on Twitter

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 11, 2020

Barr said he was already working to revise the sentencing recommendation when he became aware of Trump’s tweet.

“I don’t look at tweets. I don’t read tweets, unless they are brought to my attention,” Barr said.

======================================================

from - McCarthy: DOJ Made Decision to Override Roger Stone Sentencing Before Trump’s Tweet

"(CNSNews.com) - The Department of Justice had already made the decision to override the sentencing recommendation for Trump associate Roger Stone long before President Donald Trump tweeted about it"

Keven McCarthy: "“ the president’s not interfering, because if you listen to the Department of Justice, they made the decision before the tweet ever went out. Attorney General Barr is coming before the committee as well, but there’s no issue here,”

=====================

from Roger Stone & Trump -- Barr Denies President Told Him to Intervene | National Review

"Barr also confirmed that he had already made the decision to change the sentencing recommendation before Trump tweeted early Tuesday morning that the lengthy prison recommendation was a miscarriage of justice "
 
Upvote 0