So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?

Goonie · May 4, 2019

William Barr: is his defence of Trump paving the road to tyranny?
“The president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course,” Barr told senators. “The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused.

Seriously?!!

Aryeh Jay · May 4, 2019

The President is the Leader and everyone the Leader appoints to a position works for the Leader. Also, it is impossible for a Republican President who was elected by the people to commit any crimes, by the very nature of being a chosen Republican President, everything is legal. God bless our Greatest Elected Leader Ever!

Aryeh Jay · May 4, 2019

Goonie said:
I'm in the UK, never watched CNN. The question being asked is fair because Barr is going above and beyond in

That is why Trump only hires the BEST! Above AND Beyond!

The “Buzz Lightyear” of Attorney General’s

DeepWater · May 4, 2019

Aryeh Jay said:
The President is the Leader and everyone the Leader appoints to a position works for the Leader. Also, it is impossible for a Republican President who was elected by the people to commit any crimes, by the very nature of being a chosen Republican President, everything is legal. God bless our Greatest Elected Leader Ever!

I voted for Trump, as the only means i had to try to keep Hillary out of the White House.
So, more then a pure vote for Trump, my vote was a leverage against Hillary.
Sort of a "Lesser of 2 evils", is my pov, regarding my Vote casting.

I did realize one thing about Trump, that has come to pass, and that is this..
The USA, is Capitalism. This means that its actually a big business, as an idea of a Democracy.
So, who better then to run a Big Business, then a Big Businessman.
This is just Logical.
See, you don't need a political person in Charge of a Money TREE.
You need a money maker, who understands how to Grow the Tree.
And He has.

And would i prefer, Mike Pence, or Huckabee, or many of the other 2016 Rep. who were running for office to be in the WH........Yes.....but they are not, and Hillary isn't in there, so, thats a Vote for Israel.
So, im good.

And what you just described, Aryeh Jay, is a sort of innuendo that i hear all the time on CNN. and MSNBC..
Continual Innuendo spoken as Truth, and discussed all day, every day, by talking heads as if its true, with nothing ever proven......Just endless slander, being preached, 24/7.

DeepWater · May 4, 2019

Goonie said:
I'm in the UK, never watched CNN. The question being asked is fair. Barr's claim that it would not be corrupt for the subject of an investigation to close said investigation down, because he the subject of the investigation claims it is false is patently absurd. His support for a dictatorial presidency, where the president is both judge and jury, is music to Donald's ears.

Here is the problem.
You have Mueller's report that found nothing that matters.
If it did, then Mueller would have charged Trump.
So, RIGHT THERE< as the AG is explaining......for this to continue, is just angry witches in a witch Hunt keeping the fake ball in play, for as long as possible.

So, because Mueller failed to find the corruption that Dems and most of Gov wanted and prayed that He would find....... so....he did something next that is underhanded and deceitful.
He realized that if he framed the "nothing found" evidence, as the idea that "but maybe their could be"......then the News Outlets and the Dems who all hate Trump, could then SPIN his report until the end of time, against Trump......just to keep the IDEA alive that Trump is Dirty, yet, Mueller, didn't prove it, is the bottom line.
So, its all now a MEDIA DRIVEN game of innuendo and deceit, that uses the "could be guility" assault, as Truth.
And this feeds the angry mod of Trump haters, every day and night and keeps them all in lock step.
See, this all proves that it isn't TRUTH they are after...., and they are not going to change their "see if our fake Trump-mud sticks to the wall" commentary.... for as Long as Trump is in the WH.

Someone put it this way.
"The dogs are always barking, but the Elephant keeps moving forward".

Goonie · May 4, 2019

DeepWater said:
Here is the problem.
You have Mueller's report that found nothing that matters.
If it did, then Mueller would have charged Trump.
So, RIGHT THERE< as the AG is explaining......for this to continue, is just angry witches in a witch Hunt keeping the fake ball in play, for as long as possible.

So, because Mueller failed to find the corruption that Dems and most of Gov wanted and prayed that He would find....... so....he did something next that is underhanded and deceitful.
He realized that if he framed the "nothing found" evidence, as the idea that "but maybe their could be"......then the News Outlets and the Dems that all hate Trump, could then SPIN his report until the end of time, against Trump......just to keep the IDEA alive that Trump is Dirty, yet, Mueller, didn't prove it, is the bottom line.
So, its all now a MEDIA DRIVEN game of innuendo and deceit, that uses the "could be guility" assault, as Truth.
And this feed the angry mod of Trump haters, and keeps them all in lock step.
See, this all proves that it isn't TRUTH they are after...., and they are not going to change their "see if our fake Trump-mud sticks to the wall".... for as Long as Trump is in the WH.

Someone put it this way.
"The dogs are always barking, but the Elephant keeps moving forward".

Except as the report made clear Mueller believes that it is impossible to criminally indict a sitting president, so he never set out to indict him. What he did was provide evidence for Congress/senate to impeach, and on obstruction there is most definitely a case, just like Nixon.

Goonie · May 4, 2019

DeepWater said:
Here is the problem.
You have Mueller's report that found nothing that matters.
If it did, then Mueller would have charged Trump.
So, RIGHT THERE< as the AG is explaining......for this to continue, is just angry witches in a witch Hunt keeping the fake ball in play, for as long as possible.

So, because Mueller failed to find the corruption that Dems and most of Gov wanted and prayed that He would find....... so....he did something next that is underhanded and deceitful.
He realized that if he framed the "nothing found" evidence, as the idea that "but maybe their could be"......then the News Outlets and the Dems who all hate Trump, could then SPIN his report until the end of time, against Trump......just to keep the IDEA alive that Trump is Dirty, yet, Mueller, didn't prove it, is the bottom line.
So, its all now a MEDIA DRIVEN game of innuendo and deceit, that uses the "could be guility" assault, as Truth.
And this feeds the angry mod of Trump haters, every day and night and keeps them all in lock step.
See, this all proves that it isn't TRUTH they are after...., and they are not going to change their "see if our fake Trump-mud sticks to the wall" commentary.... for as Long as Trump is in the WH.

Someone put it this way.
"The dogs are always barking, but the Elephant keeps moving forward".

Oh, and please stop lying about Mueller being deceitfully, that is just bearing false witness.

DeepWater · May 4, 2019

Goonie said:
Except as the report made clear Mueller believes that it is impossible to criminally indict a sitting president, so he never set out to indict him. What he did was provide evidence for Congress/senate to impeach, and on obstruction there is most definitely a case, just like Nixon.

CNN states, (spins) that the report provided clear evidence......of what?.......nothing.
They just imply there is a smoking gun, but they have no gun, and only keep blowing smoke.
The report states that there is no clear evidence, that would be considered substantial.
If there was, substantial evidence, The Dems would have started to impeach the very next day.
So, this is a facade. Its an opera. Its a Democrat political opportunist's joyride.
Its angry Socialists, who own CNN and MSNBC, and many of the same in our Congress and Senate, grasping at "Mueller's Straws", as their way to VENT their frustration that they lost the Election... But mostly, = its all a FRONT and a GUISE the socialists misuse and manipulate to continually try to create an environment of polarization and chaos within the USA, as this is what a Socialist or Communist wants.
"uprising".. by design.
"social unrest", by design.
This is so obvious., and its nothing new.

HTacianas · May 4, 2019

Goonie said:
William Barr: is his defence of Trump paving the road to tyranny?
“The president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course,” Barr told senators. “The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused.

Seriously?!!

So is that statement true or is it false?

whatbogsends · May 4, 2019

DeepWater said:
The reason i asked you if you work for CNN, is because your question is the same one they are asking.
Its interesting that news outlets like CNN, have become the home to disgruntled people who use to work for Trump, or people who can't stand that He is President.... all being given a chance to rant their hatred for him, 24/7.
That's not really "news", but it is exactly CNN or MSNBC.
I find it annoying, so, don't watch those stations.
And you mentioned "parrots", well, what i often hear is a person who sounds just like i'm watching CNN, and so, ...that would reflect your definition of "parrot"... wouldn't it?

You sound like a person who is disconnected from reality if you think OP question isn't a meaningful question, and if you think everything that is happening with AG Barr regarding this investigation is on the up and up.

whatbogsends · May 4, 2019

DeepWater said:
I voted for Trump, as the only means i had to try to keep Hillary out of the White House.
So, more then a pure vote for Trump, my vote was a leverage against Hillary.
Sort of a "Lesser of 2 evils", is my pov, regarding my Vote casting.

I did realize one thing about Trump, that has come to pass, and that is this..
The USA, is Capitalism. This means that its actually a big business, as an idea of a Democracy.
So, who better then to run a Big Business, then a Big Businessman.
This is just Logical.
See, you don't need a political person in Charge of a Money TREE.
You need a money maker, who understands how to Grow the Tree.
And He has.

And would i prefer, Mike Pence, or Huckabee, or many of the other 2016 Rep. who were running for office to be in the WH........Yes.....but they are not, and Hillary isn't in there, so, thats a Vote for Israel.
So, im good.

And what you just described, Aryeh Jay, is a sort of innuendo that i hear all the time on CNN. and MSNBC..
Continual Innuendo spoken as Truth, and discussed all day, every day, by talking heads as if its true, with nothing ever proven......Just endless slander, being preached, 24/7.

You didn't vote for the lesser of two evils when you voted for Trump.

The USA is a government that is supposed to operate for the good of the people. Business is amoral, operating only to return profits to their shareholders. When you elected "businessman" Donald Trump, you elected an amoral leader, who doesn't care about the good of the people, only his own bottom line. Your logic is an epic fail.

Moreover, Trump is more of a con man than a business man. Dues to his repeated bankruptcies, US banks stopped lending to him long ago. He has been getting his financing from Russia for quite a while now, and his stint as President appears to be part of his payback.

Your "money maker" has accelerated deficit spending, despite being handed a thriving economy.

Your entire reasoning for why you voted for Trump is flawed.

essentialsaltes · May 4, 2019

Trump first chose Jeff Sessions, and Trump was angered when Sessions recused himself, because he expected Sessions to be his personal defender rather than the nation's top lawyer. Trump already has personal lawyers. The Office of the President already has lawyers. The Attorney General is a different job altogether.

But Barr 'interviewed' for the job with his memo stating his views on the Mueller investigation. And he got it after Trump finally fired Sessions. And Barr is carrying out the job in that spirit -- one of protecting Trump from investigation. By all rights, he should be recusing himself because of his own prejudicial statements on the matter, but I'm sure that was job interview question #1 from Trump. "You're not going to recuse yourself, are you?"

Ringo84 · May 4, 2019

Goonie said:
Sorry? I ask a fair question, and you parrot nonsense.

Don't be sorry, Goonie. All they have left is to whine about "CNN" and "fake news" as their criminal president continues to flaunt the law.

To answer your question: Barr seems to think that he's the president's personal lawyer. He's wrong, and I hope the House spares no expense in disabusing him of that notion.
Ringo

Albion · May 4, 2019

Barr was highly regarded for his integrity, experience, and knowledge when he was confirmed. Only weeks later, he is a shill for the President. And all because he relayed the Mueller report to Congress and it did not support the hopes of the progressives. Its actually somewhat humorous, which I suspect is how Barr views the matter as well.

whatbogsends · May 4, 2019

Albion said:
Barr was highly regarded for his integrity, experience, and knowledge when he was confirmed. Only weeks later, he is a shill for the President. And all because he relayed the Mueller report to Congress and it did not support the hopes of the progressives. Its actually somewhat humorous, which I suspect is how Barr views the matter as well.

As usual, your post directly contradicts reality.

There were concerns raised when Barr was confirmed, and those concerns have now been realized. Barr's summary of principle conclusions of the report was misleading, and Mueller informed Barr of that immediately after Barr released his summary. When asked if he was aware off Mueller's concerns about Barr's summary, he falsely answered no.

Barr has attempted to control the narrative of the report, and has tried to hide between interpretation of language (such as "having McGahn removed" isn't related to "having McGahn fired"), while using sloppy language himself (his summary indicated that the report found "no collusion", whereas Mueller specifically indicated they weren't looking for "collusion", as it isn't a legal term.

Speedwell · May 4, 2019

DeepWater said:
Here is the problem.
You have Mueller's report that found nothing that matters.

And that is the falsehood from which this whole kerfluffle springs. Mueller did indeed find something that matters. Something more import than collusion, something that the administration has been tying itself in knots to dismiss. something the President still denies.

From the Mueller report:

“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”

NotreDame · May 4, 2019

Goonie said:
I'm in the UK, never watched CNN. The question being asked is fair. Barr's claim that it would not be corrupt for the subject of an investigation to close said investigation down, because he the subject of the investigation claims it is false is patently absurd. His support for a dictatorial presidency, where the president is both judge and jury, is music to Donald's ears.

Yeah, I had hopes your question was a sincere, legit question...until I read your use of the word “dictatorial.”

Read Barr’s quote in your opening post more carefully. He’s making a very specific, and narrow point, that has absolutely nothing to do with alleging or defending a dictatorial presidency.

USincognito · May 4, 2019

Goonie said:
William Barr: is his defence of Trump paving the road to tyranny?
“The president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course,” Barr told senators. “The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused.

Seriously?!!

Barr was brought in to carry water for Trump. With Cohen gone, I'm not surprised he sees being Don's mob lawyer as part of his purview.

NotreDame · May 4, 2019

whatbogsends said:
As usual, your post directly contradicts reality.

There were concerns raised when Barr was confirmed, and those concerns have now been realized.

Barr has attempted to control the narrative of the report, and has tried to hide between interpretation of language (such as "having McGahn removed" isn't related to "having McGahn fired"), while using sloppy language himself (his summary indicated that the report found "no collusion", whereas Mueller specifically indicated they weren't looking for "collusion", as it isn't a legal term.

Barr's summary of principle conclusions of the report was misleading, and Mueller informed Barr of that immediately after Barr released his summary. When asked if he was aware off Mueller's concerns about Barr's summary, he falsely answered no.

That’s not correct. His summary was not misleading. He wasn’t asked if he knew of “Mueller’s concerns.”

And your likely retort, which you made in the other thread, isn’t compelling. “Crist: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the report's findings. Do you know what they are referencing with that?
Barr: No, I don't.”

That’s not the same as asking about Mueller’s thoughts.

RocksInMyHead · May 4, 2019

NotreDame said:
Read Barr’s quote in your opening post more carefully. He’s making a very specific, and narrow point, that has absolutely nothing to do with alleging or defending a dictatorial presidency.

Are you hinging your analysis on the word "intent"? Because I disagree with that analysis too. Unilaterally ending an investigation that you are the subject of, even if you have been falsely accused, is corrupt and of corrupt intent. The claim that Trump is being falsely accused comes from Trump himself. How do we verify that claim? By completing the investigation. If the President can simply say "I'm being falsely accused!" and terminate an investigation into himself unilaterally, that is a defining characteristic of tyranny.

NotreDame said:
And your likely retort, which you made in the other thread, isn’t compelling. “Crist: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the report's findings. Do you know what they are referencing with that?
Barr: No, I don't.”

That’s not the same as asking about Mueller’s thoughts.

Is Mueller himself not a member of his own team?

So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?

Not so Mystic Mog.

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Just The Truth

Just The Truth

Not so Mystic Mog.

Not so Mystic Mog.

Just The Truth

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Stranger in a Strange Land

Separation of Church and State expert

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Domer

a post by Alan Smithee

Domer

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Similar threads