AG Garland Appoints Jack Smith as Special Prosecutor

[Fantine]

to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 election, as well as the documents Trump held at Mar-a-Lago.

More interesting is the response of former AG Bill Barr to the news:

"Former Attorney General Bill Barr said he believes the Justice Department may have enough evidence to indict Donald Trump for his handling of sensitive White House documents.

"I personally think that they probably have the basis for legitimately indicting the president," Barr said, referring to Trump, in an interview with PBS that aired Friday."

Bill Barr said he thinks the DOJ probably has a 'basis for legitimately indicting' Trump over Mar-a-Lago documents

Bill Barr, who was a close Trump ally before rejecting election fraud claims, told PBS the DOJ likely has the evidence needed in the documents case.

news.yahoo.com

I trust that Barr is knowledgeable about the law and rules of evidence, and his acknowledgment that there is probably enough evidence to indict should dispel any comments that it is a baseless witch hunt.

 

[DaisyDay]

I keep picturing Agent Smith...

I hope this goes more quickly than the Horowitz investigation. And gets better results.

 

[Say it aint so]

to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 election, as well as the documents Trump held at Mar-a-Lago.

More interesting is the response of former AG Bill Barr to the news:

"Former Attorney General Bill Barr said he believes the Justice Department may have enough evidence to indict Donald Trump for his handling of sensitive White House documents.

"I personally think that they probably have the basis for legitimately indicting the president," Barr said, referring to Trump, in an interview with PBS that aired Friday."

Bill Barr said he thinks the DOJ probably has a 'basis for legitimately indicting' Trump over Mar-a-Lago documents

Bill Barr, who was a close Trump ally before rejecting election fraud claims, told PBS the DOJ likely has the evidence needed in the documents case.

news.yahoo.com

I trust that Barr is knowledgeable about the law and rules of evidence, and his acknowledgment that there is probably enough evidence to indict should dispel any comments that it is a baseless witch hunt.

I personally think this is a wee bit more than just trying to keep a conflict of interest at bay. I think the Jan 6th part may go into the 2024 elections and, just like Barr did with Durhams late appointment, keeps a potential GOP presidential win from killing the investigation with a change of AGs. Let's not forget there were several GOP congress people who were waiting, willing and active participants in the attempt to subvert the election process to steal the election.

 

[Fantine]

I personally think this is a wee bit more than just trying to keep a conflict of interest at bay. I think the Jan 6th part may go into the 2024 elections and, just like Barr did with Durhams late appointment, keeps a potential GOP presidential win from killing the investigation with a change of AGs. Let's not forget there were several GOP congress people who were waiting, willing and active participants in the attempt to subvert the election process to steal the election.

The matter seems to have been very thoroughly investigated by the Congressional committee except for Trump's testimony, which is really unnecessary. The committee is being polite in allowing him to present his side of the story in his own words.

My courtroom experience is limited to jury duty and TV legal dramas, but lots of defendants are advised by their lawyers not to testify--but the wheels of justice still turn.

 

[Brihaha]

Trump's malfeasance has certainly been a boon for attorneys in America. We didn't know the first A in Maga stood for attorneys.

Barr absolutely knows Trump deserves to be indicted. It's likely why he resigned in December after hearing Trump's plans. Barr may actually have abandoned his duties too soon. As attorney general Barr had a duty to protect America from such Trump nonsense.

 

[disciple Clint]

to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 election, as well as the documents Trump held at Mar-a-Lago.

More interesting is the response of former AG Bill Barr to the news:

"Former Attorney General Bill Barr said he believes the Justice Department may have enough evidence to indict Donald Trump for his handling of sensitive White House documents.

"I personally think that they probably have the basis for legitimately indicting the president," Barr said, referring to Trump, in an interview with PBS that aired Friday."

Bill Barr said he thinks the DOJ probably has a 'basis for legitimately indicting' Trump over Mar-a-Lago documents

Bill Barr, who was a close Trump ally before rejecting election fraud claims, told PBS the DOJ likely has the evidence needed in the documents case.

news.yahoo.com

I trust that Barr is knowledgeable about the law and rules of evidence, and his acknowledgment that there is probably enough evidence to indict should dispel any comments that it is a baseless witch hunt.

Fascinating how some people's opinion of Barr has all of a sudden changed dramatically, who was it that just a few months ago was calling him owned by Trump and dishonest and several other not so nice adjectives

 

[Fantine]

I am not a fan of Barr's but recognize that he is knowledgeable about what is required to bring charges against a person being investigated.
Just saw that Smith took this position and left prosecuting war crimes in the Hague. The commentator said you don't leave a job like that unless it's something imminent and urgent.

 

[Arcangl86]

I love how Trump's immediate reaction was to claim that Jack Smith hated him, when it's likely he never even heard of him before the appointment. Already trying to discredit the Special Counsel.

 

[disciple Clint]

I am not a fan of Barr's but recognize that he is knowledgeable about what is required to bring charges against a person being investigated.
Just saw that Smith took this position and left prosecuting war crimes in the Hague. The commentator said you don't leave a job like that unless it's something imminent and urgent.

And so now you agree that when Barr said Trump had not violated the law he was correct.

 

[Fantine]

No, of course not. Like many conservatives, his desire for power caused him to ignore the law.
Now that Trump can't help their cause they tell the truth about him.

 

[disciple Clint]

No, of course not. Like many conservatives, his desire for power caused him to ignore the law.
Now that Trump can't help their cause they tell the truth about him.

Oh so you are saying he has no personal integrity except of course when he says something against Trump. That clears things up nicely

 

[DaisyDay]

Oh so you are saying he has no personal integrity except of course when he says something against Trump. That clears things up nicely

How do you explain his changed stance re Donald?

 

[Fantine]

Oh so you are saying he has no personal integrity except of course when he says something against Trump. That clears things up nicely

He had also been AG in the 1980's and there were dome questionable actions then.

But after seeing hiw he shut down and obstructed the Mueller report you can really question that?

But he didn't do it for Trump personally. It was more to keep gaining ground in the battle to dismantle our democracy that continues today.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 election, as well as the documents Trump held at Mar-a-Lago.

More interesting is the response of former AG Bill Barr to the news:

"Former Attorney General Bill Barr said he believes the Justice Department may have enough evidence to indict Donald Trump for his handling of sensitive White House documents.

"I personally think that they probably have the basis for legitimately indicting the president," Barr said, referring to Trump, in an interview with PBS that aired Friday."

Bill Barr said he thinks the DOJ probably has a 'basis for legitimately indicting' Trump over Mar-a-Lago documents

Bill Barr, who was a close Trump ally before rejecting election fraud claims, told PBS the DOJ likely has the evidence needed in the documents case.

news.yahoo.com

I trust that Barr is knowledgeable about the law and rules of evidence, and his acknowledgment that there is probably enough evidence to indict should dispel any comments that it is a baseless witch hunt.

I don't know. Can you really trust a guy who can criticize the Biden Administration after all the subterfuge and obfuscation and misuse of his office when he was the AG? Or how about his mishandling and misrepresentation of the Muller report? Very sneaky one he is. In fact, I remember someone saying that AG Barr should be indicted because "that is what needs to be done to level the playing field before we can move forward."

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Oh so you are saying he has no personal integrity except of course when he says something against Trump. That clears things up nicely

I am cringing so hard right now.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't know. Can you really trust a guy who can criticize the Biden Administration after all the subterfuge and obfuscation and misuse of his office when he was the AG? Or how about his mishandling and misrepresentation of the Muller report? Very sneaky one he is. In fact, I remember someone saying that AG Barr should be indicted because "that is what needs to be done to level the playing field before we can move forward."

Um, trust him to do what, exactly? Trust is on a spectrum, not a binary. I may trust someone to mail a letter for me, but not to manage my life's savings.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Um, trust him to do what, exactly? Trust is on a spectrum, not a binary. I may trust someone to mail a letter for me, but not to manage my life's savings.

I am sorry, but I don't think the comment was directed towards you.

 

[DaisyDay]

I am sorry, but I don't think the comment was directed towards you.

So what? Post on a public forum, get responses from the public.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

How do you explain his changed stance re Donald?

How do you explain your change in stance against Barr?

 

[DaisyDay]

How do you explain your change in stance against Barr?

How has my stance changed?