Judge says Barr distorted Mueller findings

[hal2kilo]

No, but he had the final word on the redactions. He could, at his discretion, add or remove redactions.
The point is that his dishonestly makes it so that the judge does not trust that he did so fairly. It is about integrity, and Barrs lack of it, rather than a legal issue.
The Judge is saying that the redacted report is only as trustworthy as the person that redacted it. Barr is not trustworthy, so neither is his redaction of it.


I agree, now who do you suppose we get to prosecute the head prosecutor?
Remember, this case is over whether or not Congress can have the evidence they would need to prosecute him.


No, what is important is the actual evidence, not the evidence that might or might not have been tampered with. We don't know if the evidence was tampered with. That is what this case is trying to find out!


So, you would think that if a suspected criminal refused to allow the police to search his car, even with a warrant, it is because the cops are the ones that can't be trusted?

Don't follow this joker down the obtuse trail.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

I agree, now who do you suppose we get to prosecute the head prosecutor?
Remember, this case is over whether or not Congress can have the evidence they would need to prosecute him.

The case may be over for Trump but not for Barr if Barr broke the law. He can be recused. There are contingencies already in place, right? Of course there are.

No, what is important is the actual evidence, not the evidence that might or might not have been tampered with. We don't know if the evidence was tampered with. That is what this case is trying to find out!

Good, we agree. Look in to whether Barr broke the law or not and prosecute accordingly. Something tells me that some people here won't accept any verdict other than guilty on all charges. It's fairly clear that far too many people are making assumptions and clinging to unproven conclusions based solely on partisanship or emotional irrationality.

So, you would think that if a suspected criminal refused to allow the police to search his car, even with a warrant, it is because the cops are the ones that can't be trusted?

This is a complete red herring. We're not talking about illegal search and seizure or probable cause.

 

[Jhhnn]

No putting words in my mouth for you! I make no evaluation of Barr's letter. What part of "irrelevant" to me is confusing?

So why are you commenting in a thread about Barr lying? Just to tell us it doesn't matter to you?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The case may be over for Trump but not for Barr if Barr broke the law. He can be recused. There are contingencies already in place, right? Of course there are.

No there are not. We are in, mostly, uncharted territory. The only other time something like this happened was with Eric Holder, and that case is yet to be decide more that 14 years later. If the President will not hold him accountable there is no real process for doing anything about a corrupt AG.

It's fairly clear that far too many people are making assumptions and clinging to unproven conclusions based solely on partisanship or emotional irrationality.

What people are asking for here is to see the evidence. His complete refusal to cooperate even with Congress, who should have the ability to see the evidence, is quite damning.

This is a complete red herring. We're not talking about illegal search and seizure or probable cause.

Yes we are. That is exactly analogous to what we are talking about. Barr is being investigated, and is refusing a subpoena from the 'police' that is charged with oversite of him, and you are trying to claim that it is because he does not trust them.

 

[Jhhnn]

No there are not. We are in, mostly, uncharted territory. The only other time something like this happened was with Eric Holder, and that case is yet to be decide more that 14 years later. If the President will not hold him accountable there is no real process for doing anything about a corrupt AG.


What people are asking for here is to see the evidence. His complete refusal to cooperate even with Congress, who should have the ability to see the evidence, is quite damning.




Yes we are. That is exactly analogous to what we are talking about. Barr is being investigated, and is refusing a subpoena from the 'police' that is charged with oversite of him, and you are trying to claim that it is because he does not trust them.

They all lie for Trump, from the Cabinet to the lowliest troll on the internet. And they lie for the other liars, as well.

 

[HomerJS]

The case may be over for Trump but not for Barr if Barr broke the law. He can be recused. There are contingencies already in place, right? Of course there are.



Good, we agree. Look in to whether Barr broke the law or not and prosecute accordingly. Something tells me that some people here won't accept any verdict other than guilty on all charges. It's fairly clear that far too many people are making assumptions and clinging to unproven conclusions based solely on partisanship or emotional irrationality.



This is a complete red herring. We're not talking about illegal search and seizure or probable cause.

Based on our current government structure who would prosecute Barr?

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

So why are you commenting in a thread about Barr lying? Just to tell us it doesn't matter to you?

Yes, that's what forums are for: the free exchange of ideas.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

What people are asking for here is to see the evidence. His complete refusal to cooperate even with Congress, who should have the ability to see the evidence, is quite damning.

The reason information was redacted was to prevent disruption in ongoing investigations. Congress isn't to be trusted. They leak like a sieve. I have no problem with that reasoning, provided the unredacted report is released once all the tertiary investigations are complete.

Yes we are. That is exactly analogous to what we are talking about. Barr is being investigated, and is refusing a subpoena from the 'police' that is charged with oversite of him, and you are trying to claim that it is because he does not trust them.

Do you trust Congress? Lol?

 

[hal2kilo]

The reason information was redacted was to prevent disruption in ongoing investigations. Congress isn't to be trusted. They leak like a sieve. I have no problem with that reasoning, provided the unredacted report is released once all the tertiary investigations are complete.



Do you trust Congress? Lol?

If it's so damaging to, I guess you think National Security, to leak it, then something is seriously wrong and should be investigated. That's what congress does besides legislation, oversite.

 

[fskimospy]

The reason information was redacted was to prevent disruption in ongoing investigations. Congress isn't to be trusted. They leak like a sieve. I have no problem with that reasoning, provided the unredacted report is released once all the tertiary investigations are complete.

Do you trust Congress? Lol?

Congress is a coequal branch of government so it has a constitutional right to that information as part of its duties under Article 1. A refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas, especially Congressional subpoenas about criminal conduct related to executive branch officials, subverts the Constitution.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Based on our current government structure who would prosecute Barr?

His replacement when he's recused. Additionally, statute of limitations allows the potential to investigate / prosecute after Trump's out of office.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

If it's so damaging to, I guess you think National Security, to leak it, then something is seriously wrong and should be investigated. That's what congress does besides legislation, oversite.

The problem is that Congress is untrustworthy, leaks, and would risk botching open investigations. If Congress is that corrupt, which it is, then perhaps we should stop electing the same buffoons over and over.

 

[fskimospy]

His replacement when he's recused. Additionally, statute of limitations allows the potential to investigate / prosecute after Trump's out of office.

If you think Barr's replacement would prosecute him even if he's guilty as sin you're going to be sorely disappointed.

 

[hal2kilo]

The problem is that Congress is untrustworthy, leaks, and would risk botching open investigations. If Congress is that corrupt, which it is, then perhaps we should stop electing the same buffoons over and over.

Tired of your bad faith arguments. You just made my ignore list. Bye.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Congress is a coequal branch of government so it has a constitutional right to that information as part of its duties under Article 1. A refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas, especially Congressional subpoenas about criminal conduct related to executive branch officials, subverts the Constitution.

The order of operations requires Congress going to the court to enforce the subpoenas. Congress chose not to, which is interesting to me. I wonder why, if it was so important, they didn't bother following up.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

If you think Barr's replacement would prosecute him even if he's guilty as sin you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Tired of your bad faith arguments. You just made my ignore list. Bye.

Mkay, have a good one.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is that Congress is untrustworthy, leaks, and would risk botching open investigations. If Congress is that corrupt, which it is, then perhaps we should stop electing the same buffoons over and over.

Right, but that's the answer - if Congress is doing a bad job by leaking national security information then the answer is to elect a Congress that does not, it does not permit the executive branch to just decide to no longer allow congressional oversight.

If people want to change the Constitution so Congress is no longer a coequal branch and/or no longer oversees the activities of the executive that's fine but until then Congress gets to see what it needs to see in order to do its job.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Right, but that's the answer - if Congress is doing a bad job by leaking national security information then the answer is to elect a Congress that does not, it does not permit the executive branch to just decide to no longer allow congressional oversight.

If people want to change the Constitution so Congress is no longer a coequal branch and/or no longer oversees the activities of the executive that's fine but until then Congress gets to see what it needs to see in order to do its job.

The answer also involves prosecuting congressional members who leak that information. That's important.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The answer also involves prosecuting congressional members who leak that information. That's important.

What do you do with a president leaking it from his unsecured Twitter portal?

Oh, that's right, claim that it's officially declassified because him leaking it automatically declassified it.

 

[fskimospy]

The answer also involves prosecuting congressional members who leak that information. That's important.

It could possibly be but I suspect you would find nearly all of them would end up being immune from prosecution.

After all, any member of Congress could take the entirety of all classified/restricted information the US possesses and just read it out to the world on the floor and no one could touch them.

 

[Jhhnn]

The order of operations requires Congress going to the court to enforce the subpoenas. Congress chose not to, which is interesting to me. I wonder why, if it was so important, they didn't bother following up.

False. Efforts are ongoing-

House asks appeals court to reconsider ruling saying Don McGahn doesn't have to testify | CNN Politics

The US House of Representatives on Friday asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to revisit a 2-1 court ruling that let former White House counsel Don McGahn off the hook from testifying to Congress and decided federal judges in Washington have no authority to resolve subpoena standoffs between...

www.cnn.com

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is that Congress is untrustworthy, leaks, and would risk botching open investigations. If Congress is that corrupt, which it is, then perhaps we should stop electing the same buffoons over and over.

Classic Nazi propaganda technique- accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Classic Nazi propaganda technique- accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.

It's a C effort

 

[Fenixgoon]

Classic Nazi propaganda technique- accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.

it's even funnier because all of the leaks during the mueller investigation through impeachment came from the whitehouse, not Congress or any of the intelligence commitees (unless anyone wants to count Devin Nunes)