0nelilreb
Don’t ask if you don’t want the truth .
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2010
- Messages
- 28,325
- Likes
- 45,438
Remember when Obama's former press secretary went public with claims of rampant criminality? Yeah, me neither.
He lobbied for the job. His summary of the Mueller report was completely distorted and he omitted important points from Vol 2. He's been pursuing a favorable agenda towards Trump and has neglected his role as Attorney General for the United States. There are other matters for which he should concentrate his time and efforts. Trump has his personal attorneys. Barr shouldn't behave as if he is one of them. I do believe though, he is too smart to get totally dragged down by this disaster of a President. Within the next 12-18 months, Barr will either step down or distance himself from the clown in the oval officeDid you ever get around to articulating why, specifically?
He lobbied for the job. His summary of the Mueller report was completely distorted and he omitted important points from Vol 2. He's been pursuing a favorable agenda towards Trump and has neglected his role as Attorney General for the United States. There are other matters for which he should concentrate his time and efforts. Trump has his personal attorneys. Barr shouldn't behave as if he is one of them. I do believe though, he is too smart to get totally dragged down by this disaster of a President. Within the next 12-18 months, Barr will either step down or distance himself from the clown in the oval office
In reality..it shouldn't matter that a judge was appointed by a D or R..but sadly it does...this is Trump's real legacy imo
The why do you keep talking about. Biden being shielded from investigation?
I’m literally saying that it’s a conflict of interest for Trump to get involved in the investigation of a political rival but that DOJ is free to start an independent investigation, just like they did into Trump in 2017.
And you keep arguing “but if trump wasn’t shielded from investigation then neither is Biden.”
How does that in any way respond to what I’m saying? You’re creating a straw man argument and then debating it instead of the actual argument that I’m putting on the page.
There are plenty of people that could beat him. Unfortunately, none of them will run. Bloomberg is far and away more qualified for the job than the disaster of the Donald, but the Dems will never allow him to be their nomineeTechnically... not yet.
But it won't matter either way. You have no one that can beat him in 2020.
No it's not. Members of the same party have no real motivation to investigate their own for the most part. Courts like to tell the rest of us we have no standing to challenge a political figure ... at least that's how they protected Obama. So if not a member of the opposition, who will question the conduct of criminal political behavior? Short of McCarthy style politics, we should welcome investigation of political incentives.
There are plenty of people that could beat him. Unfortunately, none of them will run. Bloomberg is far and away more qualified for the job than the disaster of the Donald, but the Dems will never allow him to be their nominee
Once Comey saw the light and set the precedent with "I can't respond because I no longer have a security clearance", it makes it entirely possible for everybody to escape prosecution. It's an absolutely brilliant strategy ... better than even taking the 5th and looking probably guilty as a result. One thing that needs to happen, though, is that once the strategy is used, it's scorched earth ... the person never receives another security clearance as long as he/she lives, and you burn them if they even cross the line on divulging something from that time frame - no books, no movies, no TV talking head, nothing income producing.