DOJ issues (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    17,971
    Reaction score
    24,859
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    I think it might be helpful to have a separate thread for this in the coming weeks and months.

    The four prosecutors who withdrew from the Stone case seem to have called attention to the DOJ and Bill Barr’s heavy hand in nearly every aspect of the department.

    Justin Amash has some eye opening quotes he is attributing to Bill Barr in this Twitter thread. It’s not very comforting to someone who values their rights.



    I would be interested in legal takes on Barr’s insisting that all investigations into any campaign must go to him before any information is even gathered. As well as Barr setting up some sort of “channel” where Rudy can funnel his highly suspect “findings” from Ukraine directly to Barr. When we have such a political AG as Barr, this takes the appearance of impropriety.
     
    What Dobbs may not be taking into account is the jury pool from DC is going to be extremely biased in favor of any defendant aligned with the resistance.
     
    At some point in the future, you will be claiming that Barr and Durham were deep state all along, and that once Hope Hicks and Corey Lewandowski finish their investigation the Liberals are all going to jail.

    The most disturbing part is how bad these very experienced individuals are at deep-stating. They were able to put together this huge team of members at the highest level of government who were all willing to risk jail time to deep state....and yet, they never once took the easy step to get the job done, they made the most simple rookie mistakes, and they were like the keystone cops of deep stating.
     
    The resistance?!?

    QAnon?

    So you're going to pretend that Trump's opponents did not come up with that?

    What about that attorney who was caught fabricating evidence to support the FISA application? Remember his e-mail, viva la resistance? (I can't recall his name, he's an effeminate looking guy who looks like he is in his late 20's).
     
    He doesn't mention anything at all about the questionable enhancement that took the sentencing recommendation from 3 to 4 years to 7 to 9 years. Are you familiar with the enhancement that is in question? I posted about it here:

    I think the opinion that it was a questionable enhancement is just that, an opinion. Had Barr objected to it from the beginning, he could have had it downgraded. But he didn’t do anything until after Trump’s tweet. 🤷‍♀️

    ETA: I forgot about this piece of info to give some context. I heard someone who was previously in the DOJ say yesterday that prosecutors used to have a bit more leeway with the sentencing guidelines, but when Barr took over one of his directives was to push all sentencing recommendations to the top end of the guidelines. Hence another reason for the prosecutors outrage when he changed to appease Trump.

    Obviously I’m not in position to know if that’s the case or not. 🤷‍♀️
     
    Last edited:
    So again, the tag line on some guy’s email is concrete evidence of the Deep state, but sworn testimony from a career diplomat is questionable?

    And you going to mention anything at all about the fact that no charges will be brought against McCabe despite a TWO YEAR investigation? Because you sure had a lot to say about it when they announced the investigation.
     
    So again, the tag line on some guy’s email is concrete evidence of the Deep state, but sworn testimony from a career diplomat is questionable?

    And you going to mention anything at all about the fact that no charges will be brought against McCabe despite a TWO YEAR investigation? Because you sure had a lot to say about it when they announced the investigation.

    What specifically do you recall me saying about McCabe? You do realize the IG report found that he was a naughty little liar right? Do you dispute those findings?

    I don't know why he is not going to be prosecuted. It could be that they submitted the case to a DC grand jury that decided not to indict. No idea.

    As for the "junior attorney," he didn't use that "tag line" based on my recognition. He did that on his own, with perhaps some input from his knitting circle. In any event, I am more concerned with his decision to lie to the FISA court. The "viva le resistance" just goes to motive.
     
    So you're going to pretend that Trump's opponents did not come up with that?

    What about that attorney who was caught fabricating evidence to support the FISA application? Remember his e-mail, viva la resistance? (I can't recall his name, he's an effeminate looking guy who looks like he is in his late 20's).
    Trump's opponents came up with QAnon? Whatever, brother, we've already seen you're in the QAnon world. Did Trump opponents do that to you?

    I also find it strange that you want to attack the credibility of men by calling them effiminate. What's up with that?
     
    What specifically do you recall me saying about McCabe? You do realize the IG report found that he was a naughty little liar right? Do you dispute those findings?

    Wow, you don't like naughty little liars, yet you steadfastly support a serial liar, and defend him by calling everyone else naughty little liars.
     
    Trump's opponents came up with QAnon? Whatever, brother, we've already seen you're in the QAnon world. Did Trump opponents do that to you?

    I also find it strange that you want to attack the credibility of men by calling them effiminate. What's up with that?

    Resistance.
     
    Lol, I was trying to tell you in the shortest was possible that you are not following the discussion. If you still don't get it I don't know what to say.
    I work during the day, so really only visit here in the morning or evening, but I think I'm following the discussion just fine. Here's what you brought into the discussion:

    he's an effeminate looking guy who looks like he is in his late 20's).

    If you still don't get it I don't know what to say.

    Lol
     
    The story in the post you quoted misrepresents the text Stone sent to Credico.

    “prepare to die corksoaker”, left out the first part.

    “You are a rat. A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip you to shreds”. “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die [expletive].”

    That was the threat. And it was a threat.

    Credico stated that he didn't take Stone's threats seriously. You are reaching. Do you work for Mueller?
     
    Credico stated that he didn't take Stone's threats seriously. You are reaching. Do you work for Mueller?

    Your last sentence is just unnecessary and should be beneath you. Yes, he did state that. You ever see anyone be really scared while something is happening, but then later claim they weren’t really scared? I saw someone who had worked with Credico say that she had text messages on her phone still from a very frightened Credico while this was going on. No matter what he says now that the danger has passed, he was frightened at the time.

    Don’t you ever just consider that you are getting your opinions from extremely slanted sources? You seem to see only what you want to see and then assume there is no other side to any story. And then accuse everyone else of being biased with a certain smugness.
     
    Your last sentence is just unnecessary and should be beneath you. Yes, he did state that. You ever see anyone be really scared while something is happening, but then later claim they weren’t really scared? I saw someone who had worked with Credico say that she had text messages on her phone still from a very frightened Credico while this was going on. No matter what he says now that the danger has passed, he was frightened at the time.

    Don’t you ever just consider that you are getting your opinions from extremely slanted sources? You seem to see only what you want to see and then assume there is no other side to any story. And then accuse everyone else of being biased with a certain smugness.
    It was sarcasm. I get my news from a variety of sources and opinions. Do you ever think you should just stick to criticizing someone's post instead of always accusing people you disagree with of being ignorant, biased, having an agenda, falling for conspiracy theories, being brainwashed, etc.
     
    Fine, I think your posts show a lack of consideration of all points of view.

    Didn’t you just accuse someone of bias yourself? And now say it’s sarcasm?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom