DOJ issues (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

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.

 

[MT15]

I suppose I could respond in kind by stringing together insults aimed at you. But, I realize that you are just desperate because you see the writing on the wall and you realize that in all likelihood DJT will be your President until 2024.

what this really says is that in your mind you are allowed to be snarky, but if someone responds in kind then you consider that an insult. There’s some phrase or word for that.....

 

[SaintForLife]

And there’s this:

Former Justice Dept. Lawyers Press for Barr to Step Down (Published 2020)

More than 1,100 former prosecutors and officials who served in Republican and Democratic administrations signed an open letter condemning the president and the attorney general over the Stone case.

www.nytimes.com

Yet another indication that this was a coordinated effort to try to discredit Barr before Durham is finished with his investigation. This is from a right wing source, but the article has links citing the claims. The people affiliated with the group Protect Democracy is like a Who's Who list of Never Trumpers and left wing activists.

 

[SystemShock]

Yet another indication that this was a coordinated effort to try to discredit Barr

Barr doesn't need help; he is doing a fine job to discredit himself.

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL, I don’t remember who I heard, I just leave the tv on in the background. It’s at least as credible as some of your anonymous twitter sources, though. At least I’m not saying they are definitely true, because there’s no way for me or you to know that. You were pretty sure the other day that they 4 prosecutors lied to the DOJ about their memo, though, and thats been debunked now by the WSJ. Oh and this reporting as well:

Those "anonymous Twitter sources" that I have posted have either linked to court documents, articles, or summarized articles and they provide links. That's quite different from you not even being able to say who said something that you were referencing. For all we know you could be quoting Maddow.

As for lying to Congress, I read a whole thread of one of your anonymous twitter sources, the “Undercover” guy, who isn’t really the guy whose name he cites. Anyway he had some good points, that Stone is in trouble because of his own actions, nobody else’s, and that the stuff about the juror is probably of no consequence. Where he goes off the rails is his assertion that all Trump people get prosecuted for lying and all Democrats do not. That’s just patently false, and shows his partisan bias. Jeff Sessions lied about his contacts with Russians, and had to come back and correct himself. Eric Prince lied to Congress as well. Don Jr. lied to Congress. None of them were charged, as most people who lie to Congress are not charged, because it’s very difficult to prove in court.

Will you acknowledge that all the FBI officials involved in the Russia investigation that lied to investigators or under oath have been treated differently than all of the Trump campaign officials who lied to investigators?

Now you state Brennan lied as if it were fact, but the only articles I found on a search are all right wing sources. The NY Times has a recent story. After reading it, it appears that there is some question about what you say was a lie.

Durham Is Scrutinizing Ex-C.I.A. Director’s Role in Russian Interference Findings

Durham Is Scrutinizing Ex-C.I.A. Director’s Role in Russian Interference Findings (Published 2019)

The federal prosecutor investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry is examining testimony by the former C.I.A. director John Brennan and seeking his communications records.

www.nytimes.com

The article tried to put a good spin on its by saying contradicted instead of lying.

Did John Brennan Lie to Congress About 2016 Gang of Eight Briefings? › American Greatness

During an interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo Sunday morning, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) suggested that former CIA director John Brennan lied under oath to Congress in May 2017.

amgreatness.com

As for McCabe, he says he was authorized to release the information, and I have seen other FBI people say the same. He disputes what Horowitz said. The fact that the DOJ has now dropped their attempt to prosecute him tells me there was some question about whether he lied or not. You know Trump wanted him in jail in the worst way, so if they had any sort of case at all they were going to move forward. They tried really hard to make up a case against him, but they evidently just don’t have anything.

Are you saying we should believe McCabe over Horowitz's IG report?

As for the safeguards, yes, we have them. So did the countries talked about. Trump is openly calling for Vindman to be “investigated” and disciplined by the Army. He is pressuring DOJ to persecute his political rivals, and Barr is doing his best to oblige. This isn’t how you keep a free and open society based on laws. This is how you start the slide into becoming an authoritarian state. We used to make fun of Trump chanting “lock her up”, and think it was just something to fire up his base. Turns out he’s dead serious about locking up his political rivals, or anyone else who dares to cross him, even a decorated Army LTC. That’s not the sign of a healthy representative republic, that’s the sign of a country on its way to authoritarianism, whether you want to admit it or not.

Once again it's hard to take you seriously when you have shown that you have no concern about the Obama administration illegally spying on a private citizen and a Presidential campaign. That's way more of a threat to our country than Barr having Durham look at how the illegal spying happend.

Your remarks about Mueller betray your bias. He evidently has suffered very recently from some sort of medical condition, it’s very crass of you to use that against him.

Since Mueller appeared to have no idea what was in his report when he testified to Congress, do you really think he was capable of managing the whole investigation? How do you know he "very recently" suffered from a medical condition and he wasn't like that before or during his investigation?

 

[coldseat]

Barr doesn't need help; he is doing a fine job to discredit himself.

It's funny that responding to Barr's obvious politicization of the DOJ is translated in republican code as "a coordinated effort to discredit him and Durham" (who isn't even a part of this, but whatever it fits in their world view).

 

[coldseat]

Once again it's hard to take you seriously when you have shown that you have no concern about the Obama administration illegally spying on a private citizen and a Presidential campaign. That's way more of a threat to our country than Barr having Durham look at how the illegal spying happend.

That never happened.

Since Mueller appeared to have no idea what was in his report when he testified to Congress, do you really think he was capable of managing the whole investigation? How do you know he "very recently" suffered from a medical condition and he wasn't like that before or during his investigation?

That's just silly and ridiculous.

 

[SaintForLife]

That never happened.

Yes it did.


These documents also tell us the FISC routinely includes authorization in their warrants for the government to surveil people in contact with their target, and people in contact with the contact; in a scheme referred to as “chaining,” these authorizations will include 2 or 3 “hops.” While the text of the Carter Page warrant application, and court approval, remain a secret, one shudders to think this authority was used to spy upon other members of the Trump campaign team who were in contact with Page. (The memo of the House intelligence committee’s Democrats about the warrant suggests that some unknown number of Trump campaign advisors were the subject of FBI “sub-inquiries.”)

Opinion | The FBI's secret warrant against Carter Page should scare us

A secret, non-adversarial system of judicial review is an insufficient check to our intelligence agencies and law enforcement.

www.nbcnews.com

Obama had lots of practice with spying. The Obama administration spied on former CBS resporter Sharyl Attkkisson while she was looking into Fast and Furious, the mass surveillance of Americans that Snowden exposed, spied on American citizens on the Senate committee that was formed to oversee the CIA after they got exposed by Snowden, spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen, spied in the Associated Press, and spent 7 years trying to force James Risen to reveal his sources:

Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.

Opinion | If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama (Published 2016)

Obama has laid all the groundwork Trump needs for a crackdown on reporters.

www.nytimes.com

The Inspector General’s Report on 2016 FBI Spying Reveals a Scandal of Historic Magnitude: Not Only for the FBI but Also the U.S. Media

The massive spying improprieties on the part of the FBI is as much a media scandal as it is a scandal for the agency and its leaders.

theintercept.com

 

[coldseat]

Yes it did.


These documents also tell us the FISC routinely includes authorization in their warrants for the government to surveil people in contact with their target, and people in contact with the contact; in a scheme referred to as “chaining,” these authorizations will include 2 or 3 “hops.” While the text of the Carter Page warrant application, and court approval, remain a secret, one shudders to think this authority was used to spy upon other members of the Trump campaign team who were in contact with Page. (The memo of the House intelligence committee’s Democrats about the warrant suggests that some unknown number of Trump campaign advisors were the subject of FBI “sub-inquiries.”)

Opinion | The FBI's secret warrant against Carter Page should scare us

A secret, non-adversarial system of judicial review is an insufficient check to our intelligence agencies and law enforcement.

www.nbcnews.com

Obama had lots of practice with spying. The Obama administration spied on former CBS resporter Sharyl Attkkisson while she was looking into Fast and Furious, the mass surveillance of Americans that Snowden exposed, spied on American citizens on the Senate committee that was formed to oversee the CIA after they got exposed by Snowden, spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen, spied in the Associated Press, and spent 7 years trying to force James Risen to reveal his sources:

Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.

Opinion | If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama (Published 2016)

Obama has laid all the groundwork Trump needs for a crackdown on reporters.

www.nytimes.com

The Inspector General’s Report on 2016 FBI Spying Reveals a Scandal of Historic Magnitude: Not Only for the FBI but Also the U.S. Media

The massive spying improprieties on the part of the FBI is as much a media scandal as it is a scandal for the agency and its leaders.

theintercept.com

That is not the "Obama administration spying on a private citizen", no matter how many times you insist on characterizing it like that. And is definitely not the Obama administration spying on a "political campaign", given he wasn't even part of Trump's campaign when the surveillance took place.

There were issues with the FISA application for Page for sure, (same issues that I'm sure you'd find in other FISA applications as well, if they looked as thoroughly at all of the other ones as they have at these 4), but that doesn't indicate some deep state plot. That's just your Trump talking points taking hold of you. Those mistakes and/or intentional mis-characterizations need to be corrected and prevented from happening in the future, either by reforming the FISA process or ending it, but none of that really props up your insistence on constantly claiming the Obama administration spied on Trump.

All you continue to do with all of these post and conspiracy theories is to show how much objectivity you lack and that you'd believe anything they sell you. You're the person that Trump was talking about when he said you would stick with him even if he shot somebody on 5th avenue.

 

[SaintForLife]

That is not the "Obama administration spying on a private citizen", no matter how many times you insist on characterizing it like that. And is definitely not the Obama administration spying on a "political campaign", given he wasn't even part of Trump's campaign when the surveillance took place.

There were issues with the FISA application for Page for sure, (same issues that I'm sure you'd find in other FISA applications as well, if they looked as thoroughly at all of the other ones as they have at these 4), but that doesn't indicate some deep state plot. That's just your Trump talking points taking hold of you. Those mistakes and/or intentional mis-characterizations need to be corrected and prevented from happening in the future, either by reforming the FISA process or ending it, but none of that really props up your insistence on constantly claiming the Obama administration spied on Trump.

All you continue to do with all of these post and conspiracy theories is to show how much objectivity you lack and that you'd believe anything they sell you. You're the person that Trump was talking about when he said you would stick with him even if he shot somebody on 5th avenue.

Oh was I mistaken? Which administration did that happen under? Do you think that Obama didn't authorize and know about everything that was happening? You obviously didn't read the article that talked about 2 or 3 hop rule when you said that he wasn't a member of the campaign at the time.

You can call them issues, mistakes, and mischaracterizations and I will call them illegal spying. I'm sure you are aware that there is a high bar to meet to spy on American citizen right? I didn't mention deep state. Just talking about the facts that we know from the IG report.

It's not like this was the first time the Obama administration spied on American citizens. I listed the examples, but you glossed right over them. Since many on the left didn't or dont care about how many times Obama was spying on American citizens and journalists & prosecuting whistleblowers, it's hard to take people seriously when they constantly claim Trump is 'breaking the norms' or 'shredding the constitution'.

 

[not2rich]

Oh was I mistaken? Which administration did that happen under? Do you think that Obama didn't authorize and know about everything that was happening? You obviously didn't read the article that talked about 2 or 3 hop rule when you said that he wasn't a member of the campaign at the time.

You can call them issues, mistakes, and mischaracterizations and I will call them illegal spying. I'm sure you are aware that there is a high bar to meet to spy on American citizen right? I didn't mention deep state. Just talking about the facts that we know from the IG report.

It's not like this was the first time the Obama administration spied on American citizens. I listed the examples, but you glossed right over them. Since many on the left didn't or dont care about how many times Obama was spying on American citizens and journalists & prosecuting whistleblowers, it's hard to take people seriously when they constantly claim Trump is 'breaking the norms' or 'shredding the constitution'.

By this logic, the Trump administration is directly responsible for everything the DOJ does under his adminstration. After all, in your words: "Do you think that [Trump] didn't authorize and know about everything that was happening?"

You've just eviscerated every argument you've made trying to defend Trump. Congratulations.

 

[coldseat]

Oh was I mistaken? Which administration did that happen under? Do you think that Obama didn't authorize and know about everything that was happening?

Yes, you were mistaken. No, Obama likely didn't know that Carter Page was under surveillance by the FBI. That type of detailed information doesn't get up to the president unless he specifically ask for it. And from all of we know of Obama, he kept his distance from the investigation and was very hesitant to address Russian Interference because of appearances of politicization during the election.

 

[Beach Friends]

That is not the "Obama administration spying on a private citizen", no matter how many times you insist on characterizing it like that. And is definitely not the Obama administration spying on a "political campaign", given he wasn't even part of Trump's campaign when the surveillance took place.

There were issues with the FISA application for Page for sure, (same issues that I'm sure you'd find in other FISA applications as well, if they looked as thoroughly at all of the other ones as they have at these 4), but that doesn't indicate some deep state plot. That's just your Trump talking points taking hold of you. Those mistakes and/or intentional mis-characterizations need to be corrected and prevented from happening in the future, either by reforming the FISA process or ending it, but none of that really props up your insistence on constantly claiming the Obama administration spied on Trump.

All you continue to do with all of these post and conspiracy theories is to show how much objectivity you lack and that you'd believe anything they sell you. You're the person that Trump was talking about when he said you would stick with him even if he shot somebody on 5th avenue.

It's absolute nonsense to assert that they were not spying on the campaign because of the timing of Paige's departure. Do you believe that they did not take a retroactive look at Paige's electronic communications? Ever hear of the two hop rule?

 

[coldseat]

It's absolute nonsense to assert that they were not spying on the campaign because of the timing of Paige's departure. Do you believe that they did not take a retroactive look at Paige's electronic communications? Ever hear of the two hop rule?

That's not nonsense, that's what actually happened. He was not a member of the campaign when he was under surveillance. Regardless of the 2, 3, 4 or 5 hop rule.

I do not know if they took a retroactive look at Paige's electronic communication or not. Neither do you. Either way, the Trump campaign was not being spied on nor where they under surveillance.

 

[SaintForLife]

It's quite ironic that there are so many complaints about investigations now.

 

[Beach Friends]

It's quite ironic that there are so many complaints about investigations now.

I just checked my calendar - turns out that December 2017 actually came before the 2018 mid term elections. In Joe Biden's words, "son of a ...."

 

[Beach Friends]

Read these statements:

Regardless of the 2, 3, 4 or 5 hop rule.

I do not know if they took a retroactive look at Paige's electronic communication or not

And then compare them with the conclusion:

Either way, the Trump campaign was not being spied on nor where they under surveillance.

And that's what we are dealing with here.

 

[MT15]

The whataboutism doesn’t excuse what Trump and Barr are doing right now, no matter how much you all want it to. It’s “glossed over” because it isn’t germane to the current topic. If Barr had even shown himself capable of being the slightest bit independent, rather than Trump’s lapdog, I would encourage any investigation he felt was necessary. But what we have instead is an AG who appears to be working hard to reward Trump’s friends, and punish Trump’s enemies, regardless of the facts of each case.

Barr went on TV and said Trump’s tweeting was making it “impossible“ for him to do his job. And Trump has never even paused, but has tweeted a steady diet of DOJ interference ever since. If Barr were serious about his statement, he should resign. But he isn’t and I don’t think he will, because he intends to do Trump’s dirty work rather than honor his oath of office. That’s how you know he was lying in his ABC interview, because he hasn’t resigned and he hasn’t said another word about it during the tweetstorm.

I wonder when you guys will wake up to Trump’s complete corruption? Will you ever acknowledge it, or will you be saying “what about Obama” when Trump is finally actually charged with some of his crimes?

 

[superchuck500]

Probably garbage but