Cover-up Attorney General Bill Barr strikes again

  
Via:  atheist  •  3 weeks ago  •  112 comments

Cover-up Attorney General Bill Barr strikes again
“Why does the Coverup-General resist independent investigation? Because he knows where it may lead: to Dick Thornburgh, James Baker, Clayton Yeutter, Brent Scowcroft and himself [the people who organized the sale of WMD to Saddam]. He vainly hopes to be able to head it off, or at least be able to use the threat of firing to negotiate a deal.”--William Safire

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Back in 1992, the last time Bill Barr was U.S. attorney general, iconic New York Times writer William Safire referred to him as “Coverup-General Barr” because of his role in burying evidence of then-President George H.W. Bush’s involvement in “Iraqgate” and “Iron-Contra.”

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    3 weeks ago

For those too young to remember who William Safire was, this is who he was in a nutshell:

 American journalist who was known for his fiercely opinionated conservative columns (1973–2005) 

He was a speech writer and constant apologist for Reagan.  IOW, no "liberal" or even moderate, he.  

But, to the point of this discussion:  Barr has been a what the mafia calls a "fixer" for Republican corruption for decades now.  He also happens to be an advocate for the "unitary executive" which is an extremist  rightwing euphemism for the President have monarchical power and immunity.  Of course, this only applies to presidents who happen to share that extremist view of themselves--i.e., Republican ones.    

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @1    3 weeks ago

I wonder who the genius was that suggested his appointment?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif.  Yes, that's a mystery.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1.2  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    3 weeks ago

I did it! jrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

Ever the butt of your own joke, ( deleted )

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    3 weeks ago

Like Barr has already noted today on Capital hill.....Approx. 98% of the Mueller report has been put on display !

Where's the Beef ?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @2    3 weeks ago
Approx. 98% of the Mueller report has been put on display ! Where's the Beef ?

Yeah, and he hasn't lied a bit about this report before-----jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif.  Try pulling the other one, Itsy. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1    3 weeks ago
Yeah, and he hasn't lied a bit about this report before

Where, When ?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
Where, When ?

Barr four page summary: There's nothing to see here!

Trump sycophants: Yeah! We told you so! No collusion! No obstruction! Trump is completely exonerates the President!

...nearly four weeks and a thousand news cycles later...

Redacted Mueller report Released: 10 clearly laid out obstruction of justice instances, "this report does not exonerate the President".

Trump sycophants: Who cares! No collusion!

Majority of Americans: Wait, what? We thought Barr said there was nothing to see and the President was exonerated, but the Mueller report says the exact opposite citing 10 clear attempt at obstruction. An underlying crime is NOT required to obstruct. And the Mueller report clearly states that due to the lying of Trumps associates they were unable to prove criminal conspiracy, thus obstruction of the investigation may have been successful.

Mueller letter to Barr: “The (4 page) summary letter the department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.”

Majority of Americans: So wait, even the 4 page summary released by Barr could be seen as an attempt to shield the President by not telling the whole truth?

Any honest interpretation of Barr's summary would have to admit it was an intentional spinning of the narrative to put it in the best possible light for the President and to justify the partisan conclusions Mr. Barr made within hours of receiving the report.

I really wonder when we'll stop looking at each individual tree and branch of at minimum unethical and at times criminal behavior of this administration and see the forest for what it is, an incompetent narcissist desperate to control the narrative and manufacture a façade of competence but who had a bunch of desperate bottom feeders working his campaign who didn't actually think he'd win and thus became easy, at best unwitting, assets of the Russian government who wanted Trump to win not for our benefit, but for theirs. And now, obviously the beneficiary of Russian aid, and with a slew of indicted and convicted campaign staff who repeated lied for him, Trump refuses to acknowledge Russia did anything at all.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
Mueller letter to Barr: “The (4 page) summary letter the department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.”

Barr isn't going to Capture Mueller and his teams "Feelings" in a report ! jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Mueller should have done that himself. Like "Soap Opera" writers do for a TV audience. jrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gif

His "Report" is in the hands of the powers that be, and in the hands of the minuscules running around the country trying to make a living, going all "Internet" for themselves.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

Mueller's biggest complaint is how the media would perceive the report.

Why????  The report was not written for media interpretation - was it????

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.4    3 weeks ago
The report was not written for media interpretation - was it????

It wasn't, but "Interpretation" is running rampant right now, even in this hearing going on now.

I luv "Hearings". It's the "Show" of ALL "SHOWS" ! 

I'm surprised it's NEVER nominated for an Oscar. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.6  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

Saying there was no collusion (Mueller's report never says that--only that he could not make a good enough case for prosecution of the crime of conspiracy; in fact he identifies multiple examples for how the campaign and the Russians worked in tandem to help each other out to get Scumbag elected) and there was no case for obstruction (Mueller identified at least 10 prosecutable examples of obstruction and documented the elements that were necessary to indict).  If you people just actually read the document instead of relying on the misinformation pukefunnel you're addicted to you might not make such fools of yourselves with questions like those. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.7  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.5    3 weeks ago
It wasn't, but "Interpretation" is running rampant right now, even in this hearing going on now.

What's "running rampant" on your side right now is desperation attempts to misrepresent the actual report.  It's really your own fault for falling for Barr's four-page deliberate spiking of that report which gave you that week or so to believe that there wasn't anything bad in the report.  Not only was that a lie (that you all took up and ran with) but it was actually called out by Mueller before the full report was released at which time Barr lied about it again on the morning of the release.  You've all been played and you're still being played and you have no one to blame for the hole your in but yourselves for so eagerly throwing your lot  with Scumbag and his criminal enterprise in the first place. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
If you people just actually read the document instead of relying on the misinformation pukefunnel you're addicted to you might not make such fools of yourselves with questions like those.

I rather doubt many Trump supporters have the patience or the brain power to carefully read and review the Mueller report. Few have displayed any ability to read and comprehend 400 words strung together let alone 400 pages. Besides, it's like asking a bible believer to read the bhagavad gita with an open mind which theologically opposes biblical doctrines. Trump supporters claim Trumps exoneration based on something they are very familiar with, faith. And many simply refuse to listen to any facts that run counter to their already decided conclusion just like they do with science that runs counter to their religious faith. The Mueller report to them is akin to how a YEC sees the radiocarbon dating of fossils. Because the dating method can only get within a few thousand years and can't definitively date a fosil to say, March 9th, 2,233,544 BC, in their minds it's "inconclusive" because they don't want to accept the truth. Mueller lays out 10 clear cases for obstruction but because he didn't come to a conclusion and left it up to Barr since a sitting president can't be indicted, Trump supporters see the 10 cases as "inconclusive" because they don't want to accept the truth and will go to any lengths to reject it.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.9  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1.7    3 weeks ago
What's "running rampant" on your side right now is desperation attempts to misrepresent the actual report.

The Report is out, and EVERYONE got a copy. What in Barr's conclusion was wrong about the report again ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
(Mueller identified at least 10 prosecutable examples of obstruction and documented the elements that were necessary to indict).

Actually, he didn't. Mueller was prosecuting folks for 2 years on his own. Why wouldn't he emphatically say, "We Recommend prosecution of the President by Congress for what we found" ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.11  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

10 clear attempt at obstruction.

And what are those 10 attempts.

If Mueller really thought so, why didn't he emphasize them??

Sorry Demmies, it's over....Trump won!!!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.11    3 weeks ago
And what are those 10 attempts.

Why not have Fox News explain it to you...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-andrew-napolitano-mueller-report-shows-classic-obstruction-of-justice

"If Mueller really thought so, why didn't he emphasize them??"

He does. Have you not read the report yet?

"Sorry Demmies, it's over....Trump won!!!"

So when Republicans were contemplating impeaching Bill Clinton because he lied about a blow job, should the Democrats have just said "Sorry Pubbies, it's over....Bubba won!!!". Do you believe winning an election gives the President the right to break the law and obstruct any investigations into themselves or their staff? That's a pretty Putin view point if you do. Rig an election, cheat to win, then essentially legalize rigging elections and/or change election rules to remove any oversight, poof, effectively a dictatorship in the guise of a democracy. It's Trumps constant wet dream. He wishes he could round up and imprison the dissenters and free press like Putin does, and wishes he could punish people and starve them to death to get them to "sit up and listen" to him just like his buddy Kim Jong Un does.

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.13  dennis smith  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.12    3 weeks ago
Do you believe winning an election gives the President the right to break the law and obstruct any investigations into themselves or their staff?
Mueller found none of he above regarding Trump. He did what is typically reserved for politicians by kicking the can down the road. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.14  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
Barr isn't going to Capture Mueller and his teams "Feelings" in a report !

Your words, not Mueller's -- and another deflect FAIL.  In fact, Barr tried to do exactly that -- invent (read: LIE) about what was in the report and give his own "feelings" about what it said. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.15  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1.14    2 weeks ago
Your words, not Mueller's

Since EVERYONE has now seen Mueller's Report, and are Still Bitching about it, Seems to me, Mueller didn't write a very specific "Heart Felt" report. jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.16  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.10    2 weeks ago
"We Recommend prosecution of the President by Congress for what we found" ?

He states that clearly on the report's first page:

"Given the role of the special counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the special counsel regulations... this office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction," Mueller wrote in the report."

And this put the lie to another one of Barr's claims that Mueller was not influenced by the OLC ruling on indicting presidents while in office.  At some point Itsy, you and your pals are just going to have to accept (if not admit) that Scumbag and all his associates, toadies and accomplices are fucking liars. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.17  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1.16    2 weeks ago
He states that clearly on the report's first page:

No he doesn't.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.18  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.12    2 weeks ago

If we've ever learned anything about the ( deleted ) Scumbag dead-enders in general  it's that you can lead them to the facts but you can't make them see them.  They'll just keep pretending reality doesn't exist.   This applies across the board from climate science to economics to medical facts (thinking immunizations, e.g., here*).  

*In fact, here in OR there's a bill in the lege that removes all but the medical exemption for refusing to vaccinate children.  The false objection to this bill is that no one should be forced to vaccinate their children, something this law does not do.  It simply says, if you want to send your kids to public schools, vaccinate them.  Otherwise home-school them or find a private school stupid and fool-hardy enough to let them in.  It is a bi-partisan (but mostly Dem)  bill but some republican slugs are siding with the anti-vaxxer nutcases in the hopes of getting some of them on their side.  One of the a-vaxxers actually said publicly that she's now thinking of not voting for Dems anymore (assuming she's not already a republican plant) because of this.  I'd like to tell her directly to please do because we don't need your bone-head stupidity. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.19  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.17    2 weeks ago
No he doesn't.

That's a perfect example of this position, Itsy:

384

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.20  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.1.19    2 weeks ago

Selfies are never flattering.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.21  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
Mueller's biggest complaint is how the media would perceive the report.

Is it possible that you never actually get real news?  Mueller's principal complaint about Barr's extremely misleading 4 page summary was that it gave an entirely incorrect impression to everyone (and allowed Scumbag to go around thumping his chest and lying about what the report really said) which caused great confusion for the public.  And the report was for the American people as represented by Congress, in case that wasn't ever clear to you.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.22  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.11    2 weeks ago
Sorry Demmies, it's over....Trump won!!!

Sure is doing funny things for a winner though.  One day saying he's for the full report to be issued and the next saying none of it should be.  Or, saying he has no problem with people like Mueller and McGahn from testify and then threatening them not to.  For any rational person who (by definition) wouldn't be up to his ankles in Shitbag's ass that looks like guilt personified. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.23  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.20    2 weeks ago
Selfies are never flattering.

You should quit taking them then.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.24  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.2    one week ago

10 clearly laid out obstruction of justice instances.

No there wasn't.

Only in left wing imaginations, perhaps.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.25  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.2    one week ago

If it can't be proved, then it wasn't true to begin with.

At any rate, the dopey dems are reading it aloud today for all to hear. 

Once they've done that, then what? Will it change hearts and minds and reality?

Probably not.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.26  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.24    one week ago
10 clearly laid out obstruction of justice instances. No there wasn't.

Time to put the kibosh on that lie you keep repeating.  Direct to you from the Mueller report, 10 instances of obstruction of justice:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/439517-here-are-the-10-episodes-mueller-probed-for-potential-obstruction-by

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.27  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.4    one week ago
Mueller's biggest complaint is how the media would perceive the report.

What lead you to that conclusion 1st?

Mueller's letter to Barr doesn't mention the media. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.28  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dulay @2.1.27    one week ago
What lead you to that conclusion 1st?

May I take a shot at that?  I'm going with the ideological imperative for Shitbag supporters to keep up the lying about everything Mueller wrote whether it's the report itself (see mine to Greg above) or his letter objecting to Barr's attempt to torpedo it before it was released.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.29  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @2.1.27    one week ago

Seriously?  Catch up Dulay.

A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction probe was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-complained-that-barrs-letter-did-not-capture-context-of-trump-probe/2019/04/30/d3c8fdb6-6b7b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.52d8f3fa4feb

Read the words Dulay - MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE OBSTRUCTION PROBE WAS MISGUIDED AND CREATING PUBLIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

Clear enough for you?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.30  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.29    one week ago
according to Justice Department officials

Unlike so many here 1st, I do NOT rely on characterizations. I much prefer exact quotes which the speaker authenticates, actual official transcripts, or even videos of the statement being made. 

You choose to accept unsubstantiated claims, I don't. 

Clear enough for you? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.1.31  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.29    one week ago
Catch up Dulay.

You say catch up and then go on to prove Dulay was right to call you out on falsely saying Mueller was upset about confusion of the media when he was concerned about the public.  This is like getting check-mated and then knocking over the chess board and claiming you won.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @2    3 weeks ago
'Where's the Beef ?'

Is that what Mrs. It Is Me says?

I'm just joking.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @2.2    3 weeks ago

"I" …… Like …… BEEF ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.3  XXJefferson#51  replied to  It Is ME @2    3 weeks ago

Barr is a great AG and he’s doing an awesome job. His testimony today is great 👍.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.3    3 weeks ago

There have been numerous times when Barr has hemmed and hawed and paused to "gather his thoughts" . That is what people who dont want to tell the truth usually do. 

It will be interesting to see the fact checkers evaluate this farce. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.3.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.3    3 weeks ago

You're amazing

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.3.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.3    3 weeks ago
Barr is a great AG and he’s doing an awesome job.

Of course you'd say he's great because he's a liar and he's running interference for your Scumbag instead of being the people's prosecutor.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.3.4  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.3.3    3 weeks ago
Of course you'd say he's great because he's a liar

What did he lie about ?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.3.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @2.3.3    3 weeks ago

You mean like Holder and Lynch were?

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.3.6  It Is ME  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3.5    3 weeks ago

https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico44/2013/04/eric-holder-im-still-the-presidents-wingman-160861

Eric Holder = The top lawman, professed his allegiance to President Barack Obama.
"I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy."

How racist is Holder. Calling His President ……. "BOY" ! jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.3.7  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3.2    3 weeks ago

Why thank you!  I’m glad that you see and recognize that fact now

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.3.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @2.3.7    3 weeks ago

you're a tool

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.3.9  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3.5    2 weeks ago
You mean like Holder and Lynch were?

Now yer talkin' REAL fake news.....not to mention ancient fakery.  Like I've always said, no lie ever dies in the rightwing puke-o-sphere. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.3.10  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3.5    2 weeks ago

False equivalencies are your specialty.  Apart from a few words being the same, there's nothing remotely similar between what Scumbag's trying to pull off and anything that happened in the Obama administration.   Oh, wait.  There is one big thing that's absolutely the same:  the Courts sided with Congress then and will do so again on this matter.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.3.11  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3.8    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.3.12  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @2.3.6    2 weeks ago

Highlighting your BS in bold red makes just makes it even bullshittier, Itsy. [deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.3.13  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @2.3.4    one week ago
What did he lie about ?

That Mueller found no collusion:

7. Interactions and Contacts with the Trump Campaign

The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and .members of the Trump Campaign. (The investigation identified no similar connections between the IRA and the Clinton Campaign.) First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the

Trump Campaign promoted-typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting­ pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States.

a. Trump Campaign Promotion of IRA Political Materials

Among the U.S. "leaders of public opinion" targeted by the IRA were various members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign. In total, Trump Campaign affiliates promoted dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by the IRA.

Posts from the IRA-controlled Twitter account @TEN_GOP were cited or retweeted by multiple Trump Campaign officials and surrogates, including Donald J. Trump Jr.,96 Eric Trump, 97 KellyanneConway, 98 BradParscale, 99 andMichaelT.Flynn.100 These posts included allegations of voter fraud,101 as well as allegations that Secretary Clinton had mishandled classified information.102

- A November 7, 2016 post from the IRA-controlled

Twitter account @Pamela_Moore13 was retweeted by THANKYOUforyoursupportMiami!Mylearnjuslsha1edpholoslromYQU1 TRUMP SIGN WAVING DAY. yes1e1da.y! I bve you - and lhere is no question Donald J. Trump Jr. 103 • TOGETHER, WE WILL MAKE AMEAICA GREAT AGAIN!

On September 19, 2017, President Trump's personal .. account @realDonaldTrump responded to a tweet from
the IRA-controlled account @ l0_gop (the backup account of @TEN_GOP, which had already been deactivated by Twitter). The tweet read: "We love you, Mr. President!"104

IRA employees monitored the reaction of the Trump Campaign and, later, Trump Administration officials to their tweets. For example, on August 23, 2016, the IRA­ controlled persona "Matt Skiber" Facebook account sent a message to a U.S. Tea Party activist, writing that "Mr. Trump posted about our event in Miami! This is great!"105 The IRA employee included a screenshot of candidate Trump's Facebook account, which included a post about the August 20, 2016 political rallies organized by the IRA.

b. Contact with Trump Campaign Officials in Connection to Rallies

I•

Starting in June 2016, the IRA contacted different U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump Campaign in an effort to coordinate pro-Trump IRA-organized rallies inside the United States. In all cases, the IRA contacted the Campaign while claiming to be U.S. political activists working on behalf of a conservative grassroots organization. The IRA's contacts included requests for signs and other materials to use at rallies,107 as well as requests to promote the rallies and help coordinate Iogistics.108 While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals.

***

In sum, the investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election through the "active measures" social media campaign carried out by the IRA, an organization funded by Prigozhin and companies that he controlled. As explained further in Volume I, Section V.A, infra, the Office concluded (and a grand jury has alleged) that Prigozhin, his companies, and IRA employees violated U.S. law through these operations, principally by undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in U.S. elections.

---Mueller Report, Vol. I, pp 33-35

There's your collusion.  The only reason Mueller felt he could not call it conspiracy was that it lacked sufficient coordination and, amazingly, allowed  Scumbag operatives to get away by claiming stupidity--they didn't know it was against the law to accept campaign help from a foreign government.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

The one thing Barr has going for him is that he is able to act like he is confident in all his own bullshit. 

In other words a textbook habitual lair. 

 
 
 
lib50
3.1  lib50  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 weeks ago

It's a Trump prerequisite.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago
In other words a textbook habitual lair. 

That's the first "quality" Scumbag looks for whenever he picks someone to protect him.  They have to be just like him. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4  1stwarrior    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

[Flagging]

[Members should refrain from disciplining other members. If someone is violating the CoC, members should make no comment but rather use the flagging system to report it to the moderators.]

[in other words, do one or the other, not both...]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @4    3 weeks ago

He shortened the title a little. How is that a misrepresentation? 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 weeks ago

The title is misrepresentative of the actual article - but, you already knew that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
The title is misrepresentative of the actual article

I don't see it. The original headline says 

Cover-up Attorney General Bill Barr

and Atheist shortened it to 

Coverup Barr

dont really saee a big problem here, and it did not misrepresent the article. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

And it was changed an hour ago....

time to let it go ...

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.1.4  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
The title is misrepresentative of the actual article

Yeah, I admit that the title I used soft-pedaled just how much of a prick and traitor Barr really is.  Please accept my sincerest apology. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @4    3 weeks ago

Desperate much?  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2    3 weeks ago

He wants to play school marm in other's seeds today

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.2  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.1    3 weeks ago
He wants to play school marm in other's seeds today

Isn't that's all he ever has? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.2    3 weeks ago
He wants to play school marm in other's seeds today
Isn't that's all he ever has?

Nope ! jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.2.4  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  It Is ME @4.2.3    2 weeks ago

Yeah, there is that other "thing" you have.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.3  1stwarrior  replied to  1stwarrior @4    3 weeks ago

You'll note that I requested a mod review - and that's a violation?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
4.3.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @4.3    3 weeks ago
You'll note that I requested a mod review - and that's a violation?

And you got it.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

The questioning of Barr today has rattled him repeatedly already , and they are only about a quarter of the way through it. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

No John, he swept up the floor with those idiotic democrat stooges, and left them drooling and foaming at the mouth.

On top of that, he's declining to appear before House Inquisition on today.

Because he has better things do, like start looking for all the wrong doers in the Obama administration.

 
 
 
Ender
6  Ender    3 weeks ago

Barr is one that thinks the president cannot be charged with any crime. They are basically immune and above the law.

(wonder if he feels the same about a Dem president)

He is a smug little man that has a history of covering up for Reagan and Bush 1.

trump picked him for a reason. From what I have heard Mueller had sent Barr a letter upset about his characterization about the report.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @6    3 weeks ago

So if the president committed Capital murder right there at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.....he couldn't be charged?

That is some messed up shit

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.1  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    3 weeks ago
In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the memo stated.

The 1973 and 2000 memos are binding on Justice Department employees, including Mueller, according to many legal experts. Mueller was appointed in May 2017 by the department’s No. 2 official Rod Rosenstein.

But some lawyers have argued that the nation’s founders could have included a provision in the Constitution shielding the president from prosecution, but did not do so, suggesting an indictment would be permissible. According to this view, immunity for the president violates the fundamental principle that nobody is above the law.

Nixon himself in 1977 offered an opposite view when he told interviewer David Frost, “Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”

They can be charged when they leave office but they all pardon each other. It also states that most federal crimes have a five year statute of limitations. So if trump is elected for a second term, most things in his first term would be past the limits.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.2  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    3 weeks ago
So if the president committed Capital murder right there at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.....he couldn't be charged?

As long as he/she is president--Yep.  But if that president had an enabling Senate and a party that was able to suppress voting in enough states (as is now the case)  there'd be no way of stopping that president from just cancelling elections and staying in office as long as he or she wishes. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

But....murder is a state charge. Just bear with me here****. How could the separation of powers be a problem? A district attorney would be the one bringing the charges. 

And...as far as trying to govern? That one's easy. Twenty-fifth Amendment

****I know he hasn't murdered anyone (I hope). I'm just going with my original premise

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.4  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.3    3 weeks ago
Twenty-fifth Amendment

Such a president (as also is now the case) would pick a VP and cabinet members who were complete toadies and would do whatever they were ordered to do.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.5  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ender @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

TG is right that murder is usually a state prosecuted crime but, again, that president would still be immune from charges as long as he/she remains in office.  There is no statute of limitations but if that president decides to remain in office for life (as the current one mused about publicly) that would also become moot.  

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.6  katrix  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.4    3 weeks ago

Exactly.  People who think they work for Trump and not for us.  They don't care about the law and Constitution, they just want to suck up to him.  Take Barr, for example - he clearly thinks he is Trump's attorney, rather than our Attorney General.  Right now he's trying to give Trump an out on the efforts to remove Mueller, when the report shows that to be false.  He is unfit for office.  From the CNN site:

Mueller's report also directly refutes Barr's statement today that Trump may not have believed he was asking White House Counsel Don McGahn to say something false. In his analysis of the episodes with McGahn, the Mueller report says: "There also is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn."
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.1.7  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
no way of stopping that president from just cancelling elections

Or making sure the outcomes of those elections were rigged.  We see this many places around the world.  Russia's a great example.  On paper they have a constitution that appears to have some limitations to presidential terms but Putin and Medvedev have easily gamed the system to make it meaningless. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.1.8  1stwarrior  replied to  katrix @6.1.6    3 weeks ago

Carnac the Magnificent?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    3 weeks ago
So if the president committed Capital murder right there at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.....he couldn't be charged?

Now THAT would be a high crime and/or misdemeanor. But........

he would still have to be impeached and removed from office........then he could be prosecuted.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
6.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @6    3 weeks ago
Barr is one that thinks the president cannot be charged with any crime. They are basically immune and above the law.

But Trump has committed no prosecutable crime. Mueller has emphatically said so.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.2.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2    2 weeks ago
Mueller has emphatically said so.

That is most emphatically not true.  In fact, there's not even a subatomic particle of truth in that sentence. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

Can you point out any Mueller indictments for Trump, or even where he recommends indictments or prosecution for Trump?

Why would an investigator spend that long and that much money to just leave everything hanging in the air?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.2.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.2    2 weeks ago
Can you point out any Mueller indictments for Trump, or even where he recommends indictments or prosecution for Trump?

JFC, you've been told this multliple times.  Just admit that you refuse to believe what's in the report and no amount of showing the facts to you will change that.  It's obvious so quit pretending otherwise and asking the same question over and over.  You're going to cover for that Scumbag no matter what he's done or will do.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.2.3    2 weeks ago
JFC, you've been told this multliple times.

Really not my fault when posters repeat ignorant crap that is wrong.

Just admit that you refuse to believe what's in the report and no amount of showing the facts to you will change that.

I believe what is written in the report. I just don't read into it what isn't there.

Now, if you have any facts as far as Trump indictments go, feel free to share THAT.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.2.5  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.4    2 weeks ago
I just don't read into it what isn't there.

IOW, you haven't read it and never will.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.2.5    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.2.7  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.6    one week ago
I realize that English isn't the first language of everyone, though, so keep at it, you'll get it one day!

This from someone who wrote this:

"makes me no nevermind"

Again, Tex, I have to thank you for being you and coming here for our sport.  If you didn't exist we'd have to create you.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.2.7    one week ago

Nice link to all the Trump indictments!

Kudos!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.2.9  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.8    one week ago
Nice link to all the Trump indictments!

That's what you come back with?  Pathetic.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.2.9    one week ago
That's what you come back with? Pathetic.

Beats the hell out of the twaddle you posted in response to my post asking for a link to prove your "facts".

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.2.11  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.10    one week ago

It's always funny when you pretend you'd accept any facts, Tex.  If you're referring to the question about Shitbag indictments I'm sure you think you're very clever by using that term since we know that Mueller went along with the OLC opinion that a sitting Shitbag can't be indicted.  But Mueller clearly set out the path to an indictment for obstruction of justice of Shitbag for at least 10 counts of that crime.  His supporters (you, etc.) have been shown this multiple times and refuse to accept the facts which is, of course, your default state on any fact or truth.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.2.11    one week ago

Where, oh where, are the articles of impeachment?

Weren't y'all schreeching for over 2 years how the great Mueller report was going to be ALL you ever needed to impeach Trump?

Get to steppin'!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
6.2.13  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.12    3 days ago

Thanks to Justin Amash, "steppin'" is happenin'.  It starts like this--just one R having the balls to speak the truth and the wall cracks. But why don't you just let it "make no never mind" to you. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
7  XXJefferson#51    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
8  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    3 weeks ago

Today, it surprises no one that Barr continued to dissemble, deflect  and outright lie ("why didn't Mueller just call me?" Mueller did call him).  And of course, the cheap whore, Graham, also did his best to give his fellow whore Barr cover.  

These people make Nixon and his toadies look like rank amateur street thugs (they were, that) compared to the organized coup that Scumbag and traitor republicans are working on right under our noses.  Even Nixon knew there were limits to what he'd get away with and, of course, in those days Republicans weren't quite the power sluts they are today and would have joined Dems in the Senate to convict him.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @8    3 weeks ago

I doubt if any other Attorney General in history embarrassed himself in front of Congress the way Barr did today. 

He was asked, point blank , if it is ok for the president to ask his White House counsel to lie, and Barr hemmed and hawed. 

Barr should be forced out. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    3 weeks ago

Is it ok for a president to ask his White House counsel to lie?

Short answer:

NO

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    3 weeks ago

Barr should be forced out. 

Not in your wettest dream will that happen.

The election is over.

The hearings are over.

Trump won.

Elections have consequences.

Deal with it.

 
 
 
JBB
8.1.3  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1.2    3 weeks ago

The election of consequence for Trump now was in November 2018..,

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9  Freedom Warrior    3 weeks ago

There is nothing to this story.  So we bear witness to many Dems as they continue their whine fest writhing, lurching and flailing about as they have been for two plus years because the bad orange pussy grabbing man is still winning. They simply can't let go because to do so would destroy their wretched souls.

You really have to wonder about the mental health of these people that continue to pursue the collusion delusion among the shattered remnants of their broken dreams.  Seemingly willing to destroy any semblance of sanity for god knows what at this point.

 Perhaps is a good thing they are expending all of their energy on such dead ends.  Left to their typical devices they would likely wreak havoc on all the folks who are navigating around such lunacy.  God help us.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9    3 weeks ago

You sound like you are trying to talk yourself into something. 

 
 
 
loki12
9.2  loki12  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9    3 weeks ago

It has to be long term drug abuse, haven’t you notice that drug addled morons won’t let go of something no matter how many times it slaps them in the face.

 
 
 
dennis smith
9.3  dennis smith  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9    3 weeks ago

The dem politicians and their diehard supporters have been grasping at straws for over 2 years and they still have nothing but hatred for the one who soundly defeated Hillary. They have no one on the radar for 2020 election who could win the EC, who knows maybe they will try Hillary again so they can be embarrassed for 4 MORE years. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
10  dennis smith    3 weeks ago

The dem politicians and their diehard supporters have been grasping at straws for over 2 years and they still have nothing but hatred for the one who soundly defeated Hillary. They have no one on the radar for 2020 election who could win the EC, who knows maybe they will try Hillary again so they can be embarrassed for 4 MORE years. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
11  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

How can William Barr cover-up anything?  Robert Mueller's investigation is finished and the report of the investigation has been published.  Are Democrats claiming Robert Mueller covered for Trump?  Are Democrats claiming Robert Mueller botched the investigation?  Are Democrats going to investigate the investigators?

William Barr is not going to remove Trump from office.  Rod Rosenstein was never going to remove Trump from office.  The FBI doesn't have the authority to remove Trump from office.  Robert Mueller is not going to indict Trump and remove him from office.  Even if a state Attorney General indicts Trump it will still require impeachment to remove Trump from office.

Only Democrats can remove Trump from office.  Democrats have everything they need to impeach Trump.  Nancy Pelosi has Robert Mueller's report in her lap, what's Pelosi going to do about it?

Democrats pointing fingers at William Barr is only red meat for the Democratic base.  But the last election showed that the Democratic base doesn't provide an electoral path to the White House.  The Democratic base has become too insular.  What Democrats are doing is actually making the next election a referendum on the Democratic Party and that places Democrats in a weak position.  Nancy Pelosi may have already ceded the White House to Trump in hopes of winning more Congressional seats.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @11    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
11.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @11.1    2 weeks ago

An obvious question for the Democratic primary debates would be "do you favor impeaching Donald Trump?"  

That would establish a clear distinction between candidates who are in Congress and those who are not.  So it's more than likely that the question will be asked.  If the candidates in Congress favor impeachment then why haven't they pursued impeachment?  Candidates not in Congress can express support for impeachment as a way of heightening their outsider credentials and desire to do what's right for the country.

The issue of impeachment will also provide leverage for the Democratic Socialist candidates competing in Congressional elections against establishment Democrats.  The more liberal Democrats in Congress have already been vocal supporters of impeachment.

The issue of impeachment will be a factor in Democratic primaries.  And the issue of impeachment will create a perception of divisions within the Democratic Party that will favor anti-establishment Democrats.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Tessylo
Dismayed Patriot
cjcold
The Magic Eight Ball
Sean Treacy
Gordy327
Paula Bartholomew
Dulay


39 visitors