Trump allows attorney general to declassify information about origins of Russia probe

[cbtstorm]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You spend way too much time on conspiracy theory websites.

ah you're probably right???? but its too fascinating of a storey to leave it to msm

activist posing as journalists to weave. 

the good stuff is behind the curtains at which we can only speculate and independent journalists are trail blazing. unfortunately it seems those articles are not allowed in this msm safezone. oh well.

 

 

 

 

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Naaa just Donald’s lap dog cherry picking we all know that if Donald can’t do the job he should resign for the good of the country but as we all know he only cares about Donald the rest is bs

This topic is trump-allows-attorney-general-to-declassify-information-about-origins-of-russia-probe

The lap dog your referring to is reviewing the declassification files.He is cherry picking  and  coordinating with the investigators with what he determines needs to be investigated! If it results in a predicated offense leading to a crime it won't be Mr. Barr who makes the claim!   another words the AG will be acting on the prosecutors and investigators findings!They don't BS

 

[Kelsall]

 

Liz Cheney: Strzok-Page texts sound ‘like a coup,’ could be ‘treason’

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/liz-cheney-strzok-page-texts-sound-like-a-coup-could-be-treason

[Scott]

Posts reported and removed.   Twitter is not an accurate source, it may be interesting, but not enough to continue to copy and paste multiple times.   Other trolling, off-topic posts and those violating Fair Use Policy have been removed.   

[Tug]

4 hours ago, riclag said:

This topic is trump-allows-attorney-general-to-declassify-information-about-origins-of-russia-probe

The lap dog your referring to is reviewing the declassification files.He is cherry picking  and  coordinating with the investigators with what he determines needs to be investigated! If it results in a predicated offense leading to a crime it won't be Mr. Barr who makes the claim!   another words the AG will be acting on the prosecutors and investigators findings!They don't BS

 

So you agree with me that Barr will cherry pick what supports Donald’s claims and ignore as evidenced in the muller report what doesent support Donald’s claims ?

[mogandave]

So you agree with me that Barr will cherry pick what supports Donald’s claims and ignore as evidenced in the muller report what doesent support Donald’s claims ?

What would be the point of releasing documents that do not support his position?

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

What would be the point of releasing documents that do not support his position?

 

None, if the purpose of the review is to propagandize.

[mogandave]

None, if the purpose of the review is to propagandize.

And you know that how?

There are a lot of people that believe the FBI acted inappropriately.

Honest men have nothing to hide.

[bristolboy]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

And you know that how?

There are a lot of people that believe the FBI acted inappropriately.

Honest men have nothing to hide.

 

If honest men have nothing to hide, then why selectively release documents that only provide support for criminal aspersions? Why keep documents hidden at all? In other words, shouldn't the standard of honesty be applied to those who release the documents as well?

[Tug]

29 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

What would be the point of releasing documents that do not support his position?

 

But dident Donald say he was the most transparent president in history lol what a farce all thease people supporting a rip off con man over the institutions  that have kept this country safe over the years all I have to do is replay Donald’s greatest hits here is a few blabbing state secrets to the Russians in the Oval Office attacking pows and gold star family’s attacking children and allies helensky and on and on no wonder America is keeping a close eye on this fiasco of an administration 

[mogandave]

If honest men have nothing to hide, then why selectively release documents that only provide support for criminal aspersions? Why keep documents hidden at all? In other words, shouldn't the standard of honesty be applied to those who release the documents as well?

Answer my question, I’ll answer yours.

[mogandave]

But dident Donald say he was the most transparent president in history lol what a farce all thease people supporting a rip off con man over the institutions  that have kept this country safe over the years all I have to do is replay Donald’s greatest hits here is a few blabbing state secrets to the Russians in the Oval Office attacking pows and gold star family’s attacking children and allies helensky and on and on no wonder America is keeping a close eye on this fiasco of an administration 

 

Do you think every document the government controls should be available to the public?

 

And yes, I think he did say something along the lines of that, although I think he qualified it as “probably”.

 

In any event, being a pompous blow-hard is not a crime, if it were, we’d have no late night TV, news anchors, journalists, sports figures, talk show hosts or Hollywood stars.

[bristolboy]

51 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Answer my question, I’ll answer yours.

 

I did answer your question. Partial release allows for evidence that looks incriminating while keeping concealed evidence that could be exonerating.

[mogandave]

I did answer your question. Partial release allows for evidence that looks incriminating while keeping concealed evidence that could be exonerating.

You said the purpose of the investigation is to propagandize.

I asked you how you knew that.

[Tug]

55 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Do you think every document the government controls should be available to the public?

 

And yes, I think he did say something along the lines of that, although I think he qualified it as “probably”.

 

In any event, being a pompous blow-hard is not a crime, if it were, we’d have no late night TV, news anchors, journalists, sports figures, talk show hosts or Hollywood stars.

If being a pompous blow hard isent criminal why is he obstructing and trying to destroy anyone who looks at him lol obviously he has a lot to hide lol

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

You said the purpose of the investigation is to propagandize.

I asked you how you knew that.
 

 

No I didn't. 

 

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

You said the purpose of the investigation is to propagandize.

I asked you how you knew that.
 

 

I didn't offer propagandizing as the only explanation. Just a probable one considering Barr's stances even before he was appointed by Trump. He hemmed and hawed before disavowing his stance on the relative merits of the Uranium One case vs. the Mueller investigation. He offered a ludicrous version of what obstruction of justice means. And so on.

And it's clear the reason you're stalling here is that your assertion that honest men have nothing to fear is only true if all the evidence is made public.

 

[Thakkar]

On 5/24/2019 at 9:50 AM, Becker said:

True. Again he's called himself a "stable genius" when it's painfully obvious for the whole world to see he is the exact opposite. What a pathetic clown.

“Stable Genius”

That would be a great name for a DIY TV show about a guy who renovates barns across the country.

[mogandave]

I didn't offer propagandizing as the only explanation. Just a probable one considering Barr's stances even before he was appointed by Trump. He hemmed and hawed before disavowing his stance on the relative merits of the Uranium One case vs. the Mueller investigation. He offered a ludicrous version of what obstruction of justice means. And so on.
And it's clear the reason you're stalling here is that your assertion that honest men have nothing to fear is only true if all the evidence is made public.
 

I was just parroting the “honest men have nothing to hide” so popular with the release the documents crowd, I don’t really believe it.

One could make the same argument you make about Barr, about Mueller. Clearly he’s been involved in some sketchy investigations.

Again, releasing everything may raise security issues and could harm otherwise innocent people. There could well be things that make the President (or others) look bad, that are not illegal, and as such would only serve to humiliate him, assuming that is possible.

I did not see Mueller going out of his way to present both sides of the story, and he seemed pretty selective about what he presented.

Two years of investigation and nothing the could be considered prosecutable, and were still not done.

I think if Barr finds people involved in the investigation acted criminally, they should be prosecuted, just as I felt had Trump been found guilty he should be prosecuted. But I don’t think every note and document should be made public such the the press can pick through it and find all manner of crap to smear the President with.

[bristolboy]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

I was just parroting the “honest men have nothing to hide” so popular with the release the documents crowd, I don’t really believe it.

One could make the same argument you make about Barr, about Mueller. Clearly he’s been involved in some sketchy investigations.

Again, releasing everything may raise security issues and could harm otherwise innocent people. There could well be things that make the President (or others) look bad, that are not illegal, and as such would only serve to humiliate him, assuming that is possible.

I did not see Mueller going out of his way to present both sides of the story, and he seemed pretty selective about what he presented.

Two years of investigation and nothing the could be considered prosecutable, and were still not done.

I think if Barr finds people involved in the investigation acted criminally, they should be prosecuted, just as I felt had Trump been found guilty he should be prosecuted. But I don’t think every note and document should be made public such the the press can pick through it and find all manner of crap to smear the President with.

 

 

Except we have zero evidence that Mueller was prejudiced going into the investigations. Can't say the same for Barr.

And you don't seem to understand the purpose of the Mueller investigation. It wasn't to find Trump guilty. That's for a court. It was to find if there was enough evidence to sustain a prosecution. And as Mueller made very clear, the report didn't exonerate Trump. He could't recommend an indictment of Trump because under DOJ rules a sitting president can't be indicted for a crime. But he can be impeached. And Mueller clearly indicated that the evidence for obstruction of justice that he had so carefully laid out was fit for that purpose.

[mogandave]

Except we have zero evidence that Mueller was prejudiced going into the investigations. Can't say the same for Barr.
And you don't seem to understand the purpose of the Mueller investigation. It wasn't to find Trump guilty. That's for a court. It was to find if there was enough evidence to sustain a prosecution. And as Mueller made very clear, the report didn't exonerate Trump. He could't recommend an indictment of Trump because under DOJ rules a sitting president can't be indicted for a crime. But he can be impeached. And Mueller clearly indicated that the evidence for obstruction of justice that he had so carefully laid out was fit for that purpose.

Neither was the purpose of the investigation to exonerate him.

I looked at the (was it nine?) pieces of what was said could constitute obstruction, but saw nothing I felt was significant.

Did you?

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Neither was the purpose of the investigation to exonerate him.

I looked at the (was it nine?) pieces of what was said could constitute obstruction, but saw nothing I felt was significant.

Did you?

 

Well if you didn't feel it was significant...

As for exoneration, legally it is one of the 2 goals ordinarily of an investigation. Either not enough evidence to go forward (exoneration) or enough evidence to go forward (indictment and prosecution)

[riclag]

5 hours ago, Tug said:

So you agree with me that Barr will cherry pick what supports Donald’s claims and ignore as evidenced in the muller report what doesent support Donald’s claims ?

 You said that I didn't! Deflecting to mueller, I thought this was the topic trump-allows-attorney-general-to-declassify-information-about-origins-of-russia-probe/#comments

[mogandave]

Well if you didn't feel it was significant...
As for exoneration, legally it is one of the 2 goals ordinarily of an investigation. Either not enough evidence to go forward (exoneration) or enough evidence to go forward (indictment and prosecution)

So the report was inconclusive.

[bristolboy]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

So the report was inconclusive.
 

 

No. As I will explain for the last time. Mueller specifically cited DOJ rules for not bringing an indictment against Trump. That's why the report said the the investigation didn't exonerate Trump. It made no such statement about conspiring with the Russians. There it specifically said there wasn't enough evidence. 

[Tug]

19 minutes ago, riclag said:

 You said that I didn't! Deflecting to mueller, I thought this was the topic trump-allows-attorney-general-to-declassify-information-about-origins-of-russia-probe/#comments

I’m not deflecting,I’m nearly using mr barrs  cherry picked biased treatment of the muller report as an example of what most people expect from this tody aka lap dog of donalds

[riclag]

4 minutes ago, Tug said:

I’m not deflecting,I’m nearly using mr baffled shamfull cherry picked biased treatment of the muller report as an example of what most people expect from this tody aka lap dog of donalds

I'll remind you his name is Barr he is the AG of the USA

[mogandave]

No. As I will explain for the last time. Mueller specifically cited DOJ rules for not bringing an indictment against Trump. That's why the report said the the investigation didn't exonerate Trump. It made no such statement about conspiring with the Russians. There it specifically said there wasn't enough evidence. 

So that’s why Mueller recommended impeachment, because Trump could not be indicted until he was out of office.

Is that correct?

[mogandave]

I’m not deflecting,I’m nearly using mr barrs  cherry picked biased treatment of the muller report as an example of what most people expect from this tody aka lap dog of donalds

What parts of the Mueller report were left out of Barr’s summary that you think should have been included?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

So that’s why Mueller recommended impeachment, because Trump could not be indicted until he was out of office.

Is that correct?

 

Mueller did not specifically recommend impeachment. He couldn't. That's not in his remit. What he did say was that he was preserving the evidence of obstruction for possible future proceedings.

[Tug]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

I'll remind you his name is Barr he is the AG of the USA

He is ag in name only he acts more like Donald’s personal lawyer than an ag that is the impression he earned in his biased strung out shameful roll out of the muller report