To annoy you, apparently.
3 Likes
Bill Barr is the 6th ring of Dantes Inferno. Satin is let lose but he will fail again. patience all those of good will keep the faith and be a Sam Adams wherever you can
1 Like
Reading the comment section is voluntary you know. One has to click on the comment section which you apparently did
3 Likes
Coming to this site to exchange comments is kind of like going to the neighborhood tavern where you know everybody and you just want to take a seat, listen and throw around a few impressions. Some only lurk, some like to talk a lot, some actually have expertise to share, some like to chime in when they agree.
Thatās all.
7 Likes
BARR: āWe analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction,ā
Muller report submitted: 22-March
Barr spin summary issued: 24-March
I call ābullshitā on Barrās statementā¦
6 Likes
I was searching for the right words. You found them.
1 Like
Maybe we need comments on the comments. This comment referring to the old saw about assholes is perhaps informative to people who donāt know the old saw. But, WTF, why not give the full fucking old saw, and add at the end āand they all stinkā? See, weāre really getting to the ā¦er bottom of whatās going on with Barr. So trenchant and informative I canāt stand it.
Like 1000X
I keep waiting and waiting
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?
We need an Anthony Wiener level rant from someone.
While Iām at it Thank You Kirstin Gillibrand for silencing Al Franken
What from you ? Fucking crickets?
1 Like
Hereās another way forward.
āObstruction of justiceā is a vague, procedural-sounding crime that most Americans canāt connect with, arguably. But Democrats have a whole range of criminal or morally indefensible misconduct by the president to choose from, and some of it will not be opaque to ordinary Americans. If I were Pelosi and Nadler, I would think carefully about the Presidentās failure to authorize protective measures against a 2020 attack by Russians and other malign actors, and make that the focus of an impeachment inquiry.
This would involve:
- Calling Mueller and others to give evidence about the 2016 attacks and the prospect of 2020 attacks.
- Calling witnesses from the administration to give evidence about what has and more pertinently has not been done.
- Opening an impeachment inquiry into the question of whether Trump is currently betraying his oath of office by inviting a repetition of the 2016 attack for partisan benefit.
āRefusing to protect our electionsā is a concern that is understandable; will not go away; opens the door to all kind of testimony about collusion past and present; and will not feel like partisan score-settling but like an ongoing national emergency receiving proportionate attention. Itās also a practically necessary step that will operate as a deterrent.
Something has to be done. Democrats wonāt win in 2020 by talking about infrastructure. Milwaukee, Detroit and Philadelphia will not turn out in huge numbers to support the infrastructure party.
5 Likes
I know, right? Heās such an obvious liar, contradicting himself over and over, unable to hold up to even the most superficial scrutiny.
I guess heās hoping no one checks back on what he said last week or last month.
Impeach Barr first, then trump.
3 Likes
Yes, the comment section really is annoying me today. I usually try to think of something meaningful and if I canāt, I donāt post. Go figure. Iām just about ready to stop reading the comments altogether. Josh Marshall really needs to come in and say itās fine for everyone to say that Trumpās an asshole without adding anything to the discussion, or maybe he could state that it would be nice for some actual thought here.
Where did this interview take place? Where would one need a fire going on in the background and also to wear a sissyās winter vest, at this time of the year?
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
1 Like
Sheās still busy running for president and wondering why her polling is so dismal.
On Twitter she regularly gets blasted about throwing Franken under the bus. Maybe someday sheāll get it.
1 Like
Reading the article, Barrās explanation of his actions puts Muellerās presentation into a starker zone. Barr just waved his hand and dismissed the experience and the work of a man many see as the epitome of professionalism in his discipline. Barr vaporized all the hard work of a contingent of people equally knowledgeable and experienced along with Mueller.
I had a sense that Muellerās words were angry, but now I hear them as full on rage.
4 Likes
I know, right? Itās like weāre about to invade Normandy, and the night before, to rally and inspire the troops, the Dems stand up and talk about how theyāre going to fix the potholes back home.
3 Likes
I hear you. If Iām not interested in a discussion, I just move on to the next topic.
2 Likes
What Barr is saying is that itās ok to indict a sitting POTUS or to at least put in a deferred indictment. I favor that. So letās start that off by having the SDNY indict Individual-1 for the two Cohen-Daniels related campaign finance charges in which he was named as a co-conspirator.
7 Likes
Okay, Iāll bite. Which law did you apply? What part of the legal analysis laid out in Muellerās report did you disagree with? Is it incorrect to argue, as Mueller did, that indicting a president for interfering with grand jury and court proceedings would not impede a presidentās ability to lawfully conduct the responsibilities of his office?
1 Like
YES! Get the ball rolling! Itās OK to indict Fat Nixon, folks! Go for it!
2 Likes