What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

William Barr Thread (1 Viewer)

Barr's son in law has landed a job in the White House.

CNN reports that McGaughey, the husband of Barr’s youngest daughter, has been hired as an attorney in the White House counsel’s office, where he’ll “advise the president, the executive office, and White House staff on legal issues concerning the president and the presidency.” While the division is separate from the legal team that defends Trump in the Russia investigation—a group of leading lights that includes Rudy“maybe there was collusion” Giuliani—its work nevertheless does “intersect with the investigation.” (Trump reportedly blamed former White House counsel Don McGahn for failing to bring the probe to a close.) Meanwhile, Mary Daly, Barr’s oldest daughter, will be leaving her current job in the deputy attorney general’s office for a gig at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which has had its own Russian intrigues.

 
AG Barr holding news conference on release of Mueller report.

Discuss here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 2m2 minutes ago

Basic political takeaway so far is that the WH is playing this for a draw rather than a win. They don't care if they appear partisan so long as their base is happy, because Democrats aren't gonna like Trump anyway and swing voters are exhausted and don't care much about Russia.

 
Daniel Dale‏Verified account @ddale8 8m8 minutes ago

Barr: "The bottom line" on collusion is that "the special counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election, but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded."

Barr: "The president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks."

Barr says Trump took "no act" to deprive Mueller of the documents or witnesses he needed in his investigation. He says, of his no-obstruction decision, that there was good evidence showing Trump had "non-corrupt motives."

Barr has sounded like a Trump spokesperson at various points of his statement.

 
Daniel Dale‏Verified account @ddale8 2m2 minutes ago

Asked how Mueller explained why he didn't make a call on obstruction, Barr says he'll leave it to the report, but when they met, Mueller "made it very clear several times" that it wasn't because of the government position that says a sitting president can't be indicted.

Barr says Mueller didn't indicate his intention was to leave the obstruction call "to Congress." He says he didn't talk to Mueller directly about his decision to make his own call, but he's been "told" that Mueller thought it was "my prerogative."

 
Daniel Dale‏Verified account @ddale8 4m4 minutes ago

Asked why Mueller isn't here, given that it's his report we're discussing, Barr says, "No it's not. It's a report he did for me as the attorney general. He is required under the regulation to provide me with a confidential report. I'm here to discuss my response to that report."

Asked about his words that are "generous" to the president, Barr said, "The statements about his sincere beliefs are recognized in the report, that there was substantial evidence for that, so I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that I'm being generous to the president."

The press conference ended after Barr was asked if there was any impropriety in him pre-spinning the report. (An aide announced mid-question that it'd be the last question.) Barr simply said "no."

 
Michael M. Grynbaum‏Verified account @grynbaum 13m13 minutes ago

Chris Wallace on Fox:

"The Attorney General seemed almost to be acting as the counselor for the defense, the counselor for the president, rather than the Attorney General, talking about his motives, his emotions... Really, as I say, making a case for the president."

 
Neal Katyal on MSNBC:

"There is no reason whatsoever why the report shouldn't have been given first before the Barr press conference except so that Barr could get out his talking points and try and influence the direction of the country first ahead of time." 

 
Neal Katyal on MSNBC:

"There is no reason whatsoever why the report shouldn't have been given first before the Barr press conference except so that Barr could get out his talking points and try and influence the direction of the country first ahead of time." 
:lmao:

Translation:  No fair. We wanted to get our talking points in first. It’s our duty to smear the President to our base that won’t read or understand the report.  

 
Translation:  No fair. We wanted to get our talking points in first. It’s our duty to smear the President to our base that won’t read or understand the report.  
You are aware that is unprecedented for the AG to hold a press conference on a report presented to Congress and not release it to members of Congress beforehand. That has never once happened in the history of this country.

 
MSNBC reports that Trump is to speak shortly on Barr's presser. Brian Williams called it a "prebuttal" before release of report.

 
Just reported on MSNBC:

NBC's Julia Ainsley reports that, according to the report, Robert Mueller did consult the Office of Legal Counsel opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president. She notes that that counters what Barr said earlier.

 
Mike Downing of Bloomberg reports:

Mueller said he lacked confidence to clear Donald Trump of obstruction of justice but suggested Congress could take action on at least 10 instances where the president sought to interfere with the probe.

 
knowledge dropper said:
:lmao:

Translation:  No fair. We wanted to get our talking points in first. It’s our duty to smear the President to our base that won’t read or understand the report.  
Few things...no, but it is suspect that they want to get their narrative out before congress even sees it.

Also...judging by the russia thread, the anti trump base is actually reading the report, those supporting Trump have obviously avoided reading anything on it.

 
Few things...no, but it is suspect that they want to get their narrative out before congress even sees it.

Also...judging by the russia thread, the anti trump base is actually reading the report, those supporting Trump have obviously avoided reading anything on it.
No doubt there was no collusion.  Now it’s all about Trump haters doing the old bait and switch to the purely subjective standard of obstruction.  

 
No doubt there was no collusion.  Now it’s all about Trump haters doing the old bait and switch to the purely subjective standard of obstruction.  
A.  There is doubt there was conspiracy..."collusion" isn't a legal term.  There is only no doubt Mueller didn't recommend criminal charges or have evidence to support criminal conspiracy.  This is a fact you can't refute.

B.  Nobody is doing any bait and switch here.  And its not a subjective standard for obstruction being discussed either.

C.  None of this even addresses the point being made was the clear observance in the Russia thread was a group of people actually reading the report and summaries and posting about them...and those who appear to refuse to read any of it (including at least one who won't answer if he read any of it as he opines on how bad it is for the democrats).

 
A.  There is doubt there was conspiracy..."collusion" isn't a legal term.  There is only no doubt Mueller didn't recommend criminal charges or have evidence to support criminal conspiracy.  This is a fact you can't refute.

B.  Nobody is doing any bait and switch here.  And its not a subjective standard for obstruction being discussed either.

C.  None of this even addresses the point being made was the clear observance in the Russia thread was a group of people actually reading the report and summaries and posting about them...and those who appear to refuse to read any of it (including at least one who won't answer if he read any of it as he opines on how bad it is for the democrats).
A.  Falsehood.  Provide proof there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russians.

B. False

C. Is this tattling? 

 
A.  Falsehood.  Provide proof there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russians.

B. False

C. Is this tattling? 
A.  Read the russia thread (or the actual report)...its all there showing cooperation.  What the report says is more about rising to the level of criminal conspiracy.

B.  Stop this (like with A).  Back up your claim of false.  How is any of this bait and switch.  The actual report makes it clear that he was not cleared of conpiracy...further the more we saw today (as discussed in the other thread) is that Barr's first "summary" wasn't fully descriptive of what the report had to say on obstruction.

C.  No...its pointing out that your point above "We wanted to get our talking points in first. It’s our duty to smear the President to our base that won’t read or understand the report.  " that I originally replied to appears to be the exact opposite.  That the side who has read it are the democrats and that it appears much more so that republicans and Trump supporters have not.

 
A.  Read the russia thread (or the actual report)...its all there showing cooperation.  What the report says is more about rising to the level of criminal conspiracy.

B.  Stop this (like with A).  Back up your claim of false.  How is any of this bait and switch.  The actual report makes it clear that he was not cleared of conpiracy...further the more we saw today (as discussed in the other thread) is that Barr's first "summary" wasn't fully descriptive of what the report had to say on obstruction.

C.  No...its pointing out that your point above "We wanted to get our talking points in first. It’s our duty to smear the President to our base that won’t read or understand the report.  " that I originally replied to appears to be the exact opposite.  That the side who has read it are the democrats and that it appears much more so that republicans and Trump supporters have not.
A.  A 2200s page of Trump hate.  No bias there.  

B. I asked YOU to provide conspiracy proof    

C  It WAS s smart move to get in front of the story before the left leaning media began their spin.  

Good Day. 

 
A.  A 2200s page of Trump hate.  No bias there.  

B. I asked YOU to provide conspiracy proof    

C  It WAS s smart move to get in front of the story before the left leaning media began their spin.  

Good Day. 
A.  People posting actual quotes from Mueller's report.  Are you claiming Mueller's findings are biased?

B.  B had nothing to do with conspiracy...you appear to not be willing to read where its being discussed...so Im positive you have read none of the report.  This was about obstruction...and again you are unwilling to read even comments about the report much less what Mueller has to say about it.

C.  This again does not address the claim you made about democrats even reading it.  In addition, what we have seen is that the only ones spinning are Trump, Barr, and the GOP.

 
apalmer said:
You're right. I hereby apologize for not doing enough to prevent the election of a conman to the office of President of the United States and underestimating the stupidity of the American voters..
and willingness to put party above country, values and the rule of law.  But I'm sure this would be the same tune they'd be singing if this was Hillary Clinton we were talking about.  

 
Maybe I am thinking of someone else but didn't Flynn ADMIT to wrongdoing?
He pleaded guilty. He then changed counsel and began claiming a conspiracy between the government and his former counsel (who he has claimed was conflicted). For a while, he did that without revoking his guilty plea. I think he has now moved to revoke it. 
 

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I knew and did some work for Flynn’s former counsel as a young associate. . 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top