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.

The Bill Barr Appreciation Thread (1 Viewer)

lazyike said:
How long before President Trump has AG Barr make Rudy Giuliani’s legal troubles go away? Nixon type Saturday night massacre changes into Trump’s Saturday night massacre.
Click to expand...
It's probably already happened. We just haven't heard of it. The creation of a channel through the Pitt PA USA office is likely a way to create a normality or propriety around what Giuliani was doing, he - and Trump - is insulated now. I think Barr has likely already interfered there.

 
So, what's the deal here? If you're under the jurisdiction of the AG you have to comply? I call bs. This guy doesn't get to run roughshod over anything he wants. This is why someone was asking for whistleblowers within the Dept of Justice to step forward toot sweet.

 
lazyike said:
How long before President Trump has AG Barr make Rudy Giuliani’s legal troubles go away? Nixon type Saturday night massacre changes into Trump’s Saturday night massacre.
Click to expand...
He probably already has. Giuliani hasn't been charged with anything even though he has been working hand in hand with Parnas and Fruman for over a year.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
So, what's the deal here? If you're under the jurisdiction of the AG you have to comply? I call bs. This guy doesn't get to run roughshod over anything he wants. This is why someone was asking for whistleblowers within the Dept of Justice to step forward toot sweet.
Click to expand...
Seems like we got all kind of whistleblowers stepping forward, just none of them with 1st hand or direct information.  All kinds of hearsay, though.

 
BladeRunner said:
That's called "Going Eric Holder".
Click to expand...
I was a Republican ( at the time) and no fan of President Obama. I remember being upset with Lois Lerner pleading the 5th, thinking and hoping that they would find something in those Benghazi hearings. But I do not recall any chatter or talk about Holder protecting President  Obama talking about the need for any DOJ investigation to end or him saying it was unfair.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lazyike said:
I was a Republican ( at the time) and no fan of President Obama. I remember being upset with Lois Lerner pleading the 5th, thinking and hoping that they would find something in those Benghazi hearings. But I do not recall any chatter or talk about Holder protecting President  Obama talking about the need for any DOJ investigation to end or him saying it was unfair.
Click to expand...
Fast n' Furious, anyone?

 
BladeRunner said:
Any good lawyer will tell you when and when you don't need to testify.  Donald Trump's lawyers most likely advised against it.  They were right - he didn't need to testify as the sham was exposed.
Click to expand...
Why would he expose himself to legal jeopardy with nothing to gain.  This crowd would cry perjury if he said the sky was blue and the media would play along like it was the most grievous thing a President has ever done.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Encyclopedia Brown said:
I did not know until recently that Barr's father was the headmaster of an elite private school in NYC, and that he hired a very young, very unqualified Jeffrey Epstein as a math teacher. 

Epstein had no college degree, no accreditation, no resume, no nothing. 
Click to expand...
It’s kind of sketchy on who hired Epstein as Donald Barr resigned before Epstein was hired 

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Daddy Barr resigned from Dalton School in February 1974 over disagreement with the board of trustees. Epstein began teaching at Dalton School in "late" 1974. 
Click to expand...
The wiki you post states “He was hired by Donald Barr... .”  Barr resigned then but left at the end of 1974 per the NYT. The NYT has Epstein starting fall of 1974, while the NY Magazine article Max cites has him starting 1973.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
He was guilty?  You sure?  I read that he was acquitted. 

Did you get your news straight from the DNC?  If you did, I know where your problem is.   ;)
Click to expand...
I’m sure. He did it.  Being acquitted by the sycophant GOP senators means sweet #### all in any objective analysis of the evidence.  Which was overwhelming.  

 
“With Bill Barr, on an amazing number of occasions … you can be almost 100 percent certain that there’s something improper going on,” said Donald Ayer, the former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration.
Click to expand...
Politico

- Former DAG under Bush Sr.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the Jessie Liu situation is even worse than the Stone prosecutors situation, because Liu essentially stepped in for Mueller on the remaining key Mueller prosecutions. Trump tried the same deal with Liu last year when the post-Mueller landscape was still very much in doubt, however this time they ensured they filled her position before she could return if/when they withdrew her nomination.

 
A Conservative Judge Draws a Line in the Sand With the Trump Administration

Outraged the attorney general had ignored a court order, he authors a blistering opinion rebuking William Barr for overstepping his constitutional authority.

...

In a jaw-dropping opinion issued by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago on January 23, Judge Frank Easterbrook—a longtime speaker for the conservative Federalist Society and someone whom the late Justice Antonin Scalia favored to replace him on the U.S. Supreme Court—rebuked Attorney General William Barr for declaring in a letter that the court’s decision in an immigration case was “incorrect” and thus dispensable. Barr’s letter was used as justification by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the federal agency that applies immigration laws) to ignore the court’s ruling not to deport a man who had applied for a visa to remain in the country.

...

The 7th Circuit case involved an undocumented immigrant, Jorge Baez-Sanchez, who was subject to removal from the United States after being convicted of a crime. Baez-Sanchez applied for a special visa allowing him to remain in the U.S. if he was also a victim of a crime. An immigration judge twice granted Baez-Sanchez a waiver. But the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the immigration judge’s decision, claiming that only the attorney general personally could grant waivers—not immigration judges. Baez-Sanchez appealed to the 7th Circuit, which disagreed and remanded the case with a directive that the Department of Homeland Security comply with the immigration judge’s waiver. When it refused, Easterbrook, a 35-year veteran of the court, had had enough of the willful disregard for judicial authority.

“We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again,” Easterbrook wrote. “Members of the Board must count themselves lucky that Baez-Sanchez has not asked us to hold them in contempt, with all the consequences that possibility entails.”

Given Trump’s record of defiance, Barr’s maneuver is predictable—but it is a shocking break with more than 200 years of constitutional and legal precedent.

... In defying the 7th Circuit, therefore, Attorney General Barr challenged the validity of Marbury v. Madison itself—and thus the federal judiciary’s authority to say what the law is and have it stick. ...
Click to expand...
- Barr instructed the federal immigration appeals board to ignore a court order.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation said:
I’m sure. He did it.  Being acquitted by the sycophant GOP senators means sweet #### all in any objective analysis of the evidence.  Which was overwhelming.  
Click to expand...
Or, conversely, being indicted by sycophant DNC Representatives means sweet #### all in any objective analysis of the evidence.  Which was NOT overwhelming.  Not even close.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Attorney General William Barr was correct in realizing that Roger Stone's previously recommended nine-year sentence by Justice Department (DOJ) prosecutors would have been "absolutely excessive," White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham affirmed Thursday.

Grisham said that the administration expected retaliation from Democrats after President Trump tweeted in support of Barr and senior DOJ leaders' decision to effectively overrule a previous judgment in the former Trump adviser's case by seeking a lesser sentence.

In an apparent protest of the reversal, on Tuesday four career DOJ prosecutors abruptly withdrew from their posts.

Since then, Democrats have accused the president of interfering in the process -- a charge which the president has vehemently denied -- and called for Barr's resignation. Additionally, the case has been complicated further by questions over possible juror bias.

Meanwhile, it emerged Wednesday that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was an Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views -- and whose husband worked at the same DOJ division that handled the probe leading to Stone's arrest.

And, another Stone juror, Seth Cousins, donated to former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke and other progressive causes, federal election records reviewed by Fox News show.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/grisham-bill-barr-roger-stone-sentence-excessive
Click to expand...

 
So what. No big deal. The Judge ruled against the defense. Too late to cry about it now. I hope Judge Amy Berman Jackson throws the federal sentencing guidelines book at Roger Stone. She absolutely should make an example out of him and this farce coming from the AG and DJT.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
So what. No big deal. The Judge ruled against the defense. Too late to cry about it now. I hope Judge Amy Berman Jackson throws the federal sentencing guidelines book at Roger Stone. She absolutely should make an example out of him and this farce coming from the AG and DJT.
Click to expand...
All three of them should be in prison

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Politico

- Former DAG under Bush Sr.
Click to expand...
I will never forget the front page of the NYTimes with Weinberger laughing during his press conference. (original behind pay wall, link to related story with pic: AP wipes Iran-Contra pardons from Bill Barr's record: Another win for conventional wisdom

Reaction to Iran-Contra Pardon

Secretary Weinberger held a news conference shortly after he received a presidential pardon for his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, in which money obtained from the sale of arms to Iran was diverted to fund the Contras in Central America. Secretary Weinberger maintained his innocence in the affair, and said further release of information would not show complicity in the deal by President Bush. He also complained of the lawlessness and vindictiveness of the Independent Counsel investigating the case, Lawrence Walsh.
Click to expand...
The bolded sounds kinda familiar.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Barr is the man.
 

In an exclusive interview, Attorney General Bill Barr told ABC News on Thursday that President Donald Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case” but should stop tweeting about the Justice Department because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”

Barr’s comments are a rare break with a president who the attorney general has aligned himself with and fiercely defended. But it also puts Barr in line with many of Trump’s supporters on Capitol Hill who say they support the president but wish he’d cut back on his tweets.

“I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr told ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas.

When asked if he was prepared for the consequences of criticizing the president – his boss – Barr said “of course” because his job is to run the Justice Department and make decisions on “what I think is the right thing to do.”

“I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody ... whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president,” Barr said. “I’m gonna do what I think is right. And you know … I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”
Click to expand...

 
BladeRunner said:
Or, conversely, being indicted by sycophant DNC Representatives means sweet #### all in any objective analysis of the evidence.  Which was NOT overwhelming.  Not even close.
Click to expand...
GOP senators know he did it.  They admitted as much.  I have yet to hear anyone articulate a coherent theory that would explain the known evidence in a way that exonerates Trump.  It most certainly has never been done in this forum.

It is literally connect the dots.  Which, of course, is why Trump had to prevent evidence from being heard.  So his base could hold onto the "hearsay" argument.  Which is ridiculous.

 
zoonation said:
GOP senators know he did it.  They admitted as much.  I have yet to hear anyone articulate a coherent theory that would explain the known evidence in a way that exonerates Trump.  It most certainly has never been done in this forum.

It is literally connect the dots.  Which, of course, is why Trump had to prevent evidence from being heard.  So his base could hold onto the "hearsay" argument.  Which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I could explain this case to you for the thousandth time, but it would fall on deaf ears.

the short version is:

- it is legal for the President to request that any allegation be investigated.  IIRC, Clinton asked Hubble to look into aliens and Kennedy

- it is a duty of office to not look the other way at apparent criminal activity

- Biden admitted to pressuring Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was investigating a company that was paying his son millions of $$ for nothing

- there was probable cause and Trump wanted truthful information sent to the DOJ

- the Ukraine never felt any pressure to produce anything and did not produce anything

-Ukraine got the money proving there were no strings attached

no quid. No pro. No quo.  

- the conversation was not publicized and not communicated to any members of the campaign.  There was a clear segregation between Presidential duties and campaign duties.

I am not sure what you think he did.  If the request was slow walked while due diligence was going on, then that falls within the duties of office as the money aid was sent before any deadline.

 Pop

 
Sam Quentin said:
I could explain this case to you for the thousandth time, but it would fall on deaf ears.

the short version is:

- it is legal for the President to request that any allegation be investigated.  IIRC, Clinton asked Hubble to look into aliens and Kennedy

- it is a duty of office to not look the other way at apparent criminal activity

- Biden admitted to pressuring Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was investigating a company that was paying his son millions of $$ for nothing

- there was probable cause and Trump wanted truthful information sent to the DOJ

- the Ukraine never felt any pressure to produce anything and did not produce anything

-Ukraine got the money proving there were no strings attached

no quid. No pro. No quo.  

- the conversation was not publicized and not communicated to any members of the campaign.  There was a clear segregation between Presidential duties and campaign duties.

I am not sure what you think he did.  If the request was slow walked while due diligence was going on, then that falls within the duties of office as the money aid was sent before any deadline.

 Pop
Click to expand...
Stop with the bolded...this has been shown to be a lie many times over. Just stop.

There was no probable cause at all...none, zero, zilch.

Read what Alexander said he did...we know what he dod, we know there was quid pro quo (that they eventually got the money does not negate that.)

 
sho nuff said:
Stop with the bolded...this has been shown to be a lie many times over. Just stop.

There was no probable cause at all...none, zero, zilch.

Read what Alexander said he did...we know what he dod, we know there was quid pro quo (that they eventually got the money does not negate that.)
Click to expand...
He is on tape saying fire the prosecutor or you don’t get the money

even if he had a legitimate justification for that, it is still is a clear conflict of interest and to an outside observer, like Trump, has the appearance of a potential crime.   It’s very legitimate to ask the question and ask  Ukraine if Shokin was a martyr or a crook.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
The Official Katie Porter (HOR/D-CA45) And Her "Whiteboard Of Justice" Appreciation Thread (10/24/22 17:34 PST)
Replies
2
Views
304
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
E
Democrats Planning to Add 4 New Justices to the Supreme Court
3 4 5
Replies
242
Views
7K
John123
J
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top