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.
That wasn’t the lie...claiming he admitted to wanting him fired for investigating Burisma was. The only person who claims it was being investigated is the guy who got fired. All others agree he was not investigating...which is why the US (pursued by Biden with bipartisan support) and our european allies wanted him fired. He was doing nothing about corruption.
"Donald, a little heads-up: your tweets about how I'm compromising the independence of the DOJ on your behalf are making it harder for me to compromise the independence of the DOJ on your behalf."
NYT
Eh, aside from the categorization of Biden - I get the point and I largely agree. I don't think Don Barr was all in dirty cahoots with the younger Epstein. This all just got started because Max raised whether Epstein had done anything really improper at Dalton and as it turns out he did, though that's supposedly not why he was canned. A guy with no college or teaching degree turned out to be a ####ty teacher, go figure.
That's from the NY Mag link Max posted.
That's from the NYT piece I linked above. I'll add that NYT contradicts NY Mag by saying that Epstein started summer of 1974, not 1973, though that appears from a yearbook reference to him teaching a new class, which is slightly different. - The other sources appear to be students but apparently also their own archived copy of the NYT article from that time discussing Barr:
Not really. I was replying to a claim that Epstein was hired with "no degree, no experience, no nothing"
Bill Barr's father hiring Epstein 45 years ago boils down to a strange footnote in the Bill Barr story. I don't judge him or his father for that. I also don't blame him for not recusing himself from Epstein's prosecution. This incident was too far removed.
Cheering for the politicization of the DOJ and FBI is what you guys have done for four years. It was clear from pretty much the start that the Russia investigation was nonsense, but you guys cheered every process crime and perjury trap that could be squeezed out..cheered every Thursday “bombshell” released in time for the weekend news cycle to continue to gaslight the unwashed into thinking that there was a there there. You cheered every overreach, every breach of basic rights like attorney-client privilege Every convoluted and suspect legal theory, every abuse....
There have been 2 IG investigations, 1 Special Counsel, Huber as specially appointed USA, and DOJ investigations of Hillary, Mueller, Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe and Ohr. Not to mention scores of claims in court. There have been limitless - without end! - requests to discuss the published findings in detail. It is not the Trump critics who have shirked from that.
Robert Bork was acting AG for a few months. Maybe John Mitchell would be in the conversation with
Help me to understand. Probable cause of what crime? If you have a citation to the section of the U.S. Code which was violated or under consideration I would appreciate that, I would like to read it.Sam Quentin said:
Come on Max!I don’t want to believe you believe this.Max Power said:
John Mitchell landed in jail, other than that... which is one of circumstances not quality...
They weren’t investigating Burisma (as I already pointed out...as has been pointed out many times on this board).
This entire post is pure bunk. None of these statements are true. I won't bother countering it because every time you post these baseless claims someone else does counter them, you ignore it and repeat (again) the lies and propaganda you've been fed. But hey, you go on believing crap that reinforces your preconceived notions.
Weren’t you the guy who insisted on reading Horowitz’s report “unfiltered” but then when it came out having heard its conclusions you decided you didn’t even want to so much look at it?
One of the 3 opinion pieces you quoted from bias sources actually has “hot take” in the title.
Which do you believe to be a biased source? And you have provided zero backup to you mimicking claim of what wasn't true.
All 3. I am going off the word of our Attorney General.
The attormey general isn’t trustworthy to be discussing his own summaries.
His report and testimony refuted some of Barrs summary. Yes.
If there are differences between his summary and the report...how could he not have misrepresented it?
I too gave up trying to counter his arguments with facts. 
