If you don't think Barr is Trump's Toady...

1. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

   Do you wonder why Barr is so concerned about Trump's cronies to the extent of getting personally involved in their perils? As the AG is supposed to be the people's legal protector of the law, what business does he have protecting the POTUS instead?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Your perspective requires the thought that his actions are 'only' to protect the president. I have to wonder if everyone shares that perspective.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Gus, he's involved himself in several of Trump's cronies cases. Can you give me an example of other cases he's personally involved in?

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Are you saying there are none? Is it worth the effort to search for such information?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Depends on how important it is to know...

               replyreport
         2. 0

            promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            At least 1,100 prosecutors and Justice Department officials agree with you. But what do they know? 
            
            https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … -for-doing

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I read this article this morning, but it will make little impact on Barr's actions I fear.

               replyreport
      2. 88

         MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I think that we do share that perspective. I noticed yesterday that Barr was trying to explain himself in such a manner as to back off Trump's butt kissing. I think Barr realizes that he already has fleas from sleeping with the alpha dog. There are already calls for Barr's recall, or whatever they do to get rid of presidential appointees. It doesn't take Trump long to tire of his "friends." Could Barr already find his green pastures being soiled?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            More than likely it was planned, Miz. To take the pressure off of both Trump and Barr, as they've both been under scrutiny the last few days, they probably agreed to disagree.

            replyreport
         2. 89

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I think AG Barr is in a no-win situation. Whether he is guilty of being Pres. Trump's "toady." or not, the stain of that charge is enough to challenge any credibility he may or may not have.
            
            On top of that, you are right, we have seen what happens to folks that get on Trump's bad side. Hell, being on that bad side might be a plus for Barr.
            
            At this point, I don't think it is that he is pro-Trump as much as it is that he holds political and legal ideologies that happen to be in-line with the president's claims. But that is only a thought, not a declaration.
            
            Also, it is the impeachment process that would be used to remove him by anyone other than the president.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               It remains to be seen if Barr will actually show up for his testimony before the House in a few weeks, Gus. Think he will?

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know. What is he there for? What testimony is expected from him? Has he been invited or subpoenaed? Has he already said whether he would show up or not?
                  
                  As you can see, I don't know anything about what you are talking about, and my friend Google is starting to act a little put-upon. ;-)
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, Barr has agreed to appear. He'll be asked all sorts of questions if he shows up.
                     
                     https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … s-n1136076

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Thanks for the link. Can't wait to see more politician's pontifications. I have been suffering from withdrawal after the Senate vote.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           It will be interesting to see how both the Left and Right approach Barr, Gus. I'll be surprised if they get straight answers to their queries.

                           replyreport
                           1. 89

                              GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              And I bet neither of us will be surprised by the direction of either party's questioning and declarations.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 No doubt, the Left will ask him difficult questions, and the Right will kiss his tremendous ass.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 89

                                    GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yeah, that's the ticket. Of course, the Left will only be interested in difficult non-partisan questions. No posturing, no party-lines, just straight-up American-benefitting interests.
                                    
                                    Now, what about this "tremendous ass" thing. Is that a gauge that is important to you? If he were of average size would you still have described his ass?
                                    
                                    If he were short would you have had a descriptor for that?
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                       Are you denying it's the Trump era, Gus? Are you ignorant of the language our Commander-In-Chief is using to describe his antagonists?
                                       
                                       He's set an example, for not only the children of America, but a large number of his enablers, as well.
                                       
                                       Be proud we can all take part in this Make America Great Again movement! Are you?

                                       report
   2. 79

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I know this will set the wrong way with you. But Barr is working for the people in the case of Roger Stone. His crime does not call for 9 years in prison. Precedence would dictate much less time. If Stone is given such a sentence it will certainly point toward bias. The AG needed to step in. Trump's friend or not his crime would not fit the punishment. The prosecutors went overboard even suggesting 9 years.
      
      Just because he is a friend of the president should not mean he should do more time than what would be the norm for such a crime. We have plenty of people from the last administration that lied to Congress, sought to lie to the FISA court, you name it.
      Thet have all been let off the hook. AG Barr just let McCabe he claimed he "lacked candor” under oath. He lied ... So don't be so quick to jump on Barr. he seems to be doing his job without bias.
      
      Just today --- "Judge Jackson now has a request for a new trial based on the unambiguous & self outed bias of the foreperson of the jury, who's also a lawyer, by the way. ‘Madam foreperson, you're a lawyer, you have a duty, an affirmative obligation, to reveal to us when we selected you the existence of these tweets in which you were so harshly negative about the President & the people who support him. Don’t you think we wanted to know that before we put you on this jury.’ Pretty obvious he should (get a new trial). I think almost any judge in the Country would order a new trial, I’m not so sure about Judge Jackson, I don’t know.” Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox, and Friends."
      
      Trump post from Facebook 2/18

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         "His crime does not call for 9 years in prison."
         
         Are you a lawyer or prosecutor? More than 1,000 former prosecutors and DOJ officials say you are wrong.
         
         The Federal Judges Association is calling an emergency meeting to discuss political interference in the courts by Barr and Trump.
         
         Why are you right and they all wrong?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I am aware that A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases.
            
            My comment was meant to point out the precedence for punishment in the Stone case.  It is just my opinion based on what I have read in regards to the harsh recommendation that the prosecutors requested in the Stone case.  I have also become aware that the AG has every right to give his formal opinion to state agencies; act as a public advocate if need be. I would think it his job to point out a possible bias if he realizes it,
            and point it out.
            
            Not trying to project I am right and others are wrong.
            Just an opinion on a bit of reading. I hope to learn more when AG Barr testifies in the weeks to come.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Now over 2000 former prosecutors has signed the letter of protest as the prison term fits the crimes Stone committed, Shar. You're in no position to quarrel with the guidelines for the penalties Stone receives. I know you want to be, but...hard cheese.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  This all makes me think if Trump did not start the firestorm that Stones verdict, in the end, would have been looked at by the Judge and decreased. In my opinion, the judge will ignore all the hoop- la and give a sentence that is appropriate for a man that has never broken the law is 67 years old, and a none violent crime.  I think she will do her job without bias... And give a lesser sentence. I trust the court to make a prudent decision. I feel with all the factors I mentioned the judge will be lenient.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     I hope she ignores Barr and gives him the maximum recommended sentence. Stone has been a criminal for many years and finally got caught. Even then he threatened witnesses and lied to cover it up. He also put crosshairs on the judge's face on a social platform.
                     
                     And you believe the judge should be lenient?

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        I will be honest. I know little about Stones' past. I have read about the crimes he was convicted of. And I think he should receive the punishment any other person would receive for the same crimes under the same circumstances. As a rule, there is a set amount of time, a judge has the ability to take a few things into consideration. Such as has the person committed other crimes. As  I said,  I think she will do her job without bias, and give a lesser sentence. I trust the judge will be fair and make a prudent decision. I feel with all the factors I mentioned the judge will be lenient. It's just my opinion, not a prediction. She very well might give him the 9 years. If what you say is true and he has lived outside the law for many years. I would guess the judge will give him the max sentence.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           I hope so, Shar. Someone has to take a stand against lawlessness.

                           replyreport
                           1. 79

                              Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              I have to ask do you feel the person's(because there were several that scammed the FISA court with the dossier misinformation) should also be punished for their dishonesty to the court?  You can make it a yes or no reply. I will understand your reasons if it's yes. I have heard the general liberal opinion on that subject. I will save you the time and energy. Just wondering what your feelings were on the matter.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 According to the IG report there were errors made, but not intentional or very serious. I'll have to take his word for it, Shar.
                                 
                                 Stone received 40 months, but the criminal in the WH will pardon his criminal crony.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 79

                                    Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    As I said I trusted the judge to do her job and use federal sentencing guidelines and be somewhat lenient due to Stones's lack of a criminal record.  I agree Trump will pardon him.

                                    replyreport