Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry

Mar 2019
3,017
1,086
California
#31
No, it was not. What the Trump administration is doing is political revenge. Mueller is a Republican and was not selected by the Democrats, who had no power to do so at the time in any case. Only in dictatorships like Russia to leaders take revenge against political opponents, and that is what Trump is trying to turn the United States into.
McCain was a Repub. So what? Mueller was a Hit Job. Once hired, it would have been suicide to fire him. He came up with NOTHING. Time to end this nonsense. But the Dems keep digging? Time to find the skeletons in THEIR closets. Or,there is the sensible thing to do. Drop these stupid investigations altogether and LEGISLATE. That is what Congress was elected for. I don't see any future in trying to overthrow the President. Maybe the Dems don't get it. The same thing can and WILL happen when it is their turn at bat.
 
Likes: WolfHulk

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,879
42,397
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#32
There is nothing dictatorial about getting to the bottom of how and why Trump was investigated.
Yes, there is. It is political revenge against legitimate suspicion of wrongdoing on his part - wrongdoing that has not been disproven except by his own claim. Combine that with redactions preventing release of the full report, and you merely ramp up the legitimacy of the suspicion.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,879
42,397
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#33
Mueller was a Hit Job.
No, he was not.
Once hired, it would have been suicide to fire him.
That is a political problem, not a legal one.
He came up with NOTHING.
That is Trump's story.
Time to end this nonsense. But the Dems keep digging? Time to find the skeletons in THEIR closets.
In other words, seek political revenge. Dictators do that sort of thing.
Or,there is the sensible thing to do. Drop these stupid investigations altogether and LEGISLATE. That is what Congress was elected for.
Legislation is unlikely to get done in any case, because the Democratic House will refuse to enact a Republican agenda; a Republican Senate will refuse to enact a Democratic agenda; and Trump will ignore all of it and do whatever he wants, anyway (rather the definition of "dictator").
I don't see any future in trying to overthrow the President.
There is no such attempt, implying as you have that something illegitimate and illegal is going on. It is not. The House has the sole power of impeachment, and that means it has the legitimate constitutional power to investigate anything about Trump that it wants to.
 
Dec 2014
15,436
5,190
The Milky Way
#35
Except that we have not had that, where the target of an investigation is also effectively in charge of it.

Nonsense. Trump never once claimed executive privlege, or attorney-client privilege during the Mueller investigation. Mueller basically did what he wanted to with very little input from Rod Rosenstein.
 
Nov 2018
5,378
1,562
Bel Air, MD
#36
Yes, there is. It is political revenge against legitimate suspicion of wrongdoing on his part - wrongdoing that has not been disproven except by his own claim. Combine that with redactions preventing release of the full report, and you merely ramp up the legitimacy of the suspicion.
Revenge can be justified.

If you did nothing wrong and someone was out to get you, and never let up, you may get angry, you may want revenge. Wrongdoing, as far as Mueller's report, doesn't proven Trump broke any laws. That's after over $20 million and 19 lawyers, taking over 2 years of sniffing through garbage cans. You believe Trump is corrupt, probably because you don't like him. But, not liking a person doesn't make them a crook.

And, Barr was limited by law NOT to release the entire report. You, above most on this forum, should know that. And, as far as what has been released, there have been few redactions. Also, Barr has allowed certain members of Nadler's committee to see the whole report.
 
Likes: WolfHulk

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,879
42,397
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#37
Revenge can be justified.
"Revenge" is a motivation. If one is motivated by revenge - as is the case here - it renders the goal illegitimate. Republicans have been seeking revenge ever since Nixon (who left office 1-1/2 generations ago), and are still mad they failed with Clinton.
If you did nothing wrong and someone was out to get you, and never let up, you may get angry, you may want revenge.
That is an explanation, not a justification. At most, it is a rationalization - i.e., an attempt to render rational that which fundamentally is not.
Wrongdoing, as far as Mueller's report, doesn't proven Trump broke any laws. That's after over $20 million and 19 lawyers, taking over 2 years of sniffing through garbage cans.
Oh, really? That does not stop Republicans from going after Hillary Clinton, despite 25 years of investigations. That is the search for political revenge.
And, Barr was limited by law NOT to release the entire report.
He was limited by Trump - whether directly, or by political loyalty. The target of the investigation having power over the contents of the report is the very epitome of corruption.

You can spin this all you want, but punishing one's political enemies is an evil in itself, no matter how much you try to whitewash it.
 
Nov 2018
5,378
1,562
Bel Air, MD
#38
"Revenge" is a motivation. If one is motivated by revenge - as is the case here - it renders the goal illegitimate. Republicans have been seeking revenge ever since Nixon (who left office 1-1/2 generations ago), and are still mad they failed with Clinton.

That is an explanation, not a justification. At most, it is a rationalization - i.e., an attempt to render rational that which fundamentally is not.

Oh, really? That does not stop Republicans from going after Hillary Clinton, despite 25 years of investigations. That is the search for political revenge.

He was limited by Trump - whether directly, or by political loyalty. The target of the investigation having power over the contents of the report is the very epitome of corruption.

You can spin this all you want, but punishing one's political enemies is an evil in itself, no matter how much you try to whitewash it.

I'm not the one spinning. I don't know if Republicans were out for revenge over what happened to Nixon, as history shows that many Republicans were in agreement that Nixon had to go. As far as Clinton, I think the GOP should have censored him and moved on. It was not a good move on their part.

I think there is a chance the Democrats have been angry about the Clinton Impeachment, and they have been wanting revenge. Prove me wrong?

With regard to Hillary, she has been corrupt most of her adult life. The so-called investigation by Comey was tainted, as she clearly broke the law.
 
Likes: jenniel

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
32,329
6,374
#40
No, it is not - unless you support dictatorial powers for the president. It is pure political revenge designed to distract from the fact that the administration redacted portions of the report they claim exonerates Trump entirely. As long as the unredacted version is unavailable, that claim is bogus and complaints about it are unfounded. Only in dictatorships (see: Putin's Russia) do leaders take revenge on political opponents.
The Inspector General began the investigation over a year ago and Trump had nothing to do with it. This is standard procedure when there is any hint of misconduct and has exactly nothing to do with any dictatorial powers.

The Peter Strozk emails as well as the McCabe leaks to the press as well as the problems with Comey bending DOJ rules to do his own thing were all public knowledge at the time that IG said the bottom quote in response to the obvious bias of Strozk.

Mueller is done, but DOJ probe of alleged bias on Mueller and FBI teams is not

A year ago, the Justice Department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, announced he was launching an investigation into the allegations of misconduct, including a review of how the FBI handled the author of the controversial "dossier," former British spy Christopher Steele, who claimed to be told by sources that Page and other Trump associates were working with Russians to help Trump win the White House in 2016 and boost Trump's businesses.

Horowitz is also looking into whether FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who privately exchanged anti-Trump text messages while working on the Russia probe, were guided by politics in their official actions, and whether senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr improperly tried to influence the probe by sharing Steele's information with the FBI

https://www.c-span.org/video/?44681...horowitz-testifies-clinton-email-probe-report


GOWDY: Did you ever have an agent when you were a prosecutor with this level of bias?

HOROWITZ: My view of this was that this was extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values. In my personal view having been a prosecutor and worked with FBI agents, I can’t imagine FBI agents suggesting, even, that they might use their powers to investigate, frankly, any candidate for any office.

GOWDY: Well, I can’t either. I am struggling to find a better example of outcome-determinative bias than that. So what am I missing?

HOROWITZ: Well, I think, uh, that certainly with regard to the, uh, Russia investigation you mentioned, as you know, we are looking at that in an ongoing way.
 
Likes: jenniel

Similar Discussions