Barr testimony

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Then you must therefore believe that the Merriam Webster dictionary is also "highly partisan", since it defined spying as secretly watching someone to gather information, which is exactly what happened with Trump.

Anything that doesn't serve your agenda must be dismissed as "highly partisan".

Barr said very specifically, that he wasn't saying the spying was improper, but he was going to look into it. You are literally making up bullsh*t as you go along. Getting a little desperate?

The DoJ is supposed to be impartial Jim, spying is a loaded word and it was used intentionally for partisan gain. His entire testimony was intended for partisan gain, not to promote justice. The brazen nature of it all is really shocking.

About the only reasonable thing the senate Republicans have done on this issue is subpoena Trump Jr. Case closed!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The DoJ is supposed to be impartial Jim, spying is a loaded word and it was used intentionally for partisan gain. His entire testimony was intended for partisan gain, not to promote justice. The brazen nature of it all is really shocking.

About the only reasonable thing the senate Republicans have done on this issue is subpoena Trump Jr. Case closed!

"spying is a loaded word "

For Gods sake, read the definition from the Webster dictionary that I posted. I'm sorry that Trump was correct when he said he was spied on. I'm sorry everyone on your side looks foolish for saying he was lying. I'm sorry that the Webster definition absolutely supports the way Trump and Barr used the word.

Last month, if I told you that surveillance was far different from spying, you'd have laughed at me.

Spying on someone, means secretly gathering watching them to gather intelligence. That's the common definition. If that bothers you now for political reasons, then the problem is your politics, not everyone's common understanding of the word.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The DoJ is supposed to be impartial

[scottw]

it's pretty shameful what the democraps are up to...

Andy McCarthy(another guy with much more credibility than spence)

"In gross violation of Justice Department policy and constitutional norms, a prosecutor neither charges nor recommends charges against a suspect, but proceeds to smear him by publishing 200 pages of obstruction allegations. Asked to explain why he did it, the prosecutor says he was just trying to protect the suspect from being smeared.


This is the upshot of the Mueller report’s Volume II. It might be thought campy if the suspect weren’t the president of the United States and the stakes weren’t so high.

The smear-but-don’t-charge outcome is the result of two wrongs: (1) Mueller’s dizzying application of Justice Department guidance, written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), holding that a president may not be indicted while he is in office; and (2) the media-Democrat complex’s demand that only laws they like — those that serve their anti-Trump political purposes — be enforced.

On the matter of the OLC guidance, the Mueller report exhibits the same sleight-of-hand that I detailed in Monday’s column regarding its account of the George Papadopoulos saga — in which Mueller obscures the fact that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation (“Crossfire Hurricane”) was opened on the false pretense that a Russian agent named Joseph Mifsud confided to Trump adviser Papadopoulos that Russia had thousands of Clinton emails, which Papadopoulos told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer the Kremlin planned to publish in a manner timed to damage Clinton for Trump’s benefit. To the contrary, if you wade through the fine print of Mueller’s report, you learn that Mifsud was not a Russian agent; there’s a good chance he did not tell Papadopoulos anything about emails; in relating to Downer that Russia might have damaging information on Clinton, Papadopoulos said nothing about emails or about Russia trying to help Trump; but, two months after they spoke and the hacked DNC emails were published, Downer (in consultation with the Obama State Department) leapt to the overwrought conclusions that Papadopoulos must have been referring to those emails (he wasn’t) and that Russia and the Trump campaign must be collaborating to undermine the election (they weren’t).

The narrative head fakes and legal mumbo-jumbo make you wonder what’s going on here. Who is running this show, Mueller — or some of his notoriously aggressive staffers, recruited from the Obama Justice Department and private practice stints representing the Clintons?

But the politics have landed us in the place, not the law. Democrats and their echo chamber have insisted that Mueller must write a report because the special-counsel regulations require one. Yet the same regulations require the report to be confidential: just between the special counsel and the attorney general, to resemble how charging decisions are always made in the Justice Department — non-publicly, by prosecutors and their supervisors. If Barr had followed those supposedly binding federal regulations, House Democrats would already have impeached him — just as they now ridiculously propose to hold him in contempt for redacting from Mueller’s report grand-jury information he is legally obligated by congressional statute to withhold.

The closer you look at this fiasco, the worse it seems."