1. #10661
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    And the biggest hypocrisy here? Linking obscure and biased websites when it's promoting your case, but never linking them when it's doing the opposite.
    CREW is neither obscure, nor partisan. They're deliberately nonpartisan.

    If you think the idea that expecting "responsibility and ethics in Washington" is a partisan agenda, you're doing a lot to self-condemn.


  2. #10662
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    Strange, he never misrepresented it. Maybe to the letter, but the general gist was correct. And if you think differently, please show me some proof.
    https://thehill.com/policy/national-...letter-to-barr

    The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose of which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.
    He did. That's a direct quote from the letter Mueller sent to Barr after his press conference. You can find the full letter in the link.

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    If he is not actually directly working for Trump, how can it be a conflict of interest? Again, you see things you want to see.
    Trump his his boss. He appointed him. But he doesn't work for him specifically, that's not what the office is supposed to do. The DoJ is not a political agency like HUD, Energy, or others. He is the top attorney for the American people, not Trump. So even if Trump is his "boss", he doesn't represent Trump. He represents the American people, which includes representing them against Trump if he's found to have violated the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    And the biggest hypocrisy here? Linking obscure and biased websites when it's promoting your case, but never linking them when it's doing the opposite.
    CREW is non-partisan and goes after both parties.

    Criticism of Obama's handling of transparency - https://www.citizensforethics.org/pr...ort-on-change/

    Suing the Obama administration to gain access to visitor records - https://www.citizensforethics.org/pr...sitor-records/

    Another battle against Obama's administration - https://www.politico.com/story/2009/...of-hunt-020710
    Last edited by Edge-; 2020-01-02 at 07:33 PM.

  3. #10663
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://thehill.com/policy/national-...letter-to-barr



    He did. That's a direct quote from the letter Mueller sent to Barr after his press conference. You can find the full letter in the link.



    Trump his his boss. He appointed him. But he doesn't work for him specifically, that's not what the office is supposed to do. The DoJ is not a political agency like HUD, Energy, or others. He is the top attorney for the American people, not Trump. So even if Trump is his "boss", he doesn't represent Trump. He represents the American people, which includes representing them against Trump if he's found to have violated the law.



    CREW is non-partisan and goes after both parties.

    Criticism of Obama's handling of transparency - https://www.citizensforethics.org/pr...ort-on-change/

    Suing the Obama administration to gain access to visitor records - https://www.citizensforethics.org/pr...sitor-records/

    Another battle against Obama's administration - https://www.politico.com/story/2009/...of-hunt-020710
    Any proof of Barr not representing the American people against Trump? And for your reference, frivolous law suits or anything the "public" can ask which he doesn't do, is not not representing.

  4. #10664
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Trump his his boss. He appointed him. But he doesn't work for him specifically, that's not what the office is supposed to do. The DoJ is not a political agency like HUD, Energy, or others. He is the top attorney for the American people, not Trump. So even if Trump is his "boss", he doesn't represent Trump. He represents the American people, which includes representing them against Trump if he's found to have violated the law.
    I think it's just political. Nobody calling for Barr's head was crying out for the same when Holder ignored subpoenas, or when, in the midst of being held in contempt of Congress, he declared himself "Obama's wingman". I can't think of any voices on the left objecting at the time that he works for the American people, not Obama.

    You see a lot of this, where people didn't really get fired up about the detainment conditions of children in immigration detention centers under Obama (so-called "kids in cages"), but then once Trump took over it was hair-on-fire time. Or the time the outrage du jour was tear gas at the border, and a possible war criminal stain on Trump's legacy. Then we found out Obama did the same thing, in about the same number of incidents. Again, there was no national conversation about it until Trump took over.

    I think a lot of people scratching their heads wondering why more people do not have their hair on fire over Trump should recognize that a lot of the underpinnings of their outrage are on false platforms. And casual observers note this and adjust their opinions accordingly. Which is usually not hair-on-fire.
    Last edited by Dacien; 2020-01-02 at 07:50 PM.

  5. #10665
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    Any proof of Barr not representing the American people against Trump?
    Why should he be right now? There's no reason to.

    But again, look to the letter. You asked for evidence I provided. This is a pivot since your previous line of argument was debunked, and it's not a particularly good one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    And for your reference, frivolous law suits or anything the "public" can ask which he doesn't do, is not not representing.
    Never said it was. And CREW is still not a leftist group, by the way. Just want to make sure you noticed those links.

  6. #10666
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    I think it's just political. Nobody calling for Barr's head was crying out for the same when Holder ignored subpoenas, or when, in the midst of being held in contempt of Congress, he declared himself "Obama's wingman". I can't think of any voices on the left objecting at the time that he works for the American people, not Obama.

    You see a lot of this, where people didn't really get fired up about the detainment conditions of children in immigration detention centers under Obama (so-called "kids in cages"), but then once Trump took over it was hair-on-fire time. Or the time the outrage du jour was tear gas at the border, and a possible war criminal stain on Trump's legacy. Then we found out Obama did the same thing, in about the same number of incidents. Again, there was no national conversation about it until Trump took over.

    I think a lot of people scratching their heads wondering why more people do not have their hair on fire over Trump should recognize that a lot of the underpinnings of their outrage are on false platforms. And casual observers note this and adjust their opinions accordingly. Which is usually not hair-on-fire.
    Plenty of people were calling for Holder's head, that is an outright lie.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    Any proof of Barr not representing the American people against Trump? And for your reference, frivolous law suits or anything the "public" can ask which he doesn't do, is not not representing.
    I'm still waiting on all your evidence to back up your numerous allegations and accusations.

    Shall we assume your silence is your way of admitting you were lying?

  7. #10667
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Why should he be right now? There's no reason to.

    But again, look to the letter. You asked for evidence I provided. This is a pivot since your previous line of argument was debunked, and it's not a particularly good one.

    Never said it was. And CREW is still not a leftist group, by the way. Just want to make sure you noticed those links.
    Still not see in what you posted that Mueller claims Barr lied about the contents of the Mueller report.

    Where did I call CREW a leftist group.

  8. #10668
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/...broke-the-law/

    So we have a lot of redacted DoJ emails about the Ukrainian aide being held up.

    And apparently a site got a look at the unredacted emails, and the redactions were to remove comments from the DoJ expressing concerns over the legality of the hold on the aide, pointing out that while withholding aide is legal there are processes to go through including informing Congress that legally mandated aide is being withheld.
    Was just reading that here; Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns

    “Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”

    This is what Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, in an Aug. 30 email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now. It is one of many documents the Trump administration is trying to keep from the public, despite congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.

    Earlier in the day on Aug. 30, President Donald Trump met with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the president’s hold on $391 million in military assistance for Ukraine. Inside the Trump administration, panic was reaching fever pitch about the president’s funding hold, which had stretched on for two months. Days earlier, POLITICO had broken the story and questions were starting to pile up. U.S. defense contractors were worried about delayed contracts and officials in Kyiv and lawmakers on Capitol Hill wanted to know what on earth was going on. While Trump’s national security team thought withholding the money went against U.S. national security interests, Trump still wouldn’t budge.

    Thanks to the testimony of several Trump administration officials, we now know what Trump was waiting on: a commitment from Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

    What is clear is that it all came down to the president and what he wanted; no one else appears to have supported his position. Although the pretext for the hold was that some sort of policy review was taking place, the emails make no mention of that actually happening. Instead, officials were anxiously waiting for the president to be convinced that the hold was a bad idea. And while the situation continued throughout the summer, senior defense officials were searching for legal guidance, worried they would be blamed should the hold be lifted too late to actually spend all of the money, which would violate the law.

    The emails also reveal key decision points, moments when senior officials hoped the hold might be lifted. This includes Vice President Mike Pence’s September meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which a senior defense official expected would resolve the funding issue, raising the question: Why? What was supposed to come out of that meeting that would pave the way for Trump to lift the hold? What was Pence expected to communicate?

  9. #10669
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    You see a lot of this, where people didn't really get fired up about the detainment conditions of children in immigration detention centers under Obama (so-called "kids in cages")
    *sigh*

    Do we have to do this shit again?

    https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...ies-under-fire
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...0E814T20140528
    https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/906787...gration-flores
    https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/opini...ren/index.html
    https://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/...er-353827.html
    https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...626-story.html
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/paren...tion_n_5531552
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-migrants.html

    There was plenty of criticism about his handling of the issue.

    But it's not a 1:1 comparison either, as he was facing an unexpected surge of unaccompanied minors and struggled to find additional funding to house and care for them. Yes, the pictures of kids in cages were everywhere and he ate a big shit-sandwich for it.

    The difference when Trump took over, was that this was a new policy he created to intentionally separate parents from their children, with no process in place to track and allow for reunification, with no advanced guidance or preparation, with the specific point of being so cruel asylum seekers wouldn't come.

    https://www.axios.com/sessions-says-...ce986dca3.html

    Jeff Sessions, when he was AG, was open at the fact that this policy was designed to be a cruel deterrent to families.

    Note: He talks about coming over at a point of entry, and that's exactly what a great many of these people did. And they were still forcefully separated despite going about claiming asylum the "right way" (quotes because you can legally claim asylum at any point, even if you've entered illegally. Though I agree that's not idea by any stretch).

    I won't argue that there isn't a bigger freakout when Trump does things compared to others, because there is. But I think part of that is why he does or orders some of those things. Again, kids in cages. That wasn't a response to being overwhelmed with unaccompanied minors. That was an intentional decision to separate children from their families to deter families from seeking asylum. Period.

  10. #10670
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    I think it's just political. Nobody calling for Barr's head was crying out for the same when Holder ignored subpoenas, or when, in the midst of being held in contempt of Congress, he declared himself "Obama's wingman". I can't think of any voices on the left objecting at the time that he works for the American people, not Obama.

    You see a lot of this, where people didn't really get fired up about the detainment conditions of children in immigration detention centers under Obama (so-called "kids in cages"), but then once Trump took over it was hair-on-fire time. Or the time the outrage du jour was tear gas at the border, and a possible war criminal stain on Trump's legacy. Then we found out Obama did the same thing, in about the same number of incidents.

    I think a lot of people scratching their heads wondering why more people do not have their hair on fire over Trump should recognize that a lot of the underpinnings of their outrage are false platforms. And casual observers note this and adjust their opinions accordingly. Which is usually not hair-on-fire.
    thats a lot of false equivalencies.

    eric holder was actually held in contempt of congress for what he did.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2012/...ongress-077988

    when ICE built the cages under Obama, they were intended to be temporary holding facilities for no longer than 72 hours;
    During the Aspen interview, Johnson said that use of the “cage” detention housing method was supposed to be temporary, and that under the law, children were only supposed to be kept in those facilities for 72 hours before being transferred to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). “But during that 72-hour period, when you have something that is a multiple, like four times, of what you’re accustomed to in the existing infrastructure, you’ve got to find places quickly to put kids. You can’t just dump 7-year-old kids on the streets of McAllen or El Paso.”

    The chain-link fences, Johnson said, were to separate people by gender and age until they were released or transferred to HHS’s care. They are also present at a detention facility in Clint, Texas.
    trump has purposely slowed down the processing for migrants so they are forced to be stuck there indefinitely.

    Previously, a court settlement known as Flores required that an immigrant child can only be detained on their own for 20 days. While it’s technically true that children were detained during the Obama administration, because of this policy, he would release the entire families after those 20 days so they could stay together. An overwhelming majority of those families — 85%, or six out of seven — returned for their court hearings as required by law.

    Trump’s new policy would detain the children with their parents, which would hypothetically circumvent the Flores decision and allow those children to stay locked up indefinitely.

    The Trump administration previously argued in court that while they are detained, children do not deserve soap or toothbrushes, and now it expects to be trusted to house these children even longer. Yes, Trump will be bringing families together, but only to be left to rot in dismal facilities.

    The important context in Trump’s comments is his admission that the point of this latest cruelty is to act as a deterrent to immigration. This new rule is only the latest example of this attempted deterrence, including implementing asylum officers and allowing abhorrent conditions in detention facilities. While there’s no evidence such an approach is having any measurable effect, the administration seems to believe it just hasn’t been cruel enough yet.
    he and his administration deliberately made the conditions much worse.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkpr...a3314c8bc/amp/

    any more things you want to misrepresent?

  11. #10671
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    Still not see in what you posted that Mueller claims Barr lied about the contents of the Mueller report.

    Where did I call CREW a leftist group.
    Fair point and my bad, you didn't call them "leftist" but "biased" (i.e. "leftist) and obscure. They are neither.

    And Mueller straight up calls out Barr for misrepresenting his findings and causing public confusion.

    The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose of which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.
    Maybe bolding will make it easier for you.

  12. #10672
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Was just reading that here; Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns

    “Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”

    This is what Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, in an Aug. 30 email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now. It is one of many documents the Trump administration is trying to keep from the public, despite congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.

    Earlier in the day on Aug. 30, President Donald Trump met with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the president’s hold on $391 million in military assistance for Ukraine. Inside the Trump administration, panic was reaching fever pitch about the president’s funding hold, which had stretched on for two months. Days earlier, POLITICO had broken the story and questions were starting to pile up. U.S. defense contractors were worried about delayed contracts and officials in Kyiv and lawmakers on Capitol Hill wanted to know what on earth was going on. While Trump’s national security team thought withholding the money went against U.S. national security interests, Trump still wouldn’t budge.

    Thanks to the testimony of several Trump administration officials, we now know what Trump was waiting on: a commitment from Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

    What is clear is that it all came down to the president and what he wanted; no one else appears to have supported his position. Although the pretext for the hold was that some sort of policy review was taking place, the emails make no mention of that actually happening. Instead, officials were anxiously waiting for the president to be convinced that the hold was a bad idea. And while the situation continued throughout the summer, senior defense officials were searching for legal guidance, worried they would be blamed should the hold be lifted too late to actually spend all of the money, which would violate the law.

    The emails also reveal key decision points, moments when senior officials hoped the hold might be lifted. This includes Vice President Mike Pence’s September meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which a senior defense official expected would resolve the funding issue, raising the question: Why? What was supposed to come out of that meeting that would pave the way for Trump to lift the hold? What was Pence expected to communicate?
    This and other revelations to the full crimes of Trump and his co-conspirators are precisely the kind of reasons that could hold off delivery of Articles until after the Senate primaries in March. There is also good "sound" reason that GOP Senators are fearful of Trump's wrath if they vote their conscience - specifically that he will withhold GOP campaign funds and support.

  13. #10673
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Was just reading that here; Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns

    [i] “Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”
    Think I linked that already. If that gets confirmed, this should be a slam-dunk case.

    If Trump actually withheld the aide due to corruption concerns, why didn't he notify Congress about this reasonable and legal reason? Why did they hide it? Why weren't there paper-trails to back up the Trump administrations claims? Why are they redacting DoJ concerns that their action may have violated the law?

    I mean, we know the answers to all these questions...but I still like asking them.

  14. #10674
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Fair point and my bad, you didn't call them "leftist" but "biased" (i.e. "leftist) and obscure. They are neither.

    And Mueller straight up calls out Barr for misrepresenting his findings and causing public confusion.

    Maybe bolding will make it easier for you.
    Ah, so you can claim here that by "biased" I really mean "leftist". Says more about you than about me...

    Mueller is still not saying Barr was lying about the report. Mueller regrets that Barr didn't elaborate enough. But we see this already on these forums: the contents of the report are still very damning for some, while others laugh about it. Funny how more and more proof comes up that the whole process has been flawed from the start, with a FBI agent willfully adding an extra word in an e-mail, so FISA-request could continue.

  15. #10675
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    Ah, so you can claim here that by "biased" I really mean "leftist". Says more about you than about me...

    Mueller is still not saying Barr was lying about the report. Mueller regrets that Barr didn't elaborate enough. But we see this already on these forums: the contents of the report are still very damning for some, while others laugh about it. Funny how more and more proof comes up that the whole process has been flawed from the start, with a FBI agent willfully adding an extra word in an e-mail, so FISA-request could continue.
    Well, it's not hard to figure out that you are someone who fancies himself on the "right."

    That, combined with your various lies, I'd say I'm going to side with her on this one.

  16. #10676
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    I think a lot of people scratching their heads wondering why more people do not have their hair on fire over Trump should recognize that a lot of the underpinnings of their outrage are on false platforms. And casual observers note this and adjust their opinions accordingly. Which is usually not hair-on-fire.
    your feelings of it being "false platforms" does not make it reality, we literally have him admitting to it on TV and now numerous documented proof of him attempting to bribe a foreign country for personal gain, we have records from the white house itself of him using the office of the president for personal gain, we have 4 years of lies documented- ranging from "trivial" things like he didn't golf; when he did, to him saying he's going to "lose money from the tax bill", then of course "we had no contact with Russia", and on and on and on and on.

    But lets take it a different angle what do you think are "false platforms" that have any law abiding citizen concerned about?

  17. #10677
    probably was mentioned already, but since we are discussing Barr i'll post it.

    he made a very strange speech recently regarding religion and "moral decay in society", which echoes a lot of alt right & evangelical ideals that have been espoused on this very board.

    he is someone who puts his own religion above the law, and thinks the law ought to reflect his religion alone.
    some excerpts below:

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/a...-center-ethics

    First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.

    These instruments are used not only to affirmatively promote secular orthodoxy, but also drown out and silence opposing voices, and to attack viciously and hold up to ridicule any dissenters.

    One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of a religion, including inquisitions and excommunication.

    Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake – social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.

    The pervasiveness and power of our high-tech popular culture fuels apostasy in another way. It provides an unprecedented degree of distraction.

    .........

    More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith.

    The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.

    This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the emperor as a god.

    Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a live and let live spirit - they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.

    For example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers, including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.

  18. #10678
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormspellz View Post
    your feelings of it being "false platforms" does not make it reality, we literally have him admitting to it on TV and now numerous documented proof of him attempting to bribe a foreign country for personal gain, we have records from the white house itself of him using the office of the president for personal gain, we have 4 years of lies documented- ranging from "trivial" things like he didn't golf; when he did, to him saying he's going to "lose money from the tax bill", then of course "we had no contact with Russia", and on and on and on and on.

    But lets take it a different angle what do you think are "false platforms" that have any law abiding citizen concerned about?
    Bribery? Why do you think that word is NOT used in the articles of impeachment? You should take the list of Orbitus with a big grain of salt, because a lot of it are things been taken out of context.

  19. #10679
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    Ah, so you can claim here that by "biased" I really mean "leftist". Says more about you than about me...
    In the context of the discussion, it made total sense. I posted something from them that was critical of Trump, you accused them of bias. That bias would have to be from the "left", as Trump is firmly on the "right".

    What other kind of "bias" did you actually mean, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    Mueller is still not saying Barr was lying about the report.
    Except I never said that. I went back and double checked, too. What I said was that he misrepresented, the report, which Mueller backed up in saying it didn't, "...fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions."

    If it didn't fully capture them, it misrepresented them.

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterK View Post
    But we see this already on these forums: the contents of the report are still very damning for some, while others laugh about it.
    Yes. Some of us care about the law. Others clearly don't.

    And for even more, specifically those that listen to conservative news, they don't even know what's in the report. The woman interviewed after Justin Amash's town hall who expressed shock at hearing about the actual contents of the report is a perfect example. Because she'd only followed conservative media, and was completely unaware of any of the contents beyond, "It totally exonerated the president". Which it didn't.

  20. #10680
    Quote Originally Posted by starlord View Post
    probably was mentioned already, but since we are discussing Barr i'll post it.

    he made a very strange speech recently regarding religion and "moral decay in society", which echoes a lot of alt right & evangelical ideals that have been espoused on this very board.

    he is someone who puts his own religion above the law, and thinks the law ought to reflect his religion alone.
    some excerpts below:

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/a...-center-ethics
    You read a lot there that I can't find at al: "he is someone who puts his own religion above the law, and thinks the law ought to reflect his religion alone."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •