Its all going to backfire yet again Hahahahahahahahaha
Backstabbing former Attorney General Bill Barr has criticized the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot. Barr, a known critic of Trump, labeled the ruling as ‘Procedural Frankenstein’ and argued that the finding lacks legal credibility and constitutional backing.
Take a look hat Barr had to so and how Barr thinks this will effect Trump politically.
Barr saved Trump from Impeachment, at great professional risk to himself. He was walking a tightrope between doing what he thought was right and having the Justice Department revolt. He actually did that brilliantly, but the far right mongs were too stupid to grasp what was going on.
When Trump went off the rails after the election Barr smartly chose to not follow Rudi into professional and financial oblivion.
Mozart
Barr was always a Political and Bureacratic Eatablishment person. That is what Trump disliked in people op/erating against the people. Knowing how Public S ervants worldwide operate such an estblishment care for the interests of people vansihed.
The establisment in Washington is a power fir the worst treatment of the ccoubtry and its people. I do not like what I saw at present in the USA . Biden has to major problems -
* must execute instructions given to him by the D P fundes; and
* rather than restricting the power of the Bureaucrats he goes along what they want him to do.
In both cases the accommodation of the two powers mentioned will be to the detriment of the people th ey are supposed to serve.
I never criticized Barr in the past and thinhe did some good thing s from a judicial point of view. Those were dealing with the abuse of power and lies of the FBI and the Democrats iro General Flynn and the appointment of the Special Council to investig ate the sandalous Russian Hoax based on lies conccted bym the Democrats helped alonm g by te FBI and the CIA.
He did a hell of a job better than that corrup t and ultra-leftist idiot Garland do at present.
You’re delusional…..Barr had Trump’s fate in his hands and he saved his presidency by walking through the eye of a legal needle.
I am not deliusional when a refer to your comment on the conduct of Justoce Department officials. If they in their work situation undemnes Government they should be charged ih misconduct and fired.
"Barr had Trump’s fate in his hands and he saved his presidency by walking through the eye of a legal needle."
What was the issue you refer to please. walking through the eye of a needle by doing what and how did it save his pesidency?
Special Counsel Report: The report makes the statement: “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.” It further states, “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Election, Vol. 2, page 2 (March 2019) (“Special Counsel Report”))
Barr Statements: The Attorney General omitted the Special Counsel office’s allusion to their lack of confidence in exonerating evidence as well as repeated findings that there was substantial evidence supporting the key elements of obstruction. Instead, Barr offered his own conclusions about the obstruction case against the president, stating, “I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” (Letter from Attorney General Bill Barr to House and Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, p. 3 (March 24, 2019) (the “Barr Letter”))
Barr could have gone the other way and that would have been much less risky personally. But taking that position, along with a helpful Department of Justice report he commissioned effectively ended the impeachment.
Nobody did more for Trump than Barr.
I assume that refes to the report of Mueller. What obstruction did Mueller referred to in his report. That was BS. If you look at the findings of the subsequent Durham report on the origins of the Russian Hoax BS it was much clearer that there was no evidence of collusion and Mueller refused to even look at what was really the case - then your assunption was BS and in his report Mueller was desperate trying to find Trump guilty of something that never existed. Incidentally the Trump Administration did not undemine the Muller investigation - over 3 million documnts requested by Mueller was provided to him.
If Barr could find any evidence on anything other than what Trump did wromng than fine - but there was no evidence provided .that Trump was invovled in collusion qand obstruction of the investigation and that did not require that Barr needed to provide legal aid to exonerate Trump - that was legal BS that only Mueller in a desperate effort to find Trump guilty of something referred to as obstruction of his ninvestigation. Barr did what was expected from a legal expert - nothing more. .
I gave Barr credit with dealing with another set of legal abuse I referred to in two real cases - and that was the Flynn case and Barr's appointment of Durham on the Rusisan Hoax issue. There was no evidence of anything and in the House Hearing it was clear that Mueller tried desperately to find something he couild accuse Trump of. Mueller was disgraced by aborting all legal principles and what Barr did was to clearly state that in his later opinion as quoted,
How you came to the a bove conclusion based on a report that found no real evidence of wrongdoing by Trump is total legal BS and on par with DP conclusions on legal practice. . Even the Democrats realize there was no evidence that could lead to any impeachment of Trump on that issue - if they thought there were they would have tried to impeach him based on the BS contained in the report of Mueller. .
In this particular case you apparently follow the present norms of the legal situation in the USA followed by Garland - if anybody is accused of a crime in the emdia - he or she is guilty and must prove his innocence. That is clearly illustarted by Garland and the BS they are charging Trump with - an effort to abort the basic principles that was practiced for centuries in the past in the USA and is embedded in the USA Constitution.
Garland is trying to have the issue of allegations of corruption of the Biden's aborted by interefering in the charges against Hunter because it would not only be against Hunter - but also implicate Joe Biden in corruption. His actions thus far indicated efforts to get Hunter Biden off the hook and the collusion of the FBI is clear as well.
Biden was and is an idiot. He provided ammunition the Republicans are ussing against him - even that 2018 video that showed how he threaten the Ukraine govenment that if they did not fire the Prosecutor investigating Burisma within 6 hours he would not provide the finanacial aid to the tuine iof $1 billion dollars and the man was fired. Garland is obstructing justice and there is plenty of evidence of that - Barr did not act the same way so he deserve credit for that approach.
.
You miss the point again….Mueller said he couldn’t say Trump didn’t obstruct Justice, Barr translated that as he didn’t obstruct Justice. If he simply accepted Mueller’s statement, further investigations would have resulted. Trump would have potentially been tied up in further discovery and speculation.
Barr put a line under that and left Trump free to govern. As a consequence of that and other actions he took to protect Trump, there were discussions of impeaching him. Use what little brains you have, Barr was not in danger of being impeached because he was Trump’s enemy.
Mozart
What you wrote is utter BS. Mueller said he cannot say that Trump did not obstruct justice. What the hell does that mean? Legally bugger all. It could never place Trump in a position that he was actually accused of obstruction of Justice.
In another place Mueller said he cannot exonerate Trump of collusion - he was embarrassed in the hear ing that NOBODY in the US can exonorate a peson - not even the President of the USA. A case must go to court and once sentence it can happen that the President pardon the convicted criminal.
So Mueller made a complete idiot of you. Barr did not need to save Trump because there was legally nothing Trump could be charged for. .
.
If Barr accepted Mueller’s statement, Barr as AG had a duty to investigate….by interpreting it the way he did, he closed all doors. In doing that he took personal risk. He wasn’t Trump’s enemy, he was his best friend until Trump lost it after the election.
Believe it, or believe some right wing nutter.
Mozart
Your posting is total legal BS. Mueller was appointed to find Trump guilty of the allegations of Russian Collusion originating from the DNC, He found nothing after two years using 28 lawyers all picked by the DNC to get rid of Trump and he could not finmd any evidence and what was written in the Mueller report boiled down to I found nothing about obstruction and it is over to Barr to find something
Barr realized it was BS and stated this in his response. Barr also realized that the whole pocess leading to the appointment of Mueller was political BS and instead he appointed Durham to find out what led to the start of the Russian Collusion Hoax and he did find real evidence linking the plot to Clinton, the DNC and the Obama administration. That came out in court cases where he put the guilty parties starting the BS Hoax stories on trial. In fa ct he proved that the FBI was totally involved in the smear and proved that in the Court charges he lodged.
This has zero to do with the legal issues involved and everything to do with getting rid of Trump as President, but you are trying to twist it into a legal pursuit of Trump. Barr would not put up with BS started by the Democrats and that was the end of the story,
This story you wrote and your deductions came from somewhere - please provide your source, I looked at the issue from a legal perspective - not a political one. If ever there was insubordination or an attempted coup that Russian H oax was one. If ever there was an insurrection attempt - the Russian Hoax was it.
In fact your deductions are childish BS without any factual basis at all - so my question is where did you get that BS from. I hope you have a source - I cannot believe that you came up with the BS yourself. So where did you get the garbage from?
Mueller thought he was leaving the door open for an ongoing witch hunt by saying he couldn’t exclude obstruction. Barr closed the door by affirming there was no legally defined obstruction.
Barr did Trump a great service….door and case closed
Mozart that is supreme BS .invented by an idiot. In the first instance Mueller was appointed to investigate the Collusion Hoax and after spending 28 months on the ivnestigating he found NO proof of anything. He asked for over 3 million documents from the WH and those were provided to his team.- Barr was aware of the fact that everything that happened iro of Trump was going through his office and everything they asked for was provided to them going through Barr's office in response. In other words was what they asked for they got.
After wasting $32 million dollars Mueller fou,ndx no ev idnce of anymthing . But Mueller also included two sentences that was totally that was total legal BS . He included the meaningless stnatement that he could not state that Trump was not obstructing his investigation . What the hell does that mean? Mueller could not find evcidence of collusion so he had to include something menaingless to justify his long investigation, Barr knw that there was no attempt of Trump to woth hold any thing Mueller sajked for - sow hatn obstruction was happening .
Insofar as exonerate is concerned it is non-exiostenmt BS , in the House Hearing one of the Republican members took th e elgal hadbooks of the Law Scxhool where Mueller qualified and there in those books there enver was any reference to "exonerate" anybody facing criminal charges before he was tried fcor such offences, He also quoted from other Univarsity manuals and could not fcind anything. Mueller realized that he fucked up and cringingly stated that he included it because Barr nmay not know it.
Barr knew the full implicationa s to whatw s going on and he would not make a fool of himself to even consider the BS remarks. You must believe Barr is an idiot by even amking the remarks you amde. Instead Barr appointed D urham as Special Council to investigate the origins of the Rusian Hoax fabrication and what came out was lies concocted bym Clinton- the D NC and the Obama WH, the FBI and th e CIA.
In your view Trump could have been guilty of a criminal offence based on lies and distortions. .
My advice is stay away from the Wall Street Journal - they fuck up your braincells completely and do some fact checking before you write BS on site,