Barr THINKS Spying Occurred

Mar 2019
2,574
574
Texas
#51
Big difference between saying “I hope the hell he doesn’t win” and “we will stop him.” The latter implies action.

Look at is this way. Imagine the texts were between Trump and and Barr. Trump asks “Will Mueller causes us problems?” and Barr replies “No, we will stop him.” What would you infer from that?


An investigation of the FBI is warranted here.
Reminds me of trump and comey's shrimp dinner meeting.
 
Dec 2015
15,899
14,797
Arizona
#52
Big difference between saying “I hope the hell he doesn’t win” and “we will stop him.” The latter implies action.

Look at is this way. Imagine the texts were between Trump and and Barr. Trump asks “Will Mueller causes us problems?” and Barr replies “No, we will stop him.” What would you infer from that?


An investigation of the FBI is warranted here.

You didn't answer my question and don't use the words "imply" "infer". Implying and inference play absolutely no part in investigations. My opinion doesn't matter and your inference doesn't matter either.
God only knows how many "PRIVATE and PERSONAL" conversations Trump has had with Barr and people like Barr. God only knows what was said. As we all know, Trump will say and HAS said any number of things that are horrific....but if it will make you happy, and I'm sure the GOP/DOJ wants you to be happy....I'm fine with an investigation of the FBI.
Why not? This country is so screwed up already.
 
Dec 2018
2,367
742
New England
#53
You didn't answer my question and don't use the words "imply" "infer". Implying and inference play absolutely no part in investigations. My opinion doesn't matter and your inference doesn't matter either.
God only knows how many "PRIVATE and PERSONAL" conversations Trump has had with Barr and people like Barr. God only knows what was said. As we all know, Trump will say and HAS said any number of things that are horrific....but if it will make you happy, and I'm sure the GOP/DOJ wants you to be happy....I'm fine with an investigation of the FBI.
Why not? This country is so screwed up already.
Ah, no. An investigation is all about inferences. You infer meaning based on the existence of evidence and then attempt to prove the assertion of wrong-doing implied in the inference (how's that that for a semantic möbius strip?)
 
Dec 2013
33,440
19,259
Beware of watermelons
#54
I gotta ask you what I asked Clicker: What's your source for that claim?

It's being repeated like a mantra. This is a common tactic, you know, like "witch hunt."

What, you mean like "Barr? You mean, Trump's defense attorney?"


Barr? You mean, Trump's defense attorney?
Seriously, you have no problem with Barr, Trump's defense attorney, making unfounded public allegations that align perfectly with one of Trump's favorite conspiracy theories?

The Ds aren't desperate. You are.

Maybe
 
Jul 2014
14,231
8,645
massachusetts
#55
Seriously, you have no problem with Barr, Trump's defense attorney, making unfounded public allegations that align perfectly with one of Trump's favorite conspiracy theories?

The Ds aren't desperate. You are.
In Trump's defense, he has been criticized for appointments where the nominee was completely unqualified.
But Barr has already played an important role in two previous coverups, Iran-Contra and Iraqgate, finally Trump nominates someone with relevant experience.
 
Dec 2013
33,440
19,259
Beware of watermelons
#56
Yea that is not true.
It sounds good but not true.
At no time does a warrant trump reasonable suspicion. It is a crime for anyone to not report a crime.

No, if the police come to your house on a body warrant they cannot go digging thru your house. If they are there on a search warrant for drugs they cannot go thru tour computer, your phone or other electronics. Same as if you have a safe that they were unaware that you had. Seperate warrants would be required for each extension of the original warrant. If they do not go thru the proper channels once these new things are stumbled upon that evidence and all that follows this line are no longer usable by the state. Wire taps follow a similar logic but I'm not sure on how that works and believe it varies by state as recording consent varies from state to state.
 
Mar 2019
2,574
574
Texas
#57
No, if the police come to your house on a body warrant they cannot go digging thru your house. If they are there on a search warrant for drugs they cannot go thru tour computer, your phone or other electronics. Same as if you have a safe that they were unaware that you had. Seperate warrants would be required for each extension of the original warrant. If they do not go thru the proper channels once these new things are stumbled upon that evidence and all that follows this line are no longer usable by the state. Wire taps follow a similar logic but I'm not sure on how that works and believe it varies by state as recording consent varies from state to state.
True but if they come across crimes they are required to make a determination on the matter. They could give a verbal warning..pour a bag o dope out or arrest a person.

True though they can not go out of their way and violate the fourth but if they in normal function of a warrant find reasonable suspicion then they are still duty bound to determine things.
 
Nov 2012
10,580
8,736
nirvana
#58
If you have a warrant to search for drugs in a persons house, you are there to find drugs. If you find other things, you cannot use the warrant to obtain them and use them against that person.

Mueller was put in place because a FISA warrant was obtained to go after a person around Trump, namely Carter Page for Russian collusion. They then used the warrant to spy on Carter Page, who just so happened to work around Trump so that they could spy on Trump as well if they liked. What a coincidence, right?

Well guess what, they then started going after people in and around Trump, but for things that had nothing to do with Russian collusion. Then they went after his lawyer, a person Trump confided in for representation. So much for being able to do that. Essentially what this devolved into was trying to find something wrong with Trump and those around him.

Is it surprising that Mueller with his army of investigators could find dirt on the people in and around Trump? Not really. I bet the same could be done with pretty much anyone at that level of power. But at the end of the day, none of them had any Russian collusion, the sole reason Mueller was given such power.

And let's say that Mueller was able to find dirt on Trump, did it have anything to do with Russian collusion? I have not read the report but my guess is no. What I fully expected is what we got, no Russian collusion and just a lot of poo slinging, trying to drag Trump through the mud and as many of his cohorts as they could.

At this point, if Mueller did find something illegal about Trump, like if he jay walked or did not file a tax return right, no one gives a damn except people like you who want to destroy him.

What really took the cake for me is when Nancy Pelosi comes out and says they will not pursue impeachment because Trump is not worth tearing the country apart. Think of it, these clowns have from day one talked about impeachment and done nothing but attack Trump, which did divide the country. But now that the empty report has no real smoking gun, just a lot of poo slinging, all they can do now is do what they have done from day one, which is continue to rag on Trump. to divide the country as much as possible

Now what I could have possibly got behind was going after Trump for something like his university cheating all those kids out of their money, but instead, the democrats chose to collude with the Russians to file dossier that was used to obtain an erroneous warrant that was used to try and find illegal activity that had nothing to do with the original warrant. Add to that the unconscionable intrusion of his privacy by destroying lawyer/client privilege. Even the most guilty person in the world deserves as much.

Disgusting.
Wrong.

any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
 
Likes: imaginethat
Dec 2015
15,899
14,797
Arizona
#59
Ah, no. An investigation is all about inferences. You infer meaning based on the existence of evidence and then attempt to prove the assertion of wrong-doing implied in the inference (how's that that for a semantic möbius strip?)
I'll see your inferences and raise you an overreliance on information and analysis leading to time mismanagement and inappropriate prioritization of subjects. But I'm not saying to ignore patterns of behavior.
 
Likes: skews13