ilovefuzz.com

They listen to us through our cell phones, so why not that way right?

Here's an idea for the people of Chicago. Don't rob people at gun point so that you have to be put on house arrest.

I am going to propose that the DOJ rename themselves the "Department of Jokes" (and not very good ones at that).

Second time as farce: https://www.justsecurity.org/63635/barr ... o-in-1989/

Hadn’t been aware of this history when I had easily spotted the telltale signs of clever lawyering deviously distorting underlying reality. I don’t fully know what it is, of course, but I recognize the smoke and mirrors.

Gone Fission wrote:Second time as farce: https://www.justsecurity.org/63635/barr ... o-in-1989/

Hadn’t been aware of this history when I had easily spotted the telltale signs of clever lawyering deviously distorting underlying reality. I don’t fully know what it is, of course, but I recognize the smoke and mirrors.

I'm going to withhold my prodigious damnation until after the Mueller report is released. I understand the need to redact the parts pertaining to any ongoing investigations, but if Barr is too profuse with the black marker then the fishy smell will skyrocket from "fish stand during a midsummers day" to "canned catfood processing factory in Chernobyl." In other words, get your clothespins ready, lads.

That being said, I hope he's smart enough to know what would happen if he redacts too much; I can't imagine Trump will be the hill he chooses to die on. Although he did condense a 400 page report into a very shallow 4-ish page summary....

Besides Barr’s own history, this is certainly an area ripe with precedents: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell

Anyone fancy some light reading? Only 448 pages

https://media.npr.org/assets/news/2019/ ... report.pdf

Volume I is about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Volume II deals with Trump's obstruction, and begins on PDF page 208.

So far it seems very lightly redacted. For now I'm just chipping away at Volume II, since Vol. I offers no surprises (Spoiler: Russia definitely interfered; this was bluntly said in Mueller's memo).

EDIT 1
Okay I was wrong about the redactions, the last quarter of Vol. I is loaded with redactions. Also, the document is not searchable (at least not on Preview) so this is gonna take a while, especially with a full workday to boot.

Bassist_Diver wrote: if Barr is too profuse with the black marker then the fishy smell will skyrocket

Well, Congress still has the option of subpoena for Mueller if they feel like chopping through Barr's redactions to make them public. But they will probably wait while other aspects of tangent investigations conclude anyway. I would bet money they'll play that card before the final stage of election season, even if it doesn't lead to a smoking gun. It just makes Trump act crazy, which helps Dems in ways that pure fundraising never could.

Does it explain why the FBI chose: "to not make traditional prosecutorial judgement?"

The section about obstruction of justice seems to be Trump admin telling DOJ to drop the case because there is nothing there, FBI concludes that there is nothing there, and in order to save face they have this ridiculous politically motivated "does not exonerate" portion.

Seems like the "to not make traditional prosecutorial judgement" is in there in order to facilitate this "does not exonerate" stance....has this stance ever been in any other investigation? It makes no sense in US judicial terms, its a bit of fluff at the end to take a political dig.

Why would Mueller conclude without resolving these issues if they were in fact issues? Makes no sense, he is not limited by time or money.

Because the report establishes that members of his campaign met with Russians to interfere with the elections. There isn't evidence of Trump personally doing it, but if the people working for him did this on his behalf, and those people follow Trump's instructions, then it does not exonerate him.

James Clapper thinks it's pretty damning:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke4QksnUZnc[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke4QksnUZnc

friendship wrote:Because the report establishes that members of his campaign met with Russians to interfere with the elections. There isn't evidence of Trump personally doing it, but if the people working for him did this on his behalf, and those people follow Trump's instructions, then it does not exonerate him.

Do you have the page numbers talking about this?
I thought Barr specifically said that the Russians had illegally interfered with the election but that no US citizens collaborated with these groups, or had knowledge of these groups.

I think this illustrates how politicized the report is:




What a joke.

Prosecutors don't exonerate people.

Chankgeez wrote:James Clapper thinks it's pretty damning:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke4QksnUZnc[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke4QksnUZnc

In for a penny, in for a pound.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBTPTmcoB2Q[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBTPTmcoB2Q

eurovision'd

Also, James Brown'd:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... mning-than

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrnUhRYTlE[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrnUhRYTlE