Barr is being told to resign by big huge group of Republicans

[wandering peacefully]

OMG... He's insane.

I'd say so. What a joke he is making out of all of US.

 

[sooda]

I'd say so. What a joke he is making out of all of US.

Trump will "get even" with the whole country before this is over. There's not enough adulation in the world to fill his black hole.

 

[Shaul]

1,100, eh? I’ll bet I could find ten times that many Republicans that would like Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler to resign.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, Barr is a man of total integrity. If he truly feels that way, he will resign.

Trumps explanation makes some sense. He affirms Barr's sterling integrity, but he feels that the media will not properly characterize anything he says, so he communicates directly.

My opinion is that he has the right to an opinion, no matter who it upsets, or who it angers, or how stupid.

They will work it out, or they won't.

As to Sessions, Trump believes that if he had not recused himself, he would not have been hoodwinked like Rosenstein was in appointing a special council on bogus material and by warrants obtained illegally.

The probable cause, the foundation of an investigation, did not exist, legally.

After two years of roiling BS the investigation was a flop.

The investigation that in a court of law the work product would be found inadmissable because it was based on illegal and erroneous foundations.

Lots that I disagree with here, but I’m hearing that you do not entirely agree with Barr’s criticism of Trump. Barr gave a TV interview publicly criticizing his boss after multiple of his prosecutors quit the Stone case in protest; it seems Barr thinks this is a bigger deal than you do.

You are also concerned about Trump’s right to express his opinions, but not concerned that “opinions” expressed by someone with power might unduly influence a criminal case involving a political ally. No one is saying Trump can’t express his views, by the way, just that he shouldn’t “bully” (Barr’s word) the DOJ in criminal cases to get more favorable treatment for his friends. Seems kind of reasonable to me, but, maybe Barr is a secret Never-Trumper.

Anyway, that is all quite interesting. Thanks.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

1,100, eh? I’ll bet I could find ten times that many Republicans that would like Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler to resign.

What do you think of the Illinois Republican Party’s statement that they are “disappointed” in Trumps decision to grant clemency to a man who is “the face of corruption” in their state?

You don’t have to stop supporting Trump. Just asking what you think of that.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Trump will "get even" with the whole country before this is over. There's not enough adulation in the world to fill his black hole.

When one thinks of all of the amazing, talented, decent human beings in this country and we end up with Trump as POTUS it is very hard not to think the entire system needs a major overhaul. There has got to be a way to attract qualified, honest and decent applicants. The very first step has got to be to outlaw money donations made by lobbyists to politicians and term limits for Congress members. 6 years max. Maybe 9. But the whole thing is just broken now.

 

[Shaul]

What do you think of the Illinois Republican Party’s statement that they are “disappointed” in Trumps decision to grant clemency to a man who is “the face of corruption” in their state?

You don’t have to stop supporting Trump. Just asking what you think of that.

I think it is a smart move for them to have done so. The statement doesn’t change the clemency. But it helps mollify the people of Illinois, which helps that State’s Republicans. IOW, a token gesture with some upside but no downside. You know, politics.

 

[shmogie]

Lots that I disagree with here, but I’m hearing that you do not entirely agree with Barr’s criticism of Trump. Barr gave a TV interview publicly criticizing his boss after multiple of his prosecutors quit the Stone case in protest; it seems Barr thinks this is a bigger deal than you do.

You are also concerned about Trump’s right to express his opinions, but not concerned that “opinions” expressed by someone with power might unduly influence a criminal case involving a political ally. No one is saying Trump can’t express his views, by the way, just that he shouldn’t “bully” (Barr’s word) the DOJ in criminal cases to get more favorable treatment for his friends. Seems kind of reasonable to me, but, maybe Barr is a secret Never-Trumper.

Anyway, that is all quite interesting. Thanks.

What is unjustly influence, when the influencer has the legal right to influence, or specifically direct.

It may be very unseemly, but it is not unjust.

Actually, Trump has been exemplary in leaving the Justice Dept alone. He could have legally short circuited Mueller, whatever.

If Barr feels bullied, he can resign.

The Justice Department is not an independent branch of government ( perhaps it should be). It is an executive branch department the head of which reports directly to the President.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it is a smart move for them to have done so. The statement doesn’t change the clemency. But it helps mollify the people of Illinois, which helps that State’s Republicans. IOW, a token gesture with some upside but no downside. You know, politics.

Ah. I wasn’t actually asking if you think their letter was a smart move for themselves. I was asking if you agreed or disagreed with the letter’s content, in your own judgement.

I realize Trump’s defenders sometimes have a hard time remembering how to judge things for themselves. Try shutting your eyes and pretending Obama did it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What is unjustly influence, when the influencer has the legal right to influence, or specifically direct.

It may be very unseemly, but it is not unjust.

Actually, Trump has been exemplary in leaving the Justice Dept alone. He could have legally short circuited Mueller, whatever.

If Barr feels bullied, he can resign.

The Justice Department is not an independent branch of government ( perhaps it should be). It is an executive branch department the head of which reports directly to the President.

Yes, it is unseemly. Not sure why you bothered downplaying it and saying it’s not “unjust” - I don’t think I used that word. It makes me wonder: who are you trying to convince?

Yes, he could have fired Mueller - in fact he tried (twice) and his subordinates refused. He hinted at it to Jeff Sessions, who also refused, and was ultimately fired for that once Trump knew he could get away with it.

Do you remember what sparked the impeachment of Richard Nixon? The Saturday night massacre. In which he fired a bunch of lawyers ... which he had the undisputed legal right to do. Now, I’m not saying that Trump’s attempted bullying of the DOJ to help his criminal friends in this instance is as bad as what Nixon did in that instance ... but they were both “unseemly”.

I hope your party heeds the warning signs from Trump loyalists like Barr, before it’s too late. Because eventually, after Trump has betrayed everyone else, I believe he will betray your own party. Barr seems destined to join other Trump allies like Bolton, and Kelly, McMaster, Mattis, Tillerson, Sondland, Sessions, Scarramucci, Cohen ... not to mention party leaders like Romney, Kasich, Fiorina, McCain, Cruz (before Trump took over) and Graham (before Trump took over) ... the list goes on ... you’d be wise to heed them.

 

[Shaul]

Ah. I wasn’t actually asking if you think their letter was a smart move for themselves. I was asking if you agreed or disagreed with the letter’s content, in your own judgement.

I realize Trump’s defenders sometimes have a hard time remembering how to judge things for themselves. Try shutting your eyes and pretending Obama did it.

I think President Trump should have waited until after his re-election. That way these pardons and clemencies would not be a factor in his re-election. But he must have done the political calculus and figured it was ok. So kudos for him to be willing to take the heat of his decision. I wouldn’t venture to second guess someone who has enough political suave to get elected as President. But at least he didn’t do it during his last days in office like a craven sleaze. You know, like a Democrat might.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think President Trump should have waited until after his re-election. That way these pardons and clemencies would not be a factor in his re-election. But he must have done the political calculus and figured it was ok. So kudos for him to be willing to take the heat of his decision. I wouldn’t venture to second guess someone who has enough political suave to get elected as President. But at least he didn’t do it during his last days in office like a craven sleaze. You know, like a Democrat might.

So you agree with Trump giving clemency to Blagojevich, a man who extorted money for sick children from the CEO of a children’s hospital, because he appeared on Trumps TV show The Apprentice? A man the Republican Party of Illinois calls “the face of corruption” in their state?

If you trust Trump has done the political calculus ... or any kind of calculus ... you are naive.

 

[Shaul]

So you agree with Trump giving clemency to Blagojevich, a man who extorted money for sick children from the CEO of a children’s hospital, because he appeared on Trumps TV show The Apprentice? A man the Republican Party of Illinois calls “the face of corruption” in their state?

If you trust Trump has done the political calculus ... or any kind of calculus ... you are naive.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say I agreed with President Trump.

Wow, you had your whole high dudgeon “for the children” spin all primed. Too bad it doesn’t apply either to me nor President Trump.

Speaking of naive, thinking that someone that has become a billionaire while in the public eye for decades and been elected President, such a Trump, thinking such a person had not done the political calculus on an action, now that would be naive.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is great.
He needs more time in prison.
Otherwise he might become a candidate for Nov 2020.

 

[sooda]

1,100, eh? I’ll bet I could find ten times that many Republicans that would like Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler to resign.

Of course.. Pelosi is very smart and experienced .. and she's a woman.

 

[sooda]

So you agree with Trump giving clemency to Blagojevich, a man who extorted money for sick children from the CEO of a children’s hospital, because he appeared on Trumps TV show The Apprentice? A man the Republican Party of Illinois calls “the face of corruption” in their state?

If you trust Trump has done the political calculus ... or any kind of calculus ... you are naive.

Trump isn't concerned about politicians who are criminals or abuse the public trust.

 

[sooda]

What is unjustly influence, when the influencer has the legal right to influence, or specifically direct.

It may be very unseemly, but it is not unjust.

Actually, Trump has been exemplary in leaving the Justice Dept alone. He could have legally short circuited Mueller, whatever.

If Barr feels bullied, he can resign.

The Justice Department is not an independent branch of government ( perhaps it should be). It is an executive branch department the head of which reports directly to the President.

Barr was just signaling to Trump that he will go after Trump's enemies, just stop tweeting about it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say I agreed with President Trump.

You said he should have waited until after re-election, but kudos to him for not waiting. I’m asking: do you agree or disagree with President Trump giving clemency to (as an example) Blagojevich?

It seems like you don’t want to answer that question. Why is that? It’s not a trick question. “Not sure” is an acceptable answer too. I’d just like a straight answer instead of a dodge.

 

[shmogie]

You said he should have waited until after re-election, but kudos to him for not waiting. I’m asking: do you agree or disagree with President Trump giving clemency to (as an example) Blagojevich?

It seems like you don’t want to answer that question. Why is that? It’s not a trick question. “Not sure” is an acceptable answer too. I’d just like a straight answer instead of a dodge.

Do you know the names of the other people who Trump pardoned or commuted their sentences?

I doubt it. They were folks Trump felt had been given excessive sentences, including Blacks, Hispanics, and women.

Blago was a crooked democrat. Trump felt he had served enough time, period.

Trump has railed since day 1 about excessive sentences for non violent crimes. Thus his comments re Stone, who lied under oath. The person he was convicted of intimidating has said that if he knew Stone would be prosecuted , he would have kept his mouth shut.

Compare this to Clapper, Brennan et, al. or McCabe,who was referred for prosecution, who also lied under oath and to FBI investigators, no prosecution. Coincidentally, we find this to seemingly be a benefit for democrats usually.

Trump will continue criminal justice reform, will aid people across the board, regardless of politics, race, or sex whom he feels have been given excessive sentences for non violent crime, which is his right.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, he is embarrassed by Trumps tweets, I am too.

You have absolutely no evidence that Trump interferes with Barr, in his job. An opinion voiced is not interference. Does not Trump have the right of free speech like every other citizen?

Lets take the absolute worst scenario, that Trump tells Barr what to do.

You and the democrats seem to think that the Justice Department is an iindependent agency that operates totally separate from the rest of government.

You and they are wrong. The Attorney General and the Justice department are under the control of the president. They are of the executive branch and all of the executive branch fall under the president. He, and only he is the judge of their performance.

Though it is a bad idea, and gives the enemy ammunition, he has the right to be involved in the justice department as much as he chooses.

Barr has the right to resign if he doesn't like it, he won't , because it isn't happening.

Barr is over a department that has been carefully packed with ideological democrats for decades. These are the ones who resigned with their hair on fire because Trump voiced his opinion. They, and those who signed the infamous letter, and the democrats want to deny Trump having control as much as possible over the government he was elected to run.,

It is all about fatally wounding Trump, because the people were stupid to elect him, and he cannot be allowed to do the job those stupid people want him to do, the democrats know better. It is a continuing coup d'eta, nothing less.

We do have evidence that Trump interferes with Barr, which you pointed out yourself: Trump's tweets. Oh, and Barr's admission that said tweets make it impossible for him to do his job.
Hello!?