What's new
By:
Filters

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Do we need a new amendment? No REPUBLICAN President can be impeached within 4 years of any election? I mean, come on. Republicans keep talking about the 2016 election and seem to think impeachment is about that and not about Donald committing impeachable acts. In reality, impeachment is all about protecting the 2020 election.
 
Basically, the Inspector General says, here are the facts and Im not getting in the middle. Nobody outright admitted bias, so I won't say there is bias.

Attorney General says, clearly there is a bias. Thank you IG. We will take it from here, and people are in trouble.

Democrats claim victory.

Haha. Just when you thought it was over, its only beginning.
 
NPC D4617 said:
Basically, the Inspector General says, here are the facts and Im not getting in the middle. Nobody outright admitted bias, so I won't say there is bias.

Attorney General says, clearly there is a bias. Thank you IG. We will take it from here, and people are in trouble.

Democrats claim victory.

Haha. Just when you thought it was over, its only beginning.
Click to expand...
You should comment on the post above yours.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
NPC D4617 said:
So everything Hannity has said, the Attorney General has confirmed?
Click to expand...

Only if one believes lying and rewriting history confirms a thing. The AG has not confirmed Hannity. Or Trump. What he is doing is attempting to rewrite history. It's the history Trump supporters prefer. But, it's still a phony narrative deliberately created to protect Trump.

Fact checking AG Barr reveals just how much he is full of it, and just how much he does not serve the people or the Constitution. He has only one purpose in all of this, and that is to protect Trump, and prevent the American people from understanding the truth. PolitiFact is impartial, and found the AG issued "mostly false" statements. Way to go chief law enforcement officer!

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...barr/barr-disputes-inspector-generals-report/

Just how bad is Barr's deception? It's ridiculous. The latest interview shows how much he will deceive to protect Trump. An unelected official, rewrites history, and thinks he can just ram it down our throats and insist this Big Lie is the truth. This is the AG of the United States doing this. He thinks we are all stupid. We're not:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e-more-dangerous-than-you-think-heres-latest/

.....Barr is rewriting the story of 2016 in a subtle but consequential way. He’s implying that the FBI’s initial investigation was only motivated by what it had learned about the Trump campaign’s intentions with regard to coordinating with Russia’s electoral subversion effort.

But Barr is leaving out crucial facts and context. In fact, when the FBI launched this investigation, it had already developed an awareness that Russia was undertaking this attack on U.S. democracy — separate and apart from any Trump campaign involvement with it. This was a critical reason the FBI launched its investigation......

....It’s galling in the extreme that Barr would piously claim concern for preserving the sanctity of our elections while hand-waving away the massive outside disruption effort as a central reason the investigation was legitimately launched.
This also serves numerous Trump political purposes. It helps Trump make the fact of that Russian attack disappear — and by extension the betrayal of our country his campaign engaged in when it did actively work to coordinate with and benefit from it.

This has been a central Trump goal for years: Son-in-law Jared Kushner dismissed the Russian effort as “a couple of Facebook ads,” and campaign manager Brad Parscale insisted Russia “never” helped Trump.

In fact, this was a serious and disruptive attack on our democratic processes and on liberal democracy itself. Barr is helping make all that go poof.

This also serves to downplay the threat of another outside attack and Trump’s eagerness to benefit from that, too, which he has openly telegraphed. And anything that obscures that eagerness helps Trump dodge accountability for his use of his office to extort another foreign power into helping rig the next election, for which he’s being impeached.
 
NPC D4617 said:
Click to expand...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...882092-1c55-11ea-87f7-f2e91143c60d_story.html

Eric H. Holder Jr., a Democrat, was U.S. attorney general from 2009 to 2015.

As a former U.S. attorney general, I am reluctant to publicly criticize my successors. I respect the office and understand just how tough the job can be.

But recently, Attorney General William P. Barr has made a series of public statements and taken actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate for America’s chief law enforcement official that they demand a response from someone who held the same office.

Last month, at a Federalist Society event, the attorney general delivered an ode to essentially unbridled executive power, dismissing the authority of the legislative and judicial branches — and the checks and balances at the heart of America’s constitutional order. As others have pointed out, Barr’s argument rests on a flawed view of U.S. history. To me, his attempts to vilify the president’s critics sounded more like the tactics of an unscrupulous criminal defense lawyer than a U.S. attorney general.

When, in the same speech, Barr accused “the other side” of “the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law,” he exposed himself as a partisan actor, not an impartial law enforcement official. Even more troubling — and telling — was a later (and little-noticed) section of his remarks, in which Barr made the outlandish suggestion that Congress cannot entrust anyone but the president himself to execute the law.

In Barr’s view, sharing executive power with anyone “beyond the control of the president” (emphasis mine), presumably including a semi-independent Cabinet member, “contravenes the Framers’ clear intent to vest that power in a single person.” This is a stunning declaration not merely of ideology but of loyalty: to the president and his interests. It is also revealing of Barr’s own intent: to serve not at a careful remove from politics, as his office demands, but as an instrument of politics — under the direct “control” of President Trump.

Not long after Barr made that speech, he issued what seemed to be a bizarre threat to anyone who expresses insufficient respect for law enforcement, suggesting that “if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.” No one who understands — let alone truly respects — the impartial administration of justice or the role of law enforcement could ever say such a thing. It is antithetical to the most basic tenets of equality and justice, and it undermines the need for understanding between law enforcement and certain communities and flies in the face of everything the Justice Department stands for.

It’s also particularly ironic in light of the attorney general’s comments this week, in which he attacked the FBI and the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General — two vital components of his own department. Having spent the majority of my career in public service, I found it extraordinary to watch the nation’s chief law enforcement official claim — without offering any evidence — that the FBI acted in “bad faith” when it opened an inquiry into then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign. As a former line prosecutor, U.S. attorney and judge, I found it alarming to hear Barr comment on an ongoing investigation, led by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, into the origins of the Russia probe. And as someone who spent six years in the office Barr now occupies, it was infuriating to watch him publicly undermine an independent inspector general report — based on an exhaustive review of the FBI’s conduct — using partisan talking points bearing no resemblance to the facts his own department has uncovered.

When appropriate and justified, it is the attorney general’s duty to support Justice Department components, ensure their integrity and insulate them from political pressures. His or her ultimate loyalty is not to the president personally, nor even to the executive branch, but to the people — and the Constitution — of the United States.

Career public servants at every level of the Justice Department understand this — as do leaders such as FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Their fidelity to the law and their conduct under pressure are a credit to them and the institutions they serve.

Others, like Durham, are being tested by this moment. I’ve been proud to know John for at least a decade, but I was troubled by his unusual statement disputing the inspector general’s findings. Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations have been irrevocably lost.

This is certainly true of Barr, who was until recently a widely respected lawyer. I and many other Justice veterans were hopeful that he would serve as a responsible steward of the department and a protector of the rule of law.

Virtually since the moment he took office, though, Barr’s words and actions have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution. Which is why I now fear that his conduct — running political interference for an increasingly lawless president — will wreak lasting damage.

The American people deserve an attorney general who serves their interests, leads the Justice Department with integrity and can be entrusted to pursue the facts and the law, even — and especially — when they are politically inconvenient and inconsistent with the personal interests of the president who appointed him. William Barr has proved he is incapable of serving as such an attorney general. He is unfit to lead the Justice Department.
 
NPC D4617 said:
Basically, the Inspector General says, here are the facts and Im not getting in the middle. Nobody outright admitted bias, so I won't say there is bias.

Attorney General says, clearly there is a bias. Thank you IG. We will take it from here, and people are in trouble.

Democrats claim victory.

Haha. Just when you thought it was over, its only beginning.
Click to expand...
I hope Trump's not paying you for being his mouthpiece. If so, he's not getting his money's worth.

Though if you make some misspellings and capitalize some letters you could look more like your lord and savior himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top