Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure it would do any.good but the actual testimony of Barr should be repeated about every 20 posts here on CD for the Trump haters.
Even Clapper admitted there was Spying going on during the election cycle. It should be Barrs job to review all the information and soon to be released reports / investigations and make sure there were no laws broken. If laws were broken, people should pay the price.
Barr, me, you and many others did grow up during the Vietnam war period and recall the abuse of the Hoover surveillance of Students and others the Govt deemed to be enemies. We passed laws to prevent those abuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby
It's not just "he can do it" - those people all work for him and the Buck ends with the DOJ.
It's his duty to make sure everything involved was "predicated" (does legally).
It might help to view the entire transcript - Shaheen opened the thing and she is the person that introduced that ugly word "spying".
Senator Shaheen: News just broke, today, that you have a special team looking into why the FBI opened an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. I wonder if you can share with this committee: who is on that team; why you felt the need to form that kind of a team; and what you intend to be the scope of their investigation?
AG William Barr: Yeah, I, uh, as I said in my confirmation hearing, I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016. And, uh, alot of this has already been investigated, and a substantial portion of this has been investigated, and is being investigated, by the office of the inspector general at the department. But one of the things I want to do is pull together all the information from the investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and the department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed.
Shaheen: Can you share with us why you feel the need to do that?
Barr: Well, for the same reason we are worried about foreign influence in elections we want to make sure that, uh, during an election, I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It’s a big deal.
The generation I grew up in, which is the Vietnam war period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government; and there were a lot of rules put in place to ensure there was an adequate basis for, before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance. I’m not suggesting that those rules were violated, but I think it’s important to look at that; and I’m not just talking about the FBI necessarily, but the intelligence agencies more broadly.
Shaheen: So your not, your not suggesting though that spying occurred?
Barr: I don’t, well, I guess you could, I think there’s that spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur.
I think Shaheen gasped and then a long silence ........
Shaheen: Wow, let me, uh…
Barr: But the question is: whether it was predicated. Adequately predicated. And I’m not suggested that it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.
I think it’s my obligation, congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane, and I want to make sure that happened; we have a lot of rules about that.
And, I want to say that I’ve said I’m reviewing this, I am going to, I haven’t set up a team yet but I do have, I have in mind having some colleagues help me pulling this information all together, and let me know if there’s some areas that should be looked at.
And I also want to make clear this is not launching an investigation of the FBI. Frankly, to the extent that there were issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there, at the upper echelon; and so I don’t like to hear attacks about the FBI, because I think the FBI is an outstanding organization, and I think that Chris Wray is a great partner for me and I’m very pleased that he’s there as the director.
And if it becomes necessary to look over some former official activities, I expect that I’ll be relying heavily on Chris, and work closely with him in looking at that information. But, that’s what I’m doing, I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused; I think that’s one of the principle roles of the attorney general.
Exactly -- further in the hearing, he was quizzed several times about "what evidence to you have" and berated for the word "spying" .... that quickly became a rally cry by the Democrats. Barr carefully used the word "basis" -- they don't discuss on-going Investigations, we should all know this by now. He said he wasn't going to discuss any of it while waiting for all investigations to be completed - but that he did find a "basis" to look at it all. He correctly stated it's his DUTY to make sure his employees and those he has the responsibility to oversee are following the Law and that their actions are legally "predicated".
Where did I say that Barr "is suddenly" a Trump toady? What I said was: "..so far from what I have seenof him…". And the phrase "so far" includes Barr's June 2018 memo ripping the Mueller probe. That memo indicated to me that Barr is in the tank for Trump, and that is why he got the AG job--to run interference for Trump. So I'm not saying that Barr is "suddenly" a Trump toady. I'm saying that Barr has been a Trump toady going back to at least June of 2018.
If your definition of "Trump Toady" is a man who worked for HW Bush as Deputy AG and then AG and donated $45,000 to the Elect Jeb Bush for President Campaign .... long time friend of the Bush Family, none of which voted for and accepted Donald Trump .... OK, but that's an unusual definition.
How about if we consider that Bill Barr is a former Attorney General of the United States and has an opinion (as do all former US Attorney Generals) about what constitutes "Obstruction of Justice".
Barr's Opinion in June of 2018 was that firing the Director of the FBI was NOT "Obstruction of Justice".
He has a right to his opinion and he is not alone in that opinion. Doesn't make him a "toady" to a man he had never met ...... at least it doesn't to Normal People.
But those folks aren't the head of the DOJ. I expect more from him than those still accusing Trump.
As for the investigation...I never thought Trump colluded. BUT it was obvious that there was a great deal of interaction with the Russians and folks in the Trump camp. Hindsight 20/20 it seems now it was more about the Trump corporation and potential deals than influencing the election. But we all have to admit, if it was a Democrat candidate who was interacting with a foreign govt. so closely and that foreign govt. was found to be trying to influence the election -- there would have been a hearing or two or an investigation.
Talking to Russians is not illegal. If it is, I need to be arrested for having a Russian manicurist.
So you think Barr, a man whose unassailable, professional reputation has been built over decades, but he'd throw it all away by lying, and making absolutely false statements, which can be easily refuted, just because the temporary occupant of the Oval Office told him to???
Sorry, but that is crazy conspiracy talk. I just cannot see a man destroy himself over something that can be so easily proven wrong, and he gets absolutely nothing out of it.
They know they are up a creek right now so they are going to attempt to assassinate the character of the AG. They do this will all of Trump's people. Now they are trying to keep them from getting work AFTER they leave the administration. It's disgusting.
A "coverup" by giving a nationally televised statement? Interesting approach.
No, he's not. The DoJ decided not to charge her. They are the ones that are responsible and LOL at your idea that even if Clinton had been indicted that she would have gone to prison.
The word 'cover up' has been used in the last batch of Clinton's emails regarding the firm she used to run her private, home cooked server. They USED the word. Not the GOP.
I find it strange that people are so willing to deny what we have known for a year now, they were spying on the Trump campaign.
This is not up for debate, it in fact happened.
AG Barr is acknowledging this fact, and is looking to see that the spying that took place was properly predicated.
If you want to understand where all this is coming from, watch a few minutes of MSNBC or CNN. Then you will see it verbatim in the replies here. It's kind of creepy.
Yup, she almost out spend Trump by 2:1, and still got her butt kicked. And Trump made many more campaign stops and held many more rallies than Hilary did.
What a waste of campaign contributions. Future campaigns should use Hilary's 2016 campaign as a case study, to learn what not to do.
Ironic isn't it, that it took a billionaire running for president, to take the money out of politics. :)
POST OF THE DAY.
It's so funny that people think Trump is in it for the money. lol. It makes ZERO sense. He paid for his campaign so he is beholden to NO ONE. Just look at how many politicians get rich WHILE IN OFFICE. Seems to be mostly Democrats but not exclusively.
They had a local election for a state house seat here and they candidate that won was the one who took money from the guy who runs our state for her campaign. The competitor said she was offered the money and refused to take it. THAT'S how it works. Both with GOP and Democrats. I would think Trump would be a breathe of fresh air.
Yup, she almost out spend Trump by 2:1, and still got her butt kicked. And Trump made many more campaign stops and held many more rallies than Hilary did.
What a waste of campaign contributions. Future campaigns should use Hilary's 2016 campaign as a case study, to learn what not to do.
Ironic isn't it, that it took a billionaire running for president, to take the money out of politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No amount of money makes Hillary come across as even remotely likeable. Ruthless and competent, perhaps, but not likeable. And, the sad truth is, the Presidency is still very much a popularity contest.
The idiot worthless democrats spent two years (along with the media, fbi, cia, nsa, doj, academia) getting the ball to the 40 yard line and tried to kick a 57 yard field goal, wide left and short.
Now we got the ball in their redzone with a fresh set of downs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
