Barr was worse than we ever imagined

[Satchel 6908]

 

[elfenix 34171]

it's on the first page down there:

 

[RomaVicta 29794]

My guess on the US electorate regarding DOJ criminal abuse of power likely at direction of POTUS:

50% politically opposed to that administration

25% (optimism) are aware of this story in any sort of detail and outraged.

40% politically supportive of that administration

20% aware of some version of this story and dismiss it as fake news/deep state lies/both

10% Undecided politically

10% Hopeless idiots who get to choose our leaders walking around looking at their phones for the Kardashian/Real Housewives feeds or repeating to themselves: don't eat the booger, don't eat the booger, fuck, I ate the booger.

 

I'm an adherent of brother Brisket Texan. I was wisely advised (Tantric? I think so) not to merely echo him. His voice is enough. I took the advice to heart. Still, inside, there is an ongoing harangue about the direction of the fading republic, its seeming irreversible course, and the villains responsible whom the dull-minded electorate won't hold to account.

It seems only those daily exposed to the dark side of America consistently stay in the fight. BLM notably seems tireless, and they are made enemies of the state by the villains actually driving the state into ruin. It's a bad formula of malign actors, good citizens in denial about the gravity of the problem, and dupes of villainy.

Wrap it all up in the general condition of Idiot World (I probably get tiresome with this, but it's a foundation belief that I cannot abandon), and you begin to get a handle on the notion of entropy and sickeningly tight death spirals.

But, we'll have something like normal college football this year. I will gladly partake in that distraction with all of you, my friends. One cannot fret 24/7, and there are still some joys, gratifications, and love to seize. Do so, all of you!

Hook 'Em!

[Satchel 6908]

Barr not only secured their business phone records, he got their home phone records as well.

[Underdog 28457]

[Brisketexan 104628]

I’m waiting for all of the Trump fans who rail against the “deep state” and particularly enjoy telling us how they “stand for the constitution” to show up here to share their concerns about the regime spying on journalists, who are subject to particular first amendment protections.

They’ll be along any minute.

Anyyyyyy minute now.....

[BrickHorn 18194]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I’m waiting for all of the Trump fans who rail against the “deep state” and particularly enjoy telling us how they “stand for the constitution” to show up here to share their concerns about the regime spying on journalists, who are subject to particular first amendment protections.

They’ll be along any minute.

Anyyyyyy minute now.....

Fuckers actually have a legit “both sides” argument here.

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

I actually had no trouble guessing all this was going on.  So worse than I imagined?  No.  But I imagined he had done plenty enough to be hung for treason.  

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

You’re going to have to do a lot more to convince me that Bill Barr was a bigger traitorous piece of shit than I already thought he was. Most corrupt AG ever in service of the most corrupt President ever, both of whom would be dangling at the end of a rope in a truly just society.

And yet even he acknowledged that Trump lost the election. And he got fired because, as corrupt as he was, he wasn’t corrupt enough for Trump. 

[Anastasis 23394]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Fuckers actually have a legit “both sides” argument here.

Kinda interesting to watch either side claim the high ground on this one. It's as if some have forgotten the Rosen case. 

[Js1 85112]

There he is! 

[Anastasis 23394]

Just now, Js1 said:

There he is! 

Am I wrong?

[GW Hayduke 1952]

I must be slow. Can someone explain to me the “legit” both sides argument here?

[Anastasis 23394]

3 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I must be slow. Can someone explain to me the “legit” both sides argument here?

It was wrong when Bush did it, it was wrong when Obama did it, it was wrong when Trump did it. 

 

Not that complex guys. The pre-emptive whining about "#bothsides" only demonstrates the applicability on this particular topic. 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Anastasis

[Sawbonz 27436]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

I must be slow. Can someone explain to me the “legit” both sides argument here?

This is a joke right?

[Anastasis 23394]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is a joke right?

No joke. He is slow. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Kinda interesting to watch either side claim the high ground on this one. It's as if some have forgotten the Rosen case. 

Yes it was wrong when Obama did it under different circumstances.  But as a result of that, in 2014 the DOJ put in place new guidelines.  Pretty sure those didn’t include getting records purely for political reasons, as opposed to possible national security reasons. And they weren’t followed.

[F250 28691]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

I must be slow. Can someone explain to me the “legit” both sides argument here?

 

 

[Quote]

 

Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.

Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases. [/Quote]

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html

 

 

 

[Sawbonz 27436]

16 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yes it was wrong when Obama did it under different circumstances.  But as a result of that, in 2014 the DOJ put in place new guidelines.  Pretty sure those didn’t include getting records purely for political reasons, as opposed to possible national security reasons. And they weren’t followed.

Spying on Congress not political?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/384003/

Edited May 8, 2021 by Sawbonz

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Can't get behind the paywall...How did Barr "obtain" these phone records? Aren't phone companies supposed to refuse these records over, even if the DOJ demands them? Couldn't they go to the media and kick up a fuss if Barr tried to ratchet the game up? Or do the phone companies only grow a pair when they are defending murderers or whatever from criminal investigations, as I have seen on the tee vee multiple times?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Spying on Congress not political?

I was referring to the Rosen case that Anastasis mentioned.  That involved possible national security issues, not White House leaks.  

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

Can someone enlighten me on the difference between what Trump did and what Obama/Bush did?  I mean it looks to me like Obama/Bush spied on reporters/people over national security concerns.  Trump seems to have spied on people/used the DOJ to save his own ass from the illegal stuff he was doing.  Isn’t that a little different or maybe I am one to many bourbons into it this evening.

[Sawbonz 27436]

1 minute ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Can someone enlighten me on the difference between what Trump did and what Obama/Bush did?  I mean it looks to me like Obama/Bush spied on reporters/people over national security concerns.  Trump seems to have spied on people/used the DOJ to save his own ass from the illegal stuff he was doing.  Isn’t that a little different or maybe I am one to many bourbons into it this evening.

If someone fucks you in the ass do you really care what their intentions were?

[Sawbonz 27436]

I think there are a whole bunch of people who are ok with authoritarian rule as long as it’s the “correct” authoritarian 

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

If someone fucks you in the ass do you really care what their intentions were?

Is my name NowThis?

[GW Hayduke 1952]

52 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is a joke right?

 

48 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

No joke. He is slow. 

 

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

It was wrong when Bush did it, it was wrong when Obama did it, it was wrong when Trump did it. 

 

Not that complex guys. The pre-emptive whining about "#bothsides" only demonstrates the applicability on this particular topic. 

You guys area equating national security issues with investigations into the White House and trump campaign?  

[Sawbonz 27436]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

 

 

You guys area equating national security issues with investigations into the White House and trump campaign?  

How is spying on Congress a national security issue? 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

We've allowed a situation where "national security" is whatever the president says it is. It could be anything from an imminent dirty bomb attack on Manhattan to pics of the president going hog wild with ladyboys in Bangkok. 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

How is spying on Congress a national security issue? 

I’m referring to 2013 investigations into leaks surrounding North Korea’s nuclear test plans and a Yemini terrorist plot to bomb a commercial airline.  I am considering those to be national security issues.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

36 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I think there are a whole bunch of people who are ok with authoritarian rule as long as it’s the “correct” authoritarian 

So theoretically, are you saying that if a reporter might be involved in actual espionage, we shouldn’t be able to subpoena records?  If no, then fine.  Sorry I’m just kind of confused about levels.  Everybody does it is a bit of a confusing standard.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

Also, if there are members of Congress actively involved in organizing insurrections, sex trafficking, maybe they ought to be under investigation.  I’m not talking about their every day campaign finance and graft crimes.  

[Neonmoon 38127]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

If someone fucks you in the ass do you really care what their intentions were?

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

I think there are a whole bunch of people who are ok with authoritarian rule as long as it’s the “correct” authoritarian 

As long as you’re a good little Aryan, what do you care if the Nazis are in power?

[Js1 85112]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

We've allowed a situation where "national security" is whatever the president says it is. It could be anything from an imminent dirty bomb attack on Manhattan to pics of the president going hog wild with ladyboys in Bangkok. 

Lady G is president? 

[Sawbonz 27436]

47 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

As long as you’re a good little Aryan, what do you care if the Nazis are in power?

Lol you think only fascists are authoritarians

[StruggleBus 3922]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

If someone fucks you in the ass do you really care what their intentions were?

Depends on whether I get a each around or not 

[Sawbonz 27436]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Also, if there are members of Congress actively involved in organizing insurrections, sex trafficking, maybe they ought to be under investigation.  I’m not talking about their every day campaign finance and graft crimes.  

So you are good with random secret surveillance of Congress just in case some of the members are engaged in the above? 

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Lol you think only fascists are authoritarians

No. Why would you conclude that from the citing of one example? Did I touch a nerve? That’s interesting. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

No. Why would you conclude that from the citing of one example? Did I touch a nerve? That’s interesting. 

Why would you call me an aryan? That’s interesting 🙄

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Why would you call me an aryan? That’s interesting 🙄

I didn’t. Just like if I said something like, “if you believe the earth is flat then you’re a moron,”’ I’m not saying you think the earth is flat. Jesus, dude.

[Sawbonz 27436]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I didn’t. Just like if I said something like, “if you believe the earth is flat then you’re a moron,”’ I’m not saying you think the earth is flat. Jesus, dude.

When I respond directly to someone using a definite pronoun I am speaking to and about that person. If you (meaning you) weren’t doing that here my apologies. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

20 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

So you are good with random secret surveillance of Congress just in case some of the members are engaged in the above? 

No, and that’s not what I said.  Stop false equivocating.  You said random.  I’ve made perfectly clear what I find possibly acceptable, you keep obfuscating.  The Rosen case was not random at all.  Neither were my hypothetical examples above.  Why don’t you come out and say what you mean instead of fucking around?

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

When I respond directly to someone using a definite pronoun I am speaking to and about that person. If you (meaning you) weren’t doing that here my apologies. 

I’m not certain that what I said might’ve hit a little too close to home. That was a reaction I wasn’t expecting. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

1 minute ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

No, and that’s not what I said.  Stop false equivocating.  You said random.  I’ve made perfectly clear what I find possibly acceptable, you keep obfuscating.  The Rosen case was not random at all.  Neither were my hypothetical examples above.  Why don’t you come out and say what you mean instead of fucking around?

I mean that this is clearly a both sides issue and I have pointed out examples. It’s not difficult

[Nivek 16861]

If someone fucks you in the ass do you really care what their intentions were?

What a stupid attempt to both sides.

[Sawbonz 27436]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m not certain that what I said might’ve hit a little too close to home. That was a reaction I wasn’t expecting. 

I’m sorry you don’t know how to use indefinite pronouns. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

What a stupid attempt to both sides.

Not really

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

I mean that this is clearly a both sides issue and I have pointed out examples. It’s not difficult

Yes as usual, it’s all about sides.  There are no degrees of application, only black and white.   Or red and blue.  Of course it’s an issue.  Otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing it.  You are failing to see that the application of the issue may be reasonable or not depending on the circumstances. 

[Sawbonz 27436]

Just now, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yes as usual, it’s all about sides.  There are no degrees of application, only black and white.   Or red and blue.  Of course it’s an issue.  Otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing it.  You are failing to see that the application of the issue may be reasonable or not depending on the circumstances. 

Of course. But being able to cite valid uses of surveillance under Obama’s watch (or W or Clinton etc) doesn’t negate the abuses that occurred under him (or them). Domestic spying is a real threat to our freedom and needs strict oversight to prevent abuse, no matter who is in charge

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

Actually this is a thread about Barr and the ridiculous shit that happened under his watch.  If you want to go back and prosecute Holder or whoever, fine.  Start a thread on that.  Don’t bring your both sides bullshit in here to excuse what we are discussing in this thread.  Either say he is wrong and should be prosecuted, or argue otherwise.  Don’t Terrell Pryor the issue