For as much grief as I give you, correctly, for being an partisan, idiotic hack who enjoys trolling, I suppose I should speak up, briefly, when I agree with you. The focus should not be on Barr’s summary; we all know he’s a political hack willing to lie for Trump rather than an impartial head of the Attorney General who works for the good of the country.
We should instead focus on the report itself. We should focus on the fact the Russians tampered in our elections, that the Trump campaign knew about it and willingly benefited from it, that multiple members of the Trump campaign lied repeatedly to cover up the connections between Russian and the campaign, that Trump himself took steps to hinder, if not completely stop, the investigation itself, and that he obstructed justice. That’s what we should be focusing on, not that a political piece of garbage is acting as the president’s personal attorney instead of as the head attorney of the United States.
It’s likely that Barr simply misinterprets things as a general course.
From my time on the SDMB, it’s been clear that some people are simply so devoted to their world view that you could give them a black piece of paper with a glossy black text on it that said, “I am black text on black paper.” And, if in that person’s personal little universe, there is no such thing as black than they’d say, “well clearly that’s lilac paper.”
How much that is dishonesty versus a very tightly focused craziness, I couldn’t say without an MRI. For all I know, they’ve genuinely rewritten their neural code for interpreting visual images to remove black and they truly don’t see it.
But, either way, I’d put it as more likely that Barr is a true believer than a toady. He simply warps everything he sees to support the Executive branch.
You could plop down the other half of the Constitution - a document that was lost and unknown until now - that went to great lengths to painstakingly describe that the Executive branch was basically the whipping boy of the Congress, as the founders intended, and shouldn’t have any freedom at all to propose or involve itself in politics, zero power to resist any whim of the Congress, and prey to amazingly inclusive standards of impeachable activities.
Barr would read it and explain to you how it actually means that the Executive branch is all power and completely immune from review. He’d write up a legal opinion that everyone in the universe agreed was completely at odds with any plain reading of the text, and he’d swear up and down that the other 99.999% of legal scholars simply didn’t properly understand the text.
Most of those are from fire fighters apparently upset that their union endorsed Biden. Trump apparently thinks that finding some 50 self proclaimed fire fighters who supporting him proves something or other. There is a bit of streisand effect going on, since I had no idea that Biden was endorsed my this union until I saw the retweets.
Not gonna happen. Given what happened to sessions Barr knows that Trump will insist that “I recuse” be immediately followed by “I resign” so a new lapdog can be appointed.
Every hint of an idea here is wrong; every syllable mistaken. We’re here to fight your ignorance but you need to help too: give us a coherent sentence, or at least a clause, we can grasp on to help you up. A good start would be for you to omit all adjectives and adverbs from your posts. You can start adding them back when you demonstrate an ability to produce intelligible sentences.
I did devote fifteen seconds to deciphering your gibberish — more than it deserved. What I discovered is most amusing! You write “Why the focus on Barr’s summary of the report?” and yet it is apparent that it is only the “summary” that you have read! :rolleyes:
The report was such a dud for anti-Trumpers that Barr has bent over backward to spin it in Trump’s favor?
Disregarding Mueller’s ready-to-go summaries to provide his own cherry-picked 4-page memo.
Holding a press conference four weeks later right before the report is made public to reinforce his pro-Trump spin while nobody has seen the report and can’t really ask meaningful questions.
Barr’s misrepresentation of this dud prompted the Mueller to put his concerns in writing knowing this letter would eventually be made public.
Wow. Imagine the contortions Barr would have been forced to make if Trump hadn’t been totally and completely found the most innocent president in the history of the world by Mueller.
Oh, wait. Mueller, the guy whose report it is, isn’t too happy with how Barr spun this dud in Trump’s favor.
Trump claims, on one hand, the report totally exonerates him, but, on the other, it’s also a smear job by angry Hillary contributors that can’t be believed.
You mean the Attorney General isn’t the president’s “Wing Man”, as Eric Holder described his job?
Actually, the Attorney General in the U.S. is a strange position. Not only is the AG the supervisor of the Department of Justice, He also represents the U.S. in legal cases, and acts as the President’s legal advisor. That often puts the AG in a position where the responsibilities of one part of the job create conflicts with other parts of the job . Like, what happens when the justice department is investigating the President?
Barr admitted to talking about current investigations with Trump. Tried to backtrack, saying they were “non-substantive”, then when pressed by Blumenthal on the “substativeness” issue, quickly retreated to “I don’t recall” territory.
Harris earning a lot of respect now. Holy hell is she hitting him.
More lies from the Administration Of Lies. It’s what they’ve gotta do because it’s what they excel at. (Also, because they really really need to cover up misdeeds and lawbreaking.)
I’ll tell you exactly why it is so important (besides any redaction issues): It speaks to the credibility of the person who is heading the Department of Justice. In particular, are we going to see this sort of report on every one of the 14 investigations that Mueller spun off or are we going to have to take his word on some of these other investigations?
Because, from where I am sitting, his word ain’t worth shit.
“The Attorney General of the United States of America cleared the target of the most important investigation in modern history without reviewing the evidence.”
He also did that when the actual report from the investigators who looked at all the evidence reached the specific conclusion that he could not clear the target. (And, the only question they allowed themselves to answer was “Was the target cleared or not?”)
There’s a factual answer to that question. If you don’t understand, and are genuinely confused by the attention given to the topic, then I would be perfectly happy to explain. But you would have to trust that I was being truthful and accept the answer.
