2 hours ago, samran said:

5 months before an election? Why? T

Why do you think a reason needs to be given or you or anyone else is entitled to a reason?

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

Why do you think a reason needs to be given or you or anyone else is entitled to a reason?

 

Are reasons generally given for such actions? Are such actions usually taken this deep in the term? Also, thanks for demonstrating that for some Trump fans, dictatorship ain't necessarily a bad word.

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

Why do you think a reason needs to be given or you or anyone else is entitled to a reason?

So much for transparency and draining the swamp.

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

Why do you think a reason needs to be given or you or anyone else is entitled to a reason?

Something about those election campaign promises on the matter of transparency is a good place to start.

5 minutes ago, johnpetersen said:

So much for transparency and draining the swamp.

Why do you think a president exercising his prerogative is in conflict with the two issues you posted about?

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Are reasons generally given for such actions? Are such actions usually taken this deep in the term? Also, thanks for demonstrating that for some Trump fans, dictatorship ain't necessarily a bad word.

1) I don't know. Who cares?

2) I don't know. Who cares?

3) You clearly do not understand the benefits of being a president. Using your logic, one should just assume "dictatorship" when any president exercises the benefits of his office. I'm sure you see the silliness in such a stance, yes?

4 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Why do you think a president exercising his prerogative is in conflict with the two issues you posted about?

I guess it's impossible to explain to anybody who could seriously pose this question:

"Why do you think a reason needs to be given or you or anyone else is entitled to a reason?"

Or were you joking?

16 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Why do you think a president exercising his prerogative is in conflict with the two issues you posted about?

My my, awfully defensive aren’t we? If he’s got nothing to hide, why the conflicting stories? 

21 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

1) I don't know. Who cares?

2) I don't know. Who cares?

3) You clearly do not understand the benefits of being a president. Using your logic, one should just assume "dictatorship" when any president exercises the benefits of his office. I'm sure you see the silliness in such a stance, yes?

 

That you don't know is immaterial, facts are rarely germane to your posts. As for who cares? If you've missed it, read the OP again, and then there are at least a few posters who do. You can wave off either, but I doubt you do not realize not everyone is at home with Trump's actions.

 

No, what I see is an ardent Trump supporter who will post pretty much anything to defend his idol. If this entails inane deflections, doing away with transparency, disregarding Trump's own campaign promises and accepted conduct, well that's too bad.

 

You say "exercises", some may say "abuses".

 

54 minutes ago, samran said:

My my, awfully defensive aren’t we? If he’s got nothing to hide, why the conflicting stories? 

Just stating some inconvenient facts. I'll leave to you to find relief in wondering whether I am defensive versus simply observing actual facts.

10 hours ago, cmarshall said:

The fact is the presidency under the Constitution is indeed unitary.  The power of the Department of Justice is power that is delegated, but not ceded, to it by the president.  The DoJ, despite our fondest hopes, is not a fourth branch of government.  It was only ever from custom or a kind of good manners that the president did not interfere directly in the prosecutions carried out by the DoJ.  To that extent, Trump is correct, he does have the power to control the DoJ and to hire and fire US Attorneys. 

 

The problem is that the Constitution does not actually provide as much separation of powers as Americans assume to be the case.  The Constitution should be amended, but the Framers wrote it to make it nearly impossible to amend because of the requirement of a trifecta of supermajorities required to amend: two-thirds of the Senate, two-thirds of the House, and three-quarters of the states.  Since 1789 there have been only seventeen amendments, the last of which took two hundred years to ratify.  None of us will ever see any new amendment in our lifetimes.  

Are these your thoughts? Do you write for Opera News? It is normal to use quotes when quoting someone else.

4 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

That's a president's prerogative. Elections have consequences.

Indeed they do. 

9 hours ago, samran said:

5 months before an election? Why? Thanks 

 

Given the US system it’s more understandable you do these things at the start of a term. Getting your own people has always been the way. 
 

It’s the timing which produces a stench typically found in this part of the world. 

Giuliani has some explanation in mind.

https://triblive.com/news/world/giuliani-suggests-trump-may-have-fired-manhattan-u-s-attorney-over-investigations/

9 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Just stating some inconvenient facts. I'll leave to you to find relief in wondering whether I am defensive versus simply observing actual facts.

No wondering about your posts there mate. They are about as partisan and logic defying in support of the big fella as one can get. 
 

 

Another post using a trolling meme has been removed. 

On 6/21/2020 at 8:49 AM, Misty said:

With current news, Barr does look like just a political hack working to defend Trump. But there's so much more there: Barr has a long history of controversy:  As AG under Bush Sr, he was instrumental in the Iran Contra cover-up, his father first hired Epstein as a "math teacher" (with no credentials), his DOJ upheld the controversial Miami Epstein decision and Epstein died in jail under Barr's watch. Coincidental?  Look more into Epstein's involvement in Iran Contra (and extensive other similar activities) and it starts to look like Barr is trying to cover more than just Trump's ass.

 

 

In the middle of the story from reuters it said critics and there was mention of a source who spoke of anonymity and then  there is another investigation,surprise surprize, of none other than nadler on  bermans leaving!

 

At the very bottom of reuters  story, lol is , 

 "I fully expect that the office will continue to handle all cases in the normal course and pursuant to the Department’s applicable standards, policies, and guidance," Barr wrote.

 

I would expect this is what  the POTUS and Guliani critics  would be more interested in.trying to prove without a reasonable doubt the actions of anything to do staring with the letter T  and ending with P. in NY. ,those investigations will continue!

 

Now your opinion of Mr. Barr

"Barr does look like just a political hack working to defend Trump".

 

I must admit I have little knowledge of what your thoughts are in Barrs past dealings with other administrations,there's  no sources. I do know he was approved unanimously  the first time to be Atty General! The second time  by all senate republicans,thank the lord for that.

 

Mr. Barr is the POTUS wingman(not the first POTUS to have one) ,secondly he is fulfilling his obligation to enforcing the law! I would expect you would disagree with those statements.  If sessions was still here imop  the nonsense of the continued investigation of muellers hit squad on the russian investigation of the POTUS would probably still be going on despite all the misdeeds discovered by  the IG ,

 

Also without Mr. Barr there wouldn't be a special prosecutor looking into biden  and others as Mr. Bash is performing! And last but not least,there probably wouldn't be a criminal investigation by Mr. Durham of  some of the intel, cabinet  members and  doj of obama! 

The above is  just my opinion!

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, riclag said:

 

 

In the middle of the story from reuters it said critics and there was mention of a source who spoke of anonymity and then  there is another investigation,surprise surprize, of none other than nadler on  bermans leaving!

 

At the very bottom of reuters  story, lol is , 

 "I fully expect that the office will continue to handle all cases in the normal course and pursuant to the Department’s applicable standards, policies, and guidance," Barr wrote.

 

I would expect this is what  the POTUS and Guliani critics  would be more interested in.trying to prove without a reasonable doubt the actions of anything to do staring with the letter T  and ending with P. in NY. ,those investigations will continue!

 

Now your opinion of Mr. Barr

"Barr does look like just a political hack working to defend Trump".

 

I must admit I have little knowledge of what your thoughts are in Barrs past dealings with other administrations,there's  no sources. I do know he was approved unanimously  the first time to be Atty General! The second time  by all senate republicans,thank the lord for that.

 

Mr. Barr is the POTUS wingman(not the first POTUS to have one) ,secondly he is fulfilling his obligation to enforcing the law! I would expect you would disagree with those statements.  If sessions was still here imop  the nonsense of the continued investigation of muellers hit squad on the russian investigation of the POTUS would probably still be going on despite all the misdeeds discovered by  the IG ,

 

Also without Mr. Barr there wouldn't be a special prosecutor looking into biden  and others as Mr. Bash is performing! And last but not least,there probably wouldn't be a criminal investigation by Mr. Durham of  some of the intel, cabinet  members and  doj of obama! 

The above is  just my opinion!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Riclag, appreciate your opinion.  My point is just that it seems like Barr's objective is merely to be "Trump's wingman." But performing that role is only a means to another end.  Trump was something of a secondary player in a much larger story, and one which Barr is a player in.  Keeping that story under wraps is Barr's primary objective.  Trump has enabled Barr to make a number of moves to do that.  If Trump is no longer POTUS, there is a greater risk now that a much larger story will out.

4 hours ago, riclag said:

 

 

In the middle of the story from reuters it said critics and there was mention of a source who spoke of anonymity and then  there is another investigation,surprise surprize, of none other than nadler on  bermans leaving!

 

At the very bottom of reuters  story, lol is , 

 "I fully expect that the office will continue to handle all cases in the normal course and pursuant to the Department’s applicable standards, policies, and guidance," Barr wrote.

 

I would expect this is what  the POTUS and Guliani critics  would be more interested in.trying to prove without a reasonable doubt the actions of anything to do staring with the letter T  and ending with P. in NY. ,those investigations will continue!

 

Now your opinion of Mr. Barr

"Barr does look like just a political hack working to defend Trump".

 

I must admit I have little knowledge of what your thoughts are in Barrs past dealings with other administrations,there's  no sources. I do know he was approved unanimously  the first time to be Atty General! The second time  by all senate republicans,thank the lord for that.

 

Mr. Barr is the POTUS wingman(not the first POTUS to have one) ,secondly he is fulfilling his obligation to enforcing the law! I would expect you would disagree with those statements.  If sessions was still here imop  the nonsense of the continued investigation of muellers hit squad on the russian investigation of the POTUS would probably still be going on despite all the misdeeds discovered by  the IG ,

 

Also without Mr. Barr there wouldn't be a special prosecutor looking into biden  and others as Mr. Bash is performing! And last but not least,there probably wouldn't be a criminal investigation by Mr. Durham of  some of the intel, cabinet  members and  doj of obama! 

The above is  just my opinion!

 

 

During his first term has Attorney General he advised President George H.W. Bush to pardon the Irangate conspirators. In that case, had they not been pardoned, their testimony could have implicated Bush. So Barr isn't such a bulldog when it comes to potential Republican criminality.