The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,580
Not the full report and evidence collected.
Yes, anything related to national security and grand jury proceedings has to be redacted according to the law.

Basically, Barr received the report, read it, and summarized it. Dems screamed in agony and Mueller got pissy that Barr didn't call Trump a meanie. Barr released the full report. Dems screamed in agony again. Barr released a virtually unredacted report to Congress. Dems continue to scream in agony because they still can't find any evidence of collusion or obstruction. You can't make this shit up.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,115
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
It is not his political beliefs that got him banned.
Sure about that?
Facebook and Twitter are.not the public square, they are the pub or comedy club adjacent to it.. The internet is the public square. The internet is a big place, and Jones can setup his own website to host his material. He can also go all old school and print his material and send it out.
So let's see, on the one hand you believe that Trump was elected via Russia's use of social media platforms to spread misinformation but on the other that those platforms are really not that big of a deal? You can't have it both ways.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,580
Releasing grand jury info would be similar to someone investigating you, reaching a not-guilty verdict, but then publishing all the evidence anyways - that's just a smear campaign at that point and it's deeply unethical. You're either guilty or you're not.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,423
Location
Michigan USA
Sure about that?

So let's see, on the one hand you believe that Trump was elected via Russia's use of social media platforms to spread misinformation but on the other that those platforms are really not that big of a deal? You can't have it both ways.
Jones has been warned about his activities on many sites.

Just because FB was used by the Russian influence campaign does not mean everyone was able to hear the message.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,423
Location
Michigan USA
Releasing grand jury info would be similar to someone investigating you, reaching a not-guilty verdict, but then publishing all the evidence anyways - that's just a smear campaign at that point and it's deeply unethical. You're either guilty or you're not.
It doesn't need to be released to the general public.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,580
It doesn't need to be released to the general public.
It still would've been illegal to release the unredacted report. As in, Barr would be in jail if he did that. And for that the Dems tried to hold him in contempt, which is downright insane. Furthermore, Barr offered a dozen Congressmen access to the report with classified information unredacted - not a single Democrat took him up on the offer.
 

Vipergts662

Active Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
227
Location
Houston
Car(s)
2016 Holden Commodore (chevy ss), 2010 Ford Edge
Speaking of holding him in contempt, who wants to bet had he not insinuated he would be opening his own investigations into how the Russian "scandal" got started there wouldn't be a single Dem threatening to go after him for not appearing at last Thursdays kangaroo court.....

Have any of you ever thought about why the people who yell and scream the loudest about what other people do may in fact be the ones practicing what they are accusing others of doing.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,423
Location
Michigan USA
It still would've been illegal to release the unredacted report. As in, Barr would be in jail if he did that. And for that the Dems tried to hold him in contempt, which is downright insane. Furthermore, Barr offered a dozen Congressmen access to the report with classified information unredacted - not a single Democrat took him up on the offer.

Did you not understand the other post? There is precedent for that protesters information being released.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,423
Location
Michigan USA
Speaking of holding him in contempt, who wants to bet had he not insinuated he would be opening his own investigations into how the Russian "scandal" got started there wouldn't be a single Dem threatening to go after him for not appearing at last Thursdays kangaroo court.....

Have any of you ever thought about why the people who yell and scream the loudest about what other people do may in fact be the ones practicing what they are accusing others of doing.

Why do you think it is a kangaroo court? Congress has an oversight roll, and Barr ignored a subpoena that is a routine part of that process.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,580
Yep, I got it - you want Barr to go get permission from a judge to release grand jury documents.

a) Why would the judge compromise his case like that?
b) Why would Barr need to do that? He did his job, he has followed the law - what more do you want?
c) The report has been made available but no Democrats have looked at it.
d) Even Mueller did not make a case for collusion or obstruction so where is all this nonsense coming from if this is anything more than a witch-hunt?
 
Reactions: TC

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,423
Location
Michigan USA
Yep, I got it - you want Barr to go get permission from a judge to release grand jury documents.

a) Why would the judge compromise his case like that?
b) Why would Barr need to do that? He did his job, he has followed the law - what more do you want?
c) The report has been made available but no Democrats have looked at it.
d) Even Mueller did not make a case for collusion or obstruction so where is all this nonsense coming from if this is anything more than a witch-hunt?

A, there are bigger issues, and it would not be public.

B, it is also part of his job as the AG.

C I doubt that.

D, he has not exonerated Trump on obstruction. There are also questions as to other chatges that are impeachable.
 

Vipergts662

Active Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
227
Location
Houston
Car(s)
2016 Holden Commodore (chevy ss), 2010 Ford Edge
Why do you think it is a kangaroo court? Congress has an oversight roll, and Barr ignored a subpoena that is a routine part of that process.
What was going to come out of another day of a bunch of AIDES asking him questions, maybe just maybe if the democrats would be smart enough to ask their own questions instead of nominating other people to do their jobs he may have complied.

What outcome are you expecting of this mess? What is the point of continually wasting our money on this. I guarantee you if the democrats would have found any shred of evidence the Trump campaign did even the slightest thing out of line they would have strung him up months ago. The convictions that have been made would probably also get made if you looked into the last five presidential campaigns. It is only a matter of time before they turn on Mueller they always do they have to blame someone for not getting their way.

Do you really think they would be threating to subpoena him if he hadn't started talking about opening his own investigations. They are going to do everything they can to deflect and bury how this whole shit show got started.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,052
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
Facebook and Twitter are.not the public square, they are the pub or comedy club adjacent to it.. The internet is the public square. The internet is a big place, and Jones can setup his own website to host his material. He can also go all old school and print his material and send it out.
I agree with this.

It is not his political beliefs that got him banned.
What else got him banned, then?

(Before anyone here disingenuously tries to assume I am defending Alex Jones... I think he's a raving lunatic/conspiracy theorist, but that alone shouldn't get you banned... not unless Facebook wants to do that to everyone else guilty of the same things.)

I have no problem in principle with Twatter/Facegram/Instabook banning whoever they want, because to your point, they are still private entities, but the problem is they aren't consistent. They don't even follow their own terms of service. That most of the bans are only one one side of the ideological spectrum makes this even more suspect.

For example: why was Paul Joseph Watson banned from Facebook, and not Snoop Dogg? PJW is affiliated with Alex Jones and InfoWars, but Snoop Dogg actually posted to his 2 million followers they should link to sites that preach Farrakhan, who was banned.

If they want to be left wing sites... fine, let them be left wing sites... just have the courage to outright SAY so.

But no, they can't. Because like mainstream media, they want to pretend they're unbiased, centrist organizations, which is complete bullshit. And when they do ban people on the left, they (or other media, see WaPo or NY Times) try and pass it off as someone from the right (Louis Farrakhan).

The redacted material is only part of what they want.
What else could they possibly want? Something Mueller hasn't even put pen to paper yet?

The AG can go to the judge at the head of the grand jury to okay the release of some, or all of the info. There is even a president for this, Waregate. The only block to this is Barr.
No, the block for this is the Department of Justice itself. If Barr ignored it, he could face even worse punishment that what the Democratic Congress are rattling their sabres at him over.

Why do you think it is a kangaroo court? Congress has an oversight roll, and Barr ignored a subpoena that is a routine part of that process.
Barr ignored a request that he break the law.

Did you not understand the other post? There is precedent for that protesters information being released.
I know you said Watergate in a previous post, but you need to cite how this applies to the AG today.

Because this:
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/gjag.htm

which is much more recent than Watergate clearly shows your above statement to be wrong.

A, there are bigger issues, and it would not be public.
What is a bigger issue that allowing a partisan congress unfettered, illegal access to grand jury testimony?
Again, replace the actors. Would you think this would be okay if Congress were Republican driven and the President was a Democrat?

What you are advocating here is terrifying.

B, it is also part of his job as the AG.
Source?

C I doubt that.
Level's right, you're wrong.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/DOJ Response to Chairman Nadler 3 May 2019 letter.pdf

Please see second paragraph, eighth line. Sentence that starts with "your refusal to view..."
 
Last edited:
Top