JustAGuy1
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2019
- 17,607
- 15,343
- 2,290
I can’t help you made assumptions. Just drop it and we can move on.She apologized for targeting conservative groups. That makes you a lying sack.......again.So what? Did she say she targeted them because she hates conservatives?Um, Lerner had to apologize for targeting conservative groups, Dummy.You said “for political reasons”. If that could be proven, then you’d have a case but the problem is they didn’t really find evidence that lead anyone to believe it was “for political reasons”.You wanna talk about smoke....how about the IRS admittedly going after thousands of right wing political groups for political reasons and completely shutting down their donation base which they rely on....and no one getting in trouble for that. It’s the single most egregious case of government abuse of power in our lifetime with very massive consequences and was done so during a presidential election.I don’t know for sure. I know he has installed people in cases of Trump’s associates and suddenly those associates have found themselves getting beneficial outcomes.Sure. What did his “wingman” do that is remotely similar to what Barr has done?You mean with his wing man?Yeah, yeah, we get it. When it goes your way, they're doing a great job. When it doesn't go your way, they're not playing fair. It couldn't possibly be anything else.Yeah, that’s the problem. Lack of “real prosecutors”.then we also need a REAL PROCECUTOR to go after hillary, obama, brennan and so many others. funny at the time they said BUT THIS IS THE GOV YOU MUST TRUST.The real prosecutor who lied multiple times saying that he turned everything of concern over to the defense? Even if you INCORRECTLY think the evidence turned over is not exculpatory, it certainly went against Sullivan’s standing order to not turn over anything of relevance at all (meaning even if it makes the defendant look bad, or is considered inconsequential). And it’s impossible to argue that any of that was irrelevant. Van Gack fucked up big. Should receive a bar hearing, even though he “protested” and took his ball home with him. The only real protest would’ve been to stay on and explain why the evidence he didn’t turn over was neither exculpatory nor relevant. The latter being impossible, the former being outlandish.It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barr’s political hack.This case needs a new look with a new judge.....
now suddenly the gov is a hack.
and they wonder why they have credibility issues.
All I know is that Barr has been finding ways of getting involved in cases of Trump associates and there have been favorable outcomes for those associates.
Was there anything similar to that in the past with Obama?
Describe what you believe Barr has done.
Stone’s sentencing recommendations were lessened.
Flynn’s charges were dropped.
That has a lot of smoke for political manipulation in what should be apolitical justice. Some of this has been confirmed by recent congressional testimony
On the surface, it appears Barr is telling prosecutors to “go easy” on people associated with Trump.
It was indeed investigated by Congress and the FBI.
Show me the statement.
Semantics and splitting hairs. You'll have to do better than this.
My point was to analyze exactly what the statement did and didn’t say. I just want to be sure we are talking about the same statement.
I made no assumptions at all. You're not doing well here son. You like to dance, bob, and weave. I won't let you.