Judge Sullivan Scrambles For A Lifeline To Bail HIMSELF Out Of Dropped Flynn Case

[JustAGuy1]

This case needs a new look with a new judge.....

It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barr’s political hack.

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.

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.

now suddenly the gov is a hack.

and they wonder why they have credibility issues.

Yeah, that’s the problem. Lack of “real prosecutors”.

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.

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?

You mean with his wing man?

Sure. What did his “wingman” do that is remotely similar to what Barr has done?

Describe what you believe Barr has done.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

It was indeed investigated by Congress and the FBI.

Um, Lerner had to apologize for targeting conservative groups, Dummy.

So what? Did she say she targeted them because she hates conservatives?

She apologized for targeting conservative groups. That makes you a lying sack.......again.

Show me the statement.

Semantics and splitting hairs. You'll have to do better than this.

I can’t help you made assumptions. Just drop it and we can move on.

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.

 

[colfax_m]

This case needs a new look with a new judge.....

It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barr’s political hack.

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.

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.

now suddenly the gov is a hack.

and they wonder why they have credibility issues.

Yeah, that’s the problem. Lack of “real prosecutors”.

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.

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?

You mean with his wing man?

Sure. What did his “wingman” do that is remotely similar to what Barr has done?

Describe what you believe Barr has done.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

It was indeed investigated by Congress and the FBI.

Um, Lerner had to apologize for targeting conservative groups, Dummy.

So what? Did she say she targeted them because she hates conservatives?

She apologized for targeting conservative groups. That makes you a lying sack.......again.

Show me the statement.

Yawn. Do you have any idea as to how much you don't have a clue about?

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

The IRS “expresses its sincere apology,” it said.

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

The U.S. Justice Department has reached a settlement with dozens of conservative groups that claimed the Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status, court documents showed.

www.reuters.com

Thanks Jeff Sessions. Why didn’t he press charges?

Deflect much? It will never work with me. The IRS "apologized", you said they didn't.

I never said the IRS didn’t apologize. But that doesn’t mean anyone did anything criminal.

The central allegation here is that Obama was using the IRS to help his re-election which is so far from being proven it’s laughable.

Splitting hairs again It also doesn't mean he didn't use it. See how that works?

If you want to make an allegation, you need evidence. Otherwise it’s just pure speculation.

We don’t have a lot of actual evidence here.

 

[colfax_m]

This case needs a new look with a new judge.....

It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barr’s political hack.

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.

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.

now suddenly the gov is a hack.

and they wonder why they have credibility issues.

Yeah, that’s the problem. Lack of “real prosecutors”.

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.

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?

You mean with his wing man?

Sure. What did his “wingman” do that is remotely similar to what Barr has done?

Describe what you believe Barr has done.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

It was indeed investigated by Congress and the FBI.

Um, Lerner had to apologize for targeting conservative groups, Dummy.

So what? Did she say she targeted them because she hates conservatives?

She apologized for targeting conservative groups. That makes you a lying sack.......again.

Show me the statement.

Semantics and splitting hairs. You'll have to do better than this.

I can’t help you made assumptions. Just drop it and we can move on.

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.

You assumed my request to see the statement was a denial it existed. As far as I can tell, that’s your assumption.

Show me where I denied that the IRS made any apology at all? If you can’t, that accusation must be based on an assumption of an implied meaning.

 

[JustAGuy1]

This case needs a new look with a new judge.....

It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barr’s political hack.

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.

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.

now suddenly the gov is a hack.

and they wonder why they have credibility issues.

Yeah, that’s the problem. Lack of “real prosecutors”.

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.

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?

You mean with his wing man?

Sure. What did his “wingman” do that is remotely similar to what Barr has done?

Describe what you believe Barr has done.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

It was indeed investigated by Congress and the FBI.

Um, Lerner had to apologize for targeting conservative groups, Dummy.

So what? Did she say she targeted them because she hates conservatives?

She apologized for targeting conservative groups. That makes you a lying sack.......again.

Show me the statement.

Semantics and splitting hairs. You'll have to do better than this.

I can’t help you made assumptions. Just drop it and we can move on.

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.

You assumed my request to see the statement was a denial it existed. As far as I can tell, that’s your assumption.

Show me where I denied that the IRS made any apology at all? If you can’t, that accusation must be based on an assumption of an implied meaning.

LOL, keep digging kid.

 

[JustAGuy1]

This case needs a new look with a new judge.....

It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barr’s political hack.

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.

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.

now suddenly the gov is a hack.

and they wonder why they have credibility issues.

Yeah, that’s the problem. Lack of “real prosecutors”.

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.

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?

You mean with his wing man?

Sure. What did his “wingman” do that is remotely similar to what Barr has done?

Describe what you believe Barr has done.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

It was indeed investigated by Congress and the FBI.

Um, Lerner had to apologize for targeting conservative groups, Dummy.

So what? Did she say she targeted them because she hates conservatives?

She apologized for targeting conservative groups. That makes you a lying sack.......again.

Show me the statement.

Yawn. Do you have any idea as to how much you don't have a clue about?

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

The IRS “expresses its sincere apology,” it said.

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

The U.S. Justice Department has reached a settlement with dozens of conservative groups that claimed the Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status, court documents showed.

www.reuters.com

Thanks Jeff Sessions. Why didn’t he press charges?

Deflect much? It will never work with me. The IRS "apologized", you said they didn't.

I never said the IRS didn’t apologize. But that doesn’t mean anyone did anything criminal.

The central allegation here is that Obama was using the IRS to help his re-election which is so far from being proven it’s laughable.

Splitting hairs again It also doesn't mean he didn't use it. See how that works?

If you want to make an allegation, you need evidence. Otherwise it’s just pure speculation.

We don’t have a lot of actual evidence here.

So you're speculating he didn't use the IRS.
Got it.

 

[iceberg]

This case needs a new look with a new judge.....

It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barr’s political hack.

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.

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.

now suddenly the gov is a hack.

and they wonder why they have credibility issues.

Yeah, that’s the problem. Lack of “real prosecutors”.

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.

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?

You mean with his wing man?

Sure. What did his “wingman” do that is remotely similar to what Barr has done?

Describe what you believe Barr has done.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

It was indeed investigated by Congress and the FBI.

Um, Lerner had to apologize for targeting conservative groups, Dummy.

So what? Did she say she targeted them because she hates conservatives?

She apologized for targeting conservative groups. That makes you a lying sack.......again.

Show me the statement.

Semantics and splitting hairs. You'll have to do better than this.

I can’t help you made assumptions. Just drop it and we can move on.

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.

You assumed my request to see the statement was a denial it existed. As far as I can tell, that’s your assumption.

Show me where I denied that the IRS made any apology at all? If you can’t, that accusation must be based on an assumption of an implied meaning.

Shit dude those tactics of assumption and implied meaning are the lifeblood of the lefts problems.

 

[iceberg]

As is russia
Impeachments
Kavanaugh

Russia what? I’m going to need you to use a few more words and be a bit more descriptive to be able to have a conversation.

Impeachment was well supported. For example, we know for a fact that Trump himself directed the aid to be upheld. How close can you factually say Obama got to the IRS scandal?

The impeachment was that assumption and implied meaning thing dude.

Assume what Trump was talking about
Imply ONLY your meaning to it

Viola.

 

[Nostra]

This case needs a new look with a new judge.....

It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barr’s political hack.

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.

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.

now suddenly the gov is a hack.

and they wonder why they have credibility issues.

Yeah, that’s the problem. Lack of “real prosecutors”.

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.

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?

You mean with his wing man?

Sure. What did his “wingman” do that is remotely similar to what Barr has done?

Describe what you believe Barr has done.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

It was indeed investigated by Congress and the FBI.

Um, Lerner had to apologize for targeting conservative groups, Dummy.

So what? Did she say she targeted them because she hates conservatives?

She apologized for targeting conservative groups. That makes you a lying sack.......again.

Show me the statement.

Your ignorance isn’t my problem.

 

[colfax_m]

As is russia
Impeachments
Kavanaugh

Russia what? I’m going to need you to use a few more words and be a bit more descriptive to be able to have a conversation.

Impeachment was well supported. For example, we know for a fact that Trump himself directed the aid to be upheld. How close can you factually say Obama got to the IRS scandal?

The impeachment was that assumption and implied meaning thing dude.

Assume what Trump was talking about
Imply ONLY your meaning to it

Viola.

Your posts are getting harder to decipher and have less content.

With Trump, we have to make assumptions about his intent. It happens all the time in court cases. What we have as factual basis is knowledge that Trump held up aid to Ukraine.

So how close can you factually say Obama got to the IRS scandal?

 

[colfax_m]

This case needs a new look with a new judge.....

It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barr’s political hack.

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.

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.

now suddenly the gov is a hack.

and they wonder why they have credibility issues.

Yeah, that’s the problem. Lack of “real prosecutors”.

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.

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?

You mean with his wing man?

Sure. What did his “wingman” do that is remotely similar to what Barr has done?

Describe what you believe Barr has done.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

It was indeed investigated by Congress and the FBI.

Um, Lerner had to apologize for targeting conservative groups, Dummy.

So what? Did she say she targeted them because she hates conservatives?

She apologized for targeting conservative groups. That makes you a lying sack.......again.

Show me the statement.

Semantics and splitting hairs. You'll have to do better than this.

I can’t help you made assumptions. Just drop it and we can move on.

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.

You assumed my request to see the statement was a denial it existed. As far as I can tell, that’s your assumption.

Show me where I denied that the IRS made any apology at all? If you can’t, that accusation must be based on an assumption of an implied meaning.

Shit dude those tactics of assumption and implied meaning are the lifeblood of the lefts problems.

Ha! The right takes snippets of text messages from Strzok and writes a novel about the meaning.

Just look at the infamous "insurance policy" text. That's been extrapolated into a damn coup. You're not exactly being even handed here.

 

[colfax_m]

This case needs a new look with a new judge.....

It needs to go back to a real prosecutor, not Barr’s political hack.

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.

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.

now suddenly the gov is a hack.

and they wonder why they have credibility issues.

Yeah, that’s the problem. Lack of “real prosecutors”.

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.

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?

You mean with his wing man?

Sure. What did his “wingman” do that is remotely similar to what Barr has done?

Describe what you believe Barr has done.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

It was indeed investigated by Congress and the FBI.

Um, Lerner had to apologize for targeting conservative groups, Dummy.

So what? Did she say she targeted them because she hates conservatives?

She apologized for targeting conservative groups. That makes you a lying sack.......again.

Show me the statement.

Yawn. Do you have any idea as to how much you don't have a clue about?

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

The IRS “expresses its sincere apology,” it said.

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

The U.S. Justice Department has reached a settlement with dozens of conservative groups that claimed the Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status, court documents showed.

www.reuters.com

Thanks Jeff Sessions. Why didn’t he press charges?

Deflect much? It will never work with me. The IRS "apologized", you said they didn't.

I never said the IRS didn’t apologize. But that doesn’t mean anyone did anything criminal.

The central allegation here is that Obama was using the IRS to help his re-election which is so far from being proven it’s laughable.

Splitting hairs again It also doesn't mean he didn't use it. See how that works?

If you want to make an allegation, you need evidence. Otherwise it’s just pure speculation.

We don’t have a lot of actual evidence here.

So you're speculating he didn't use the IRS.
Got it.

I don't have to speculate since no evidence has been presented.

For example, do I speculate that you aren't a serial killer? No, because I have no reason to believe you are in the first place.