Barr attacks Trump's interference

[Mr Spinkles]

Shows how much they're willing to shill for whoever happens to be 'on their side' at any given moment. That smacks of desperation.

Hey speaking of avoiding the actual topic and being a shill - do you agree with what Barr said? Were Trump’s tweets appropriate?

Let me break it down for you:

1. If I think Trump does something inappropriate, and Barr publicly agrees, and I’m glad Barr publicly agrees because it might make Trump less likely to engage in inappropriate behavior, I’m sticking with my principles to begin with. I’m not being a shill.

2. If Trump does something inappropriate, and you know it’s inappropriate but you won’t admit it - and instead you spin things into an attack on Trump’s critics while ignoring the substance of whether his behavior was appropriate - THAT is being a shill.

Great word by the way. “Shill”.

 

[exchemist]

Builds character. Right?

No, but at least it seems to show Barr has not completely lost his.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

For what it’s worth, I do think the potential 7-9 years for Roger Stone seems very excessive. Barr says he is familiar with the case and he supports Stone being prosecuted and sentenced.

But apparently the guy Stone was threatening (they know each other) wrote a letter to the court saying he did not feel physically threatened and asking for leniency on Stone’s behalf. Maybe that’s true, maybe not, but it should count for something. Stone is also old, and a first time offender.

7 years seems like an extremely long sentence even for lying to the FBI and threatening a witness.

Barr’s complaint against Trump is that his attacks on the DOJ and public requests regarding ongoing cases involving his allies, create optics that make it impossible to keep these decisions and processes independent. But Barr also thinks 7-9 years is excessive and that seems reasonable - he just wants Trump to stop interfering and let him do his job as an independent AG.

 

[sooda]

For what it’s worth, I do think the potential 7-9 years for Roger Stone seems very excessive. Barr says he is familiar with the case and he supports Stone being prosecuted and sentenced.

But apparently the guy Stone was threatening (they know each other) wrote a letter to the court saying he did not feel physically threatened and asking for leniency on Stone’s behalf. Maybe that’s true, maybe not, but it should count for something. Stone is also old, and a first time offender.

7 years seems like an extremely long sentence even for lying to the FBI and threatening a witness.

Barr’s complaint against Trump is that his attacks on the DOJ and public requests regarding ongoing cases involving his allies, create optics that make it impossible to keep these decisions and processes independent. But Barr also thinks 7-9 years is excessive and that seems reasonable - he just wants Trump to stop interfering and let him do his job as an independent AG.

Did Stone defy the judge the way Manafort did? That NEVER works out well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm surprised but pleased to see this. It seems that Barr has a backbone which probably means he'll be out of a job sooner or later. And just in case any were wondering, this does not mean that I agree with him in the slightest but I respect his speaking out.

Barr blasts Trump's tweets on Stone case: 'Impossible for me to do my job':

In an exclusive interview, Attorney General Bill Barr told ABC News on Thursday that President Donald Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case” but should stop tweeting about the Justice Department because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”

Barr’s comments are a rare break with a president who the attorney general has aligned himself with and fiercely defended. But it also puts Barr in line with many of Trump’s supporters on Capitol Hill who say they support the president but wish he’d cut back on his tweets.

“I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr told ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas.
...
“I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody ... whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president,” Barr said. “I’m gonna do what I think is right. And you know … I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”

He still only has a kinda-sorta backbone though, given that he did intervene in the Roger Stone case.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So does this mean he's a hero now?
Last month they wanted to hang this guy
jeez....

From the OP:

"And just in case any were wondering, this does not mean that I agree with him in the slightest but I respect his speaking out."


That.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hey speaking of avoiding the actual topic and being a shill - do you agree with what Barr said? Were Trump’s tweets appropriate?

Let me break it down for you:

1. If I think Trump does something inappropriate, and Barr publicly agrees, and I’m glad Barr publicly agrees because it might make Trump less likely to engage in inappropriate behavior, I’m sticking with my principles to begin with. I’m not being a shill.

2. If Trump does something inappropriate, and you know it’s inappropriate but you won’t admit it - and instead you spin things into an attack on Trump’s critics while ignoring the substance of whether his behavior was appropriate - THAT is being a shill.

Great word by the way. “Shill”.

A hard concept to fathom for purely black-and-white thinkers.

 

[Shad]

I think you’re confused. The left has criticized Trump for a long time for inappropriate tweets and Barr has suddenly joined in that criticism. The left hasn’t changed its view of Barr, the AG has changed from defending to criticizing his boss.

What’s hilarious is how any criticism of Trump - even well intentioned, essentially indisputable criticism from a Trump ally - can be spun by his cult into an attack on Trump’s critics.

I never attacked Barr. I am just amused how quickly people flipped on Barr over one statement. Nothing more. Try again. Maybe read what I posted.

 

[Shad]

Hardly a 'darling' - I still oppose his actions. I noted that his backbone surprised me and so I changed my mind.

I know this is funny to those who are wedded to someone no matter what he does.

What actions would those be? Uncovering FISA abuse and manipulation by the FBI?

You are projecting a fiction here. I am just amused by the left.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I never attacked Barr. I am just amused how quickly people flipped on Barr over one statement. Nothing more. Try again. Maybe read what I posted.

You said Barr is “suddenly a darling on the left”. That’s nonsense. Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What actions would those be? Uncovering FISA abuse and manipulation by the FBI?

You are projecting a fiction here. I am just amused by the left.

You are amused by what words, specifically? It sounds like you are amused by your own straw men.

 

[Stanyon]

This all reminds me of when Mueller was the superman of the anti-Trumpeteers in some media and how great and wonderful he was and how his record was without question. After it came out as no collusion and the delusion was over l, there were reporters asking Mueller if he was a Russian asset. What a bunch of cowards

 

[SoyLeche]

This all reminds me of when Mueller was the superman of the anti-Trumpeteers in some media and how great and wonderful he was and how his record was without question. After it came out as no collusion and the delusion was over l, there were reporters asking Mueller if he was a Russian asset. What a bunch of cowards

I don’t recall that. Do you have a source?

 

[Sunstone]

I'm curious. What makes anyone think Bill Barr has suddenly become a man of character, integrity, and principle? Honestly, if you think that is what's happening here, please tell me why you think it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don’t recall that. Do you have a source?

I don’t recall that either. I am guessing it came from RW media, the Twinkie's bar of sources of information.

 

[Shad]

You said Barr is “suddenly a darling on the left”. That’s nonsense. Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

This thread.

 

[Shad]

You are amused by what words, specifically? It sounds like you are amused by your own straw men.

You oppsed Barr's acts so I gave you example in which the government violated the rights of citizens and due process. You didn't say much to that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This thread.

Which post made Barr a “darling on the left”? You seem to be knocking down your own straw man.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You oppsed Barr's acts so I gave you example in which the government violated the rights of citizens and due process. You didn't say much to that.

You’re lost, I didn’t oppose Barr’s acts. Try reading what I wrote.

You’ve ignored Barr’s criticism of Trump entirely, which is the topic of the thread. Instead, you’ve chosen to knock down your own straw men and engage in what-about-ism. Why is that?

 

[Shad]

You’re lost, I didn’t oppose Barr’s acts.

I lost nothing. Making a mistake in who posted what does not make your argument win automatically. Hilarious fantasy. Try again.

You’ve ignored Barr’s criticism of Trump entirely, which is the topic of the thread.

No I haven't. Assertion.

Instead, you’ve chosen to knock down your own straw men and engage in what-about-ism. Why is that?

As the left is suddenly praising the guy for nothing. See; this thread.