It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Im tired of Barr and all of those telling Trump to not talk about corruption

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 06:06 AM

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Boadicea

Ukraine has, according to Guiliani, been trying for years to get information to the FBI/DoJ concerning corruption in their country. Until now, they have been refused. So even with the caution statement, Barr is still being more receptive than his predecessors.

Doesn't this pretty much prove my point though? Why hasn't Barr seen all of this already??? Why hasn't Barr made a point of getting it? If Trump thinks investigating this corruption is worth withholding funds over, then Barr should have been all over this since at least last summer. Why hasn't Barr already seen everything Rudy has? Why hasn't Barr been working with and supporting Rudy's efforts? This is Barr's job that Rudy is doing...

Also, consider this: The DoJ does not talk about upcoming cases. Period.

And how's that working out for us? It's not working at all for US. It works to protect the guilty. This is exactly why our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution -- thee law of the land -- to strictly enumerate their powers, and for government officials to conduct public business in public, and to provide clear evidence/cause for any and all actions taken, especially against the people collectively or a person individually.

Investigations under cover of darkness that drag on forever and go nowhere have become a protection/defense tactic for the guilty.

Now, just imagine what would happen if Barr announced anything more than his caution statement concerning Guilliani.... If I were Barr, I'd be publlcly downplaying things too... there's already talk of impeaching him.

The guilty already know they are guilty, and they know if they're in the crosshairs. Trump didn't spook anyone or give anything away. And whatever a Trump official says, the Dems and the media are going to make of it what they want and say what they want. Facts never get in their way.

Further, a prosecutor's job is to go where the facts and the truth take him. It's not a prosecutor's job to not have an opinion. Exactly the opposite. They are supposed to have an opinion based upon the facts and the truth. If the facts and the truth prove guilt, then the prosecutor presses charges BECAUSE he thinks the defendant is guilty.

Barr acknowledges there is tremendous corruption in Ukraine in discounting any information that comes from Ukraine. But he makes no pledge to investigate and get to the bottom of it, nor does he express any interest or value in what Rudy finds. There was no good reason to discount or minimize Rudy's efforts. Rudy is not a rookie. Barr could have rightfully given credit where credit is due, or remained completely neutral. He knowingly and deliberately downplayed Rudy's work.

Or, we can believe that four talented, tenured lawyers making big bucks just quit their jobs solely because the guy they successfully got convicted might... might get 2 years instead of nine...

Yeah, there's definitely more to that than meets the eye. I just don't know what it is yet -- or even have an opinion. I'm expecting we'll hear more about these folks soon.

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 06:08 AM

originally posted by: mtnshredder

Why has Hillary not been indicted? Comey? Strzok? Page? Obummer? They’ve had plenty of time to build a case.

Exactly. They've managed to bring cases against Stone, Manafort, Flynn, who else? All in record time. Why is it so impossible to build a case against folks when the evidence is public record??? Comey, Brennan, McCabe, and on and on ad nauseum.

Where there's a will there's a way. The will is obviously lacking here.

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 06:29 AM
a reply to: Grambler

So it's Barr under the

One would almost get the impression that being critical of the great leader isn"t smart.


posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 06:30 AM
a reply to: Boadicea

Good conversation going

So clearly I’m with you on this

Let’s hit some highlights the redneck is discussing

On Ukraine:

I know bark knows of the corruption in the Ukraine

You know how? I know about it. So barr having to wait for Rudy to bring him evidence makes no sense

Think of this in context with those defending Barr’s statement we are discussing on this thread

So on one hand, it’s too dangerous to have trump tweet the corruption cause it makes barr not look independent

But on the other hand, he can’t operate on Ukraine corruption until trumps personal lawyer spoon feeds him info? Rudy’s involvement both optically and physically makes barr less is independent than trumps tweets

What more likely is barr drug his feet in Ukraine, trump is furious barr didn’t step in especially during impeachment and announce the corruption, so Rudy was forced to get personally involved

And let talk about timing

When it comes to Brennan, comey and clapper; we are told we had to wait two three even for years just to do something simple like charge them with lying to Congress cause it takes years to build a case

But I am supposed to believe barr is just now suddenly getting info about Biden’s,Obama, Ukraine corruption and he will wrap it up before the 2020 election?

It makes no sense

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 06:49 AM
On 4 doj lawyers resigning proving anything:

This is the type of thing I don’t understand

Trump supporters are so desperate for a win that they consider someone quitting or getting fired some sort of victory

It’s not.

Corrupt cops and lawyers retiring to million dollar book deals and cnn Jon’s isn’t my idea of outing corruption

It’s clear why these lawyers resigned to me

They were in their final mueller brought case, knew they wouldn’t be out on anything else like that (cause trump was mad at them and would give them the vindman treatment) so they have an absurd sentence to stone to force trump to intervene

Why didn’t barr step in during the corrupt trial of stone?

Surely if we knew these prosecutors connected to mueller were corrupt, Barr knew it

But instead he waits for them to railroad stone, then waits for trump to tweet, them intervenes and scolds trump for tweeting

Look at it this way

If barr is really going after the corrupt, don’t you think these 4 lawyers quitting would know that?

So why recommend 9 years and then quit?

They would know barr has them anyways, so why not play the long game and give no excuse to publicly be fired? At least they can keep tabs from the inside on Barr’s operation while they are there

I would argue if they knew barr wasn’t going to charge anyone significant they’d be more likely to resign

It gives the Dems another talking point about heroes in muellers team, allows calls for an investigation of trump, and they know barr won’t come after them for any of it

They don’t need to be there shielding they corrupt if the guy in charge, Barr, is corrupt

All of this aside

I don’t understand how anyone can take people quitting as an impending sign of the corrupt finally facing justice

We’ve had trump firing or people quitting for years now; nothing has changed

In fact the corruption has ramped up

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 06:58 AM
a reply to: Grambler

Their last two glimmers of hope. Trump loses 2020 and it all goes away. If not they stall so long they make it through 2024 and then it all goes away.

People have limited attention spans. Usually when putting out information you try to avoid message fatigue. Unfortunately to get clicks a lot of news sources hammer on a message until people stop listening.

As long as they can stall long enough people lose interest.

I'll keep hoping, but the obvious failures to prosecute those who lied on the public record is not a good indicator.

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 07:24 AM
On the idea it takes time to build a case which is why the obvious criminals haven’t been charged:

This is the most infuriating talking point to me

Isn’t it convenient that this is the theory, and it goes against all common sense of every other criminal investigation in history

Normally, you go after crimes you can prove, punish those people harshly, then offer some sort of leniency if they give up info on higher crimes

But for the only investigation in history, we have to allow obvious crimes to go unpunished, the people committing them to continue to hamper the president’s agenda, all because we have to spring some magical trap that somehow they don’t see coming but every Tom dick and Harry with an internet connection has figured out

Isn’t it odd that everyone on the q thread has figured out barr, and Wray, and sessions etc are all pretending to not care about charging these crimes, which makes comey, Brennan, clapper Obama Biden Hillary etc. super comfortable, and then bam

After trump allies lives like carter page have been ruined, after the 2018 election was lost, after millions of people that otherwise would have supporters trump disliking him

And I still haven’t received even the most rudimentary explanation for why Brennan clapper and coney haven’t been charged

How would that harm “the plan”?

Barr charges them and all of the sudden Obama Hillary et al initiate their super secret plan that somehow will stop barr from getting all of the evidence of their corruption that average people like us can already see?

I just hope if I am ever being investigated for a serious crime the investigation goes like this one

Let me walk free, sell books, go on tv, make millions of dollars, and never charge me because they just need to wait one more month before the super secret (that everyone in the internet knows) trap is sprung

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 07:31 AM
a reply to: Ksihkehe

This is exactly right

The war being fought is a battle of information

Who can wake up the great mass of people in the middle

I think it’s obvious trump is trying too, even if it’s ham handed

But who else is in Washington?

If more than half of America woke up to the fact clapper lies blatantly twice to Congress, they’d demand charges

But instead of highlighting when that crime occurs and showing footage of it every day and prosecuting it, Barr’s team decides to let slide for years

Now if they ever decide to charge it, the public will be like “oh clapper lies about the nsa spying on is five years ago. Eh who cares”

Just like the fbi abuses in the fisa ig report

When it came out was the time for republicans and allies to scream about it every day, to tell the American people how this was the biggest political scandal of all time

What did they do instead?

Fudge around about impeachment, and never mention the fbi corruption

And then when some lowly guy like me is one of a few voices literally screaming my anger about what we learned about the fbi, q people and many more tell me to chill out, trust the plan and celebrate that trump is going to win 2020 in a landslide

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe barr is about to spring the magical trap

But if I am right, it will be too late before these people wake up and see the corruption is being allowed to continue unpunished

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 07:44 AM

originally posted by: Grambler
Hey Barr, if you read this, email me. Ill give you an open and shut case Brennan lied to congress in about ten minutes, you can start there.
But if he is someone really interested in outing corruption, he should appreciate people like me, and Trump, that are publicly calling out this corruption, and explain to the American people why public congressional liars like brennan are allowed to walk free years after their lies.
Or maybe he should just shut up and do his job

If you have evidence Brennan lied to Congress please present it. Lying to Congress is a big deal:

What happens if you lie to Congress

"Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who “willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true” is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both."

Here is another example of Republican incompetence. Either there is no evidence or Republicans are NOT doing their job. If all these Democrats are so corrupt, then why are there not more indictments if there is so much evidence.

I will tell you why Democrats are not indicted for corruption. It's because there is no evidence for it. All the so called "evidence" is nothing but mud-slinging opinions. I get it. It's just a matter of time before Republicans simply cannot stand it anymore and completely give up on the justice system. I imagine at some point Democrats will be imprisoned on drummed up charges with fake evidence. Probably this year. It's the logical next step for this administration since the rule-of-law is now under attack.

Trump campaigned on "draining the swamp" and getting rid of corruption in Washington. The truth and the facts suggest otherwise. It appears the Trump administration is the most corrupt government this country has ever had:

"Recent administrations with the MOST criminal indictments:

Trump (Republican) — 215

Nixon (Republican) — 76

Reagan (Republican) — 26

"Recent administrations with the LEAST criminal indictments:

Obama (Democrat) — 0

Carter (Democrat) — 1

Clinton (Democrat) — 2"

Please Republicans stop being so incompetent. Please indict just one Democrat!!

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 07:54 AM
a reply to: dfnj2015

Brennan did lie but I met clapper

You want me two prove clapper lies to Congress?


Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper is about celebrate one of the most important anniversaries of his life. March 13th will be the fifth anniversary of his commission of open perjury before the Senate Intelligence Committee. More importantly, it also happens to be when the statute of limitations runs out — closing any possibility of prosecution for Clapper


Clapper appeared before the Senate to discuss surveillance programs in the midst of a controversy over warrantless surveillance of the American public. He was asked directly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?” There was no ambiguity or confusion and Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” That was a lie and Clapper knew it when he said it.

Later, Clapper said that his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make. That would still make it a lie of course but Clapper is a made guy /

You must have missed that

Or how about

When asked directly whether he had ever discussed the dossier with any journalists, Clapper replied that he had not, according to a transcript of the proceedings:

MR. ROONEY: Did you discuss the dossier or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists?


The former DNI later changed his story after he was confronted specifically about his communications with Jake Tapper of CNN.

“Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the ‘dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,’ and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic,” the report continued

Happy to enlighten you

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 08:01 AM
The reason it's 9 years is because of all the charges:

"On January 25, 2019, in a pre-dawn raid by 29 FBI agents acting on both an arrest warrant and a search warrant[127] at his Fort Lauderdale, Florida home, Stone was arrested on seven criminal charges of an indictment in the Mueller investigation: one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering.[19][128][129] The same day, a federal magistrate judge released Stone on a USD$250,000 signature bond and declared that he was not a flight risk.[130][131] Stone said he would fight the charges, which he called politically motivated, and would refuse to “bear false witness" against Trump.[132] He called Robert Mueller a "rogue prosecutor".[133] In the charging document, prosecutors alleged that after the first WikiLeaks release of hacked DNC emails in July 2016, a senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and determine what other damaging information WikiLeaks had regarding the Clinton campaign. Stone thereafter told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by WikiLeaks, the indictment alleged. The indictment also alleged that Stone had discussed WikiLeaks releases with multiple senior Trump campaign officials.[134][135]

On February 18, 2019, Stone posted on Instagram a photo of the federal judge overseeing his case, Amy Berman Jackson, with what resembled rifle scope crosshairs next to her head.[136] Later that day, Stone filed an apology with the court. Jackson then imposed a full gag order on Stone, citing her belief that Stone would "pose a danger" to others without the order"

Do the crime you have to do the time!

"The prosecutors said Stone's recommended sentencing, based on standardized calculations, is 87 months to 108 months in prison, which amounts to about seven to nine years."

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 08:08 AM
Ok people lets get something clear,

The White House says President Trump isn't "bothered" or deterred after Attorney General Bill Barrtold ABC News on Thursday that the president's tweets "make it impossible for me to do my job," in an unusual swipe at the president -- although Barr emphasized that Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case."

Look, Barr and Trump have an understanding. We all know Trump tweets, after awhile, you pick up on the ebb and flow.
As reactionary as Trump can be with his tweets, did he ir did he not tweet anything in response to this "unusual swipe"?


Infact, it is stated that Trump is not BOTHERED by Barrs comments at all.

What Barr was referring to was a number of things that cascade into something that makes his job impossible, for example, anything that Trump tweets with regard to the DOD cases will have an avalance of media coming down on Barr, including politicians.

I mean, did the OP watch the whole interview? Barr effectively calls out congressional democrats, Congress and evetyone else, afterwhich, the Trump comment kicked it into high gear.

Liberal media is blasting this bit, in a bid to captalize on a rift, however, it's anything but.

People are way overblowing this.

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 08:13 AM

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Grambler

So it's Barr under the

One would almost get the impression that being critical of the great leader isn"t smart.


Huh? You cite "critical" yet your post demostrates none.

What are you on about? You realize this is NOTHING, right?

Did Trump tweet a response?

Was Trump bothered?

Is Barr fired?

If anything, Trump is humbled about this meaningless spat magnified by liberal media, prove me wrong.

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 08:18 AM
a reply to: Arnie123

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said President Trump should follow Attorney General William Barr's advice after the top Justice Department official said the president's tweeting was making it "impossible" to do his job.

The Hill


posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 08:18 AM
Yes I watched the whole interview

I also saw all many of trumps republican allies in the senate take this to mean trump needs to stop tweeting about cases

Saw a lot of ats and q type people say the same

You ask for proof this is anything the the following post

Why won’t one person who thinks barr is the man and it’s was cool for him to suggest trump not tweet about cases show me even one shred of proof he is charging any of the criminals?

Why is clapper a free man?

a reply to: Arnie123

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 08:40 AM
a reply to: AttitudeProblem

Yep! I don't understand the blind faith people are putting on this guy. He is tainted as they get and people think he is "the guy".

He is as dirty now as he has been in the past.

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 08:49 AM
a reply to: Grambler

I don't see the connection between Clapper lying about what NSA is doing has to do with Brennan. All these national security guys keep secrets from Congress.

If Brennan lied to Congress and you have evidence he should be indicted. My problem with your whole thread is you make these grandiose claims but you have nothing to back it up other than opinions and hearsay. Opinions and hearsay are NOT evidence. This is why Republicans are so incompetent when it comes to indicting Democrats.

Can we just agree if Brennan broke the law he should be indicted. If you have evidence he broke the law please provide the evidence and which law you think he broke? And then please answer if it is so obvious why hasn't a Republican DOJ indicted him?

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 08:54 AM

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Arnie123

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said President Trump should follow Attorney General William Barr's advice after the top Justice Department official said the president's tweeting was making it "impossible" to do his job.

The Hill


So, source and cite where Trump has disagreed with this?

Also, *Should follow the advice.

You still haven't answered anything.


President Trump today,

“The President has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” A.G. Barr This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!

Hence, *Should follow, not *Has to follow.

I'm having trouble trying to figure out your postings, they're a bit meaningless 🤔

posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 08:59 AM

originally posted by: Grambler
Yes I watched the whole interview

I also saw all many of trumps republican allies in the senate take this to mean trump needs to stop tweeting about cases

Saw a lot of ats and q type people say the same

You ask for proof this is anything the the following post

Why won’t one person who thinks barr is the man and it’s was cool for him to suggest trump not tweet about cases show me even one shred of proof he is charging any of the criminals?

Why is clapper a free man?

a reply to: Arnie123

I get where you're coming from, but as much as it pisses us off, that wasn't under Barrs watch and I seriously doubt "they" will ever see anything come of it.

We're focused on the hear and now, don't forget, Barr is Trumps saving grace agaisnt the Mueller assault, this is why this whole thing is meaningless, literally meaningless.

I mean if the President has no issue with it, even citing that he has the ability to do so but is so far resisting, what's the issue?

Literally no one is pissed about this, if anything, liberal media got a bit of a reprieve because we're wasting time BS over small beans.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in