Originally Posted By: M E M
This will be the third investigation of the investigation I believe. Unlike the others Trump has given Barr broad powers to declassify information while fighting to hide everything else from house investigations. This is an obvious political move that you would label as "weaponizing" if a democrat was doing it. Look I didn't like Trump when he was a democrat. He's was always an awful person. I'm not like you who enjoyed his birtherism because it humiliated Obama. I would hope that my party would reject that type of thing from a candidate. I don't extend that to his political party or other sources either like you do with democrats/media/science or the FBI. Trump did engage in cover ups in the past. It's well documented just like his attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation.


"Science"?!?
I don't think there's much credible deniability for the argument that "democrats/media/science or the FBI" deceitfully work together against Republicans, and against the American people.
Some examples include:
* the texts and testimony of Strzok, Page, Ohr, Comey, McCabe and other FBI/DOJ officials.
* Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch in a secret meeting on the airport tarmac, just a few days before her DOJ and FBI exonerated Hillary despite overwhelming evidence.
* The Wikileaks internal DNC e-mails released during the DNC 2016 national convention.
* "Journo-list".
* IRS/Lois Lerner, and about 150 meetings of IRS head Koskinin with the White House in one year (as compared to the previous IRS head's meetings in Pesident W. Bush's entire 8 years: one meeting).
* And ultimately, the FISA court abuse to do surveillance and entrapment of the Trump administration. (Strzok and Page: "POTUS wants to know everything. we have.")

CIA agent Tony Schaffer (as I posted recently in an videotaped interview of him) said that during his decades with the CIA, with the authorization channels he went through on far lower CIA surveillance, there is absolutely no way Obama and his security staff DIDN'T know and approve the Trump surveillance at the very top.

So... the notion that there's separation between the Democrats/liberal media/deep-state agents in federal agencies is less credible by the day. And there will be indictments for that corruption soon. I think James Comey will be the first head to roll, with hopefully Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Ohr, Sally Yates and Loretta Lynch likely facing indictment following in close succession. The above named people signed off the falsified evidence for those FISA warrants, and they will be going down for that federal crime, among other federal crimes.

Thanks to Barr, we now have what ceased to exist in the Obama years: equal protection (and punishment) under the law.





Barr immediately after reading the report rightly determined there was not evidence to prosecute obstruction of justice (as Mueller should have, if Mueller had not been a partisan weasel shaving his report to aid the House Democrats politically, and give them the slightest window of ambiguity to open more investigations.

In our system, you are either 1) found guilty (with the evidence to prosecute)
or
2) found not guilty because there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute.
The >>>FOUR<<< previous investigations including the Mueller report found Trump not guilty and insufficient evidence to prosecute.
It was not legally correct or valid for Mueller and his investigators to say "We find insufficient evidence to prove Trump guilty of obstruction of justice, but we can NOT certify Trump's innocence." That is a new and un-Constitutional standard, declaring Trump guilty until proven innocent.
NO!!
The standard is Trump and every other American is presumed innocent unless PROVEN guilty.
And Mueller in his report said there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Trump to find him guilty. PERIOD.

Mueller's job was simply to say whether to prosecute or not, instead of waxing philosophic for 448 pages, to give Democrats the thinnest rationalization for opening a 5th (Nadler), 6th(Maxine Waters) and 7th(Adam Schiff) investigation of Trump.

AGAIN: >>>FOUR<<< previous investigations have found no evidence against Trump, and no justification beyond political weasel-moves to continue with more investigations. The Mueller investigation was extraordinarily well funded, and these new partisan-Democrat House investigations don't have the same resources and powers to find anything new. It's all political theatre, to smear and damage Trump going into the 2020 election. And Trump will win anyway.

53% of the population polled don't want further investigation, FOUR investigations is enough.
58% don't want to hear the Mueller report raised as an issue any more.
PERIOD.


Trump has given Barr broad powers to expose the facts and publicly disclose the actual FISA warrant submissions, so the American people can judge the facts for themselves, rather than filtered by FBI and DOJ officials trying to protect themselves and their friends (Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, and Mueller for example, a very tight club for many years, and it's an outrageous conflict of interest for these guys to assign each other to investigate each other.)

HOW IS DISCLOSING THE FACTS "WEAPONIZING" and "PARTISAN"? That's a lying Democrat narrative, where Democrats (in a psychological game of projection) accuse Republicans of what they themselves, the Democrats, are guilty of!
Democrats have been weaponizing federal law enforcement agencies and the IRS for over 10 years, at least. Going back at least to the vindictive prosecution of Scooter Libby (prosecuted, when it was in truth Richard Armitage who inadvertantly caused Valerie Plame to be outed as a CIA agent, but special prosecutor Fitzgerald, another member of the Comey/Mueller/Rosenstein/Weissmann club, vindictively jailed Libby anyway on "process crimes", a familiar pattern now for Republicans under deep state FBI prosecution).

How is Barr's full disclosure a "cover-up" or a "weaponization" of government? It is simply disclosing the documents and true facts.
Disclosure is the opposite of covering up!

I would argue that Trump has disclosed and kept himself and his staff more accountable and more open to testifying than any other recent president, and far less often exerted the protection of executive privelege. Far less often than Nixon, than Reagan, than Bill Clinton, than W. Bush or Obama.

Barr refused to testify because he would be interrogated by subordinate staff lawyers of House members, not by House members themselves, an unprecedented change of protoocol. So Barr basically told the Democrats to go to hell, and didn't appear.
And the lying partisan Democrats (who I think deliberately made the conditions so absurd as to guarantee Barr would not appear, their plan all along) gloated and one piece of shit Democrat (Rep. Cohen) ate a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken at his hearing floor desk.. Oh, yes, these are exalted saints of truth-finding, not at all resorting to slander and vile partisan behavior!

Trump has only withheld, in the example of the Mueller report, that which he is required BY LAW to not disclose.

And even in that, Democrat and Republican House members can go to a special room where they can view the entire report. About 95% is already publicly disclosed, and House members can privately/securely view almost 100% of it. But none of the Democrats have done so, even as they bemoan Barr's alleged non-disclosure. And since House Democrats haven't viewed it, how would they know there's anything there that should be disclosed? It's more Democrat lies and posturing.

In the example of witholding McGahn from testifying, Trump is defending the very essence of Presidential executive privelege, for all presidents, to have vital confidential conversations with his White House staff, and not be required to tell every detail in House or Senate testimony, limiting their ability to discuss freely any national crisis, for fear of being forced to disclose it and be made vulnerable by it later. That is the essence of executive privelege. While president, not having to endure these kind of harassments, gives ANY president the information and freedom to make informed decisions, and to act on that information, as president.
As opposed to he or his staff being restrained in their discussions and possibly not sharing information, for fear of having to reveal it in committee later.

Regarding Trump's pressure on Obama over "birtherism" (i.e., getting Obama to legally disclose his actual birth certificate, what every other presidential candidate has disclosed) I made it clear from the beginning that I don't believe Obama was born outside the U.S., I was certain from the beginning he was born in Hawaii, where his parents met and both attended college, and Barack Obama's birth announcement appeared at the time of his birth in two Hawaii newspapers. Even Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter said they had investigated and it was absurd conspiracy theory to allege otherwise.

The part I enjoyed is that Obama had already been publicly belligerent toward Trump, and Trump was firing back and humiliating Obama, and the controversy over Obama not disclosing his birth certificate was causing a sharp decline in Obama's support in the polls. So what I enjoy is that Trump got Obama to do what no one else could, about 5 years into Obama's presidency, to pressure Obama to finally do what was legally required of him as a presidential candidate years prior, long after his campaign had ended. What no one else was able to compel Obama to do, in all those years.

That was a precursor of Trump later similarly beating 16 other Republican primary candidates, what was considered impossible.
And then beating Hillary Clinton in the general election, despite her incredible campaign resources that out-spent him 2-to-1, what was considered an inevitable Hillary Clinton victory.

I liked that Trump out-bullied the bully, and got Obama to do the right thing. Not because I ever believed the birther speculation, but just because Trump made Obama do something he didn't want to do and had previously withheld for pure political reasons (i.e., as long as Obama didn't disclose his proper birth certificate, it kept the birther conspiracy alive, which helped Obama politically, to be able to say the Republicans, not just the birthers, but all Republicans, were crazy, and allowed Obama to front that all the other things Obama was guilty of were just crazy conspiracy theories like the birther thing.)
Trump's forcing Obama to disclose his birth certificate humiliated Obama, made Obama look less credible and look weak and to have something to hide and finally forced to disclose, and to put an end to that tactic of sweepingly dismissing all Republican criticism.

Obama was not born in Kenya, and as a U.S. citizen born is Hawaii, is legally able to be president.
But Obama is also a Saul Alinsky-indoctrinated Cultural Marxist revolutionary, who was raised by Marxist radical parents and marxist radical grandparents, surrounded his entire life by anti-American marxist radicals like Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, who volunteered after college at ACORN (where he taught Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals to classrooms of ACORN "community organizer" marxist street agitators like himself), his closest advisor Valerie Jarret, and the maniacs he appointed to his administration like Jarrett, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn, Hillary Clinton, and Huma Abedin, among many others. Radicals all, many of whom you can go on Youtube and see their videotaped comments praising and quoting the likes of Mao Tse Tung, Saul Alinsky, Hugo Chaves, and praaising other genocidal marxists on their marxist authoritarian tactics for seizing power.

And the damage these people did to this country is still being repaired.

DiscoverTheNetworks listing, Barack Obama:
http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511