Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

AG Barr confirms spying on Trump campaign

74 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tatetopa
7 minutes ago, skliss said:

I still think you are implying Barr will somehow hide crimes by Trump because he "shelters" the Presidency or Trump himself....And by saying that you are saying there are crimes to be hidden. Own it.

I own it.  No to hiding crimes.  Yes to interpreting the law.

For example:  A difference in conservative and liberal judges is how they interpret the same law.  One thinks it may allow something , the other thinks it may not.

The report may report facts for example: President Trump met and joked with the Russian ambassador.  Then the President had a private meeting with Vladimir Putin for two hours and would not let his cabinet members see his translator's notes. Just facts.

AG Barr says, this does not fall under the definition of collusion or even that there is no evidence to support collusion. . Period.

A conflicting Democratic opinion might say, well wait a minute, nobody knows what they talked about.  It is suspicious that he didn't want his cabinet members to know.  It may be collusion.

AG Barr says no, you are reaching, that does not fall under the definition of collusion, furthermore there is no evidence of collusion.  My summary stands.  And he would be right.  He did not hide anything.  An honest Democrat will then concede the point.

Same is true for Hillary by the way.  Some people say she took money and bribes through the Clinton Foundation and broke the law.  It may be up to Barr if he investigates to say Yes she broke the law, or No, the evidence is not sufficient to determine criminal intent.   Either way then, it stands whether you or I think Hillary or Donald is a crook does not matter.  It is the law that must be respected.  If there is a question, the Supreme Court will have the final answer.  I'm good with that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
skliss
21 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Then the President had a private meeting with Vladimir Putin for two hours and would not let his cabinet members see his translator's notes. Just facts.

That doesnt mean anything nefarious went on.

21 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

and would not let his cabinet members see his translator's notes. Just facts.

Possibly because what they talked about was classified.

 

21 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

An honest Democrat will then concede the point.

Don't hold your breath. Actually Trey Gowdy said something interesting this morning...he said what will happen is nitpicking for confirmation bias.... If say a report has one witness that says a light was red and thirty witnesses that say the light was green, the safe bet is the light was green but there are those that will CHOOSE to believe that one person over the thirty...even without evidence.  It makes no real sense but he feels that's what they are looking for..the one sentence that they can distort for gain. 

 

22 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Either way then, it stands whether you or I think Hillary or Donald is a crook does not matter.  It is the law that must be respected

It may not matter what you and I think but when those with a public position push the false narrative to those who look to them for the truth, it's a problem. One false narrative is that Barr is the Presidents AG when he is in fact The US of America's AG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
38 minutes ago, skliss said:

That doesnt mean anything nefarious went on.

Exactly my point on different views and opinions.  When AG Barr has determined legally there was no collusion, then end of story.  I was kind of trying to make the point Trey Gowdy did better a better job of explaining.

40 minutes ago, skliss said:

Don't hold your breath.

I hope there are some people of integrity out there somewhere.

 

40 minutes ago, skliss said:

Don't hold your breath. Actually Trey Gowdy said something interesting this morning...he said what will happen is nitpicking for confirmation bias.... If say a report has one witness that says a light was red and thirty witnesses that say the light was green, the safe bet is the light was green but there are those that will CHOOSE to believe that one person over the thirty...even without evidence.  It makes no real sense but he feels that's what they are looking for..the one sentence that they can distort for gain. 

 

This is a good argument.  Does it apply equally well to climate change?

 

41 minutes ago, skliss said:

It may not matter what you and I think but when those with a public position push the false narrative to those who look to them for the truth, it's a problem. One false narrative is that Barr is the Presidents AG when he is in fact The US of America's AG.

Those in public positions would say they are speculating, not pushing a false narrative.  I do agree with you that it becomes tedious after a while.  Look at all of the people that immediately assumed terrorism when the Notre Dame fire broke out.  They were speculating using few facts and their opinion of the world.  We do that too much and that might be one of the symptoms of our MSM problems.  Barr is the AG for the United States.  but he is not like the umpire at a baseball game or the referee at a football game.  He is on President Trump's Republican team.  He will play fair, but he is not required to answer to all of the Democrats desires and complaints.  If it didn't matter, Jeff Sessions or Eric Holder could have been chosen to review and issue the report.

I don't think there is anything illegal immoral or wrong with it.  It is part of our system.  The next Democratic president can declare climate change a national emergency and select an Attorney General that will focus on prosecuting pollution criminals and not paying much attention to illegal immigrants.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 4/16/2019 at 3:17 PM, Tatetopa said:

For example:  A difference in conservative and liberal judges is how they interpret the same law.  One thinks it may allow something , the other thinks it may not.

It’s a bit more than just interpretation.  The Progressive will see it contemporarily and will legislate from the bench to make change.  The Conservative will try to preserve the original intent.  A Progressive will view it from the stand point of what the law will grant the individual.  A Conservative will view it from the stand point of human nature and natural rights.  A judge can only call balls and strikes.  A Progressive judge will try to redefine what a ball and strike are.  A Conservative will use the definition of balls and strikes from human nature and natural rights (Constitution).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Does it apply equally well to climate change?

Not for me since I read the one article the guy who crunched the original numbers that started the whole business with Al Gore finally got out. No one would publish and Gore wouldn't take his calls. He was dieing and he said that his data was wrong, he had made a major number error and he wanted to correct the record before he died. Unfortunately it had become big business, especially for Gore at that point. You could tell he was agonizing over what he had caused but had no recourse because no one would give him the time of day. He was gonna die without being able to set the record straight. I felt so bad for him.

And anyway, that's more like 50/50. You can pull data up in equal amount on both sides despite the left constantly spouting that 98% of climate change scientists believe in it. And what job do they get paid for with that as a title? Are they gonna research themselves into the unemployment line?

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

would say they are speculating, not pushing a false narrative

Except they state them as facts, that's pushing a false narrative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
3 hours ago, skliss said:

Not for me since I read the one article the guy who crunched the original numbers that started the whole business with Al Gore finally got out.

Strange you didn't link to it............

3 hours ago, skliss said:

No one would publish and Gore wouldn't take his calls. He was dieing and he said that his data was wrong, he had made a major number error and he wanted to correct the record before he died. Unfortunately it had become big business, especially for Gore at that point. You could tell he was agonizing over what he had caused but had no recourse because no one would give him the time of day. He was gonna die without being able to set the record straight. I felt so bad for him.

Cool story bro.

3 hours ago, skliss said:

And anyway, that's more like 50/50. You can pull data up in equal amount on both sides

Yeah that's called googling.  If you don't know how to check references, that can happen.

3 hours ago, skliss said:

despite the left constantly spouting that 98% of climate change scientists believe in it.

Do you know where that number comes from?  I'm happy to cite in detail (it's not 98% btw..), but before i do, can you cite where you got your 50/50 split?  If you can't cite that, nor that article above, then obviously credibility isn't your thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

This is a good argument.  Does it apply equally well to climate change?

It certainly seems to.  Science is not a consensus.  Too many scientists have betrayed their profession in order to secure research funding.  There are two different concepts here.  There’s ‘Climate Change’ and then there is ‘Anthropomorphic Climate Change’.  One exists and the other does not.  Yet Progressives will argue for ACC as if it is CC.  When one argues against ACC, Progs are quick to belittle them saying that CC does exist.  One can’t argue against this kind of ignorance.

 In Eisenhower’s famous Farewell Address, he states:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

 The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Far too often we are only drawn to the warning about the Military-Industrial Complex in the preceding paragraphs and we don’t understand that there is also the Scientific-Technological Elite that we need to be wary of.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
On 4/10/2019 at 8:46 PM, NightScreams said:

And so many people laughed and ridiculed Trump when he first said that.

 

 

On 4/12/2019 at 8:53 PM, F3SS said:

March '17 and they all laughed at him. 

We still are laughing at Trump for saying it and anyone who believes that nonsense at this point.  Well laughing may not be the right word its really becoming disconcerting on a deeply serious level. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
6 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

 

 

We still are laughing at Trump for saying it and anyone who believes that nonsense at this point.  Well laughing may not be the right word its really becoming disconcerting on a deeply serious level. 

 

 

Today will be the turning point. We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
20 hours ago, F3SS said:

Today will be the turning point. We shall see.

QAnon Believers Crushed After Mueller Report Fails to Lead to Hillary Clinton’s Arrest

Quote

While most of Donald Trump’s allies braced for the release on Thursday of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, believers in the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory approached the long-awaited publication with a sense of thrill.

For years, QAnon fans have been mocked for believing that Mueller was secretly in league with the president, working hand-in-hand to uncover Satanic rituals committed by top Democrats before shipping them off to Guantanamo Bay. They had been told it was ridiculous to base their entire political worldview on a series of anonymous clues posted on internet message boards—including one that claimed Hillary Clinton was secretly arrested in October 2017.

Advertisement

Now, after all the chanting and waving of “Q” signs at Trump rallies, their hour of vindication was at hand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Posted (edited)

Just a coupla quick questions:

1.  Why did William Barr, Attorney General (term used sarcastically) lie repeatedly about Mueller's reason for not (yet) prosecuting the president (term used sarcastically) for obstruction of justice?

2. Why did Sarah Huckabee (Slippery Tongue) Sanders lie about (among other things) the 'countless FBI agents'?

3. Why does William Barr repeatedly use the term collusion, when it is not a legal term?

4. Why did William Barr leave out the first (bolded below) part of the sentence in his initial 'letter'?
Barr said "“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
But here’s the full version of that sentence:
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

 

Gosh, I wish I knew the answers to those questions.... (j/k)

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Well of course there was"spying"

Any "high-office" political candidate engaging in business affairs with terse foreign entities is automatically subject to investigation under proper authority.

That's a "Duh..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
9 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Lol I just saw that on Instagram. How do they know they're crushed? Did the DB poll anons? The storm was always what comes after Mueller and there are things coming down the pike. Plenty of investigations under way. It's just a hit piece by an insecure rag. Just your style I know.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
21 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Lol I just saw that on Instagram. How do they know they're crushed? Did the DB poll anons? The storm was always what comes after Mueller and there are things coming down the pike. Plenty of investigations under way. It's just a hit piece by an insecure rag. Just your style I know.

These days they're taking comfort where they can find it.  It's like a junkie who's suddenly jonesing for a hit.  The real withdrawal will happen if Barr decides to tear the lid off and look into who caused the "investigation".  Over a year ago, I predicted what would be in this report and I was correct -for a change.  He had to mention collusion since that was supposedly the reason for the investigation and he had to admit he found no proof of it.  The rest of it is one long string of innuendo with no proof.  When the president's very public declarations of the probe being a witch hunt and his use of his power as chief executive to fire his own staff (Comey) is the best they've got to show he obstructed "justice" then they've failed.  They won't ever admit it and at this point that's okay.  Barr will either do the honorable thing and shine a light on the FISA issues and the actions of those at the top of the FBI or he too will cover it up.  I really believe he has the future of this country in his hands today. 

I've heard more than once that the reason Trump has so far failed to declassify much of the background here is that British Intelligence is hip deep in the plot.  There are details slowly coming out about MI6 being used on U.S. soil to get around the laws about CIA spying on citizens.  Apparently, we do it for them as well.  Nice, what?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
On 4/17/2019 at 10:45 PM, ChrLzs said:

Strange you didn't link to it............

Cool story bro.

Yeah that's called googling.  If you don't know how to check references, that can happen.

Do you know where that number comes from?  I'm happy to cite in detail (it's not 98% btw..), but before i do, can you cite where you got your 50/50 split?  If you can't cite that, nor that article above, then obviously credibility isn't your thing.

 

First...not a bro....second,  the article was published back when Gore was at the height of global warming, that long ago, unfortunately that was 2 computers ago for me and I no longer have it. I just remember this guys anguish I over it. Do I care at all If you believe it or not? No. I could go on some long oddessy of figuring out the guys name and hoping that one article could be found but I don't care enough to convince you.  I read it, I know what it said, that's enough for me. 

As for the numbers...I've seen commentators on various news shows and channels claim "98% of climate change scientists...." you'll have to hit them up if it's wrong.  Of course climate change (note it's no longer global warming) scientists are going to say there is an issue, otherwise they claim themselves out of a job. The number 50/50 of scientists also comes from articles I've read and news blurbs I've seen. I just take note as I've seen that number more than a few times. I have absolutely no need to spend time finding stuff for you, nor does your disbelief matter to me one way or another. If you are interested, spend your time searching. Have fun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 hours ago, F3SS said:

The storm was always what comes after Mueller and there are things coming down the pike.

No, no it wasnt :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, skliss said:

Do I care at all If you believe it or not? No.

Good.  I don't.  And I see nobody else chiming in to assist you, and you couldn't even be bothered to link to all these 50/50 sites you squawk about.  Given how important a topic this is, your 'laziness' tells all.

There's a separate section for made up stories.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
13 hours ago, and then said:

  I really believe he has the future of this country in his hands today. 

Some truth in that for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
On 4/19/2019 at 8:04 PM, Farmer77 said:

No, no it wasnt :rolleyes:

Ok then prove it. Find the posts that support you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
14 hours ago, F3SS said:

Ok then prove it. Find the posts that support you.

This is Q''s very first post :

Quote

HRC extradition already in motion effective yesterday with several countries in case of cross border run. Passport approved to be flagged effective 10/30 @ 12:01am. Expect massive riots organized in defiance and others fleeing the US to occur. US M’s will conduct the operation while NG activated. Proof check: Locate a NG member and ask if activated for duty 10/30 across most major cities.

Its been this way since the beginning. BIG NEWS THE STORM IS HERE....oh wait no its coming

The Mueller investigation is over. QAnon, the conspiracy theory that grew around it, is not. Why a conspiracy theory with an expiration date will endure.

Here is another from 11/1/ 2017

Quote

Q Clearance Patriot

My fellow Americans, over the course of the next several days you will undoubtedly realize that we are taking back our great country (the land of the free) from the evil tyrants that wish to do us harm and destroy the last remaining refuge of shining light. On POTUS’ order, we have initiated certain fail-safes that shall safeguard the public from the primary fallout which is slated to occur 11.3 upon the arrest announcement of Mr. Podesta (actionable 11.4). Confirmation (to the public) of what is occurring will then be revealed and will not be openly accepted. Public riots are being organized in serious numbers in an effort to prevent the arrest and capture of more senior public officials. On POTUS’ order, a state of temporary military control will be actioned and special ops carried out. False leaks have been made to retain several within the confines of the United States to prevent extradition and special operator necessity. Rest assured, the safety and well-being of every man, woman, and child of this country is being exhausted in full. However, the atmosphere within the country will unfortunately be divided as so many have fallen for the corrupt and evil narrative that has long been broadcast. We will be initiating the Emergency Broadcast System (EMS) during this time in an effort to provide a direct message (avoiding the fake news) to all citizens. Organizations and/or people that wish to do us harm during this time will be met with swift fury – certain laws have been pre-lifted to provide our great military the necessary authority to handle and conduct these operations (at home and abroad).

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/uid/pGukiFmX/order/asc/

 

 

Part of why I picked up on and began railing against the entire Q thing is I saw how the EXACT same tactic was being used by mainstream members of the GOP. Remember the Nunes memo? We were told for months how it was going to expose the "deep state" and even his most ardent supporters must admit it was a sham. Remember Uranium1 ? Or the IG report? All hyped and then morphed over time in the exact same pattern as the Q crumbs .

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

I'll give you that for now, especially the first post. I still think it's all unfolding now as opposed the times of the posts. Let's note that Trump even said, after the report was released, that he wanted to do all this long ago but his lawyers advised him to wait for Mueller to finish his thing. Guess we'll see. Things aren't over yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry

I wouldn't put much of anything past the left.  The leftwing in this country is morally bankrupt and will do anything to retain power.  All the more so since it was the Clintons themselves who were involved.  Remember what happened to Vince Foster...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
3 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

I wouldn't put much of anything past the left.  The leftwing in this country is morally bankrupt and will do anything...

And there's your problem, folks - them Russkis have achieved their goal.. it is a country irrevocably divided with that sort of 'sentiment'.

 

(only slightly tongue in cheek..)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
On 4/19/2019 at 4:46 PM, skliss said:

First...not a bro....second,  the article was published back when Gore was at the height of global warming, that long ago, unfortunately that was 2 computers ago for me and I no longer have it. I just remember this guys anguish I over it. Do I care at all If you believe it or not? No. I could go on some long oddessy of figuring out the guys name and hoping that one article could be found but I don't care enough to convince you.  I read it, I know what it said, that's enough for me. 

As for the numbers...I've seen commentators on various news shows and channels claim "98% of climate change scientists...." you'll have to hit them up if it's wrong.  Of course climate change (note it's no longer global warming) scientists are going to say there is an issue, otherwise they claim themselves out of a job. The number 50/50 of scientists also comes from articles I've read and news blurbs I've seen. I just take note as I've seen that number more than a few times. I have absolutely no need to spend time finding stuff for you, nor does your disbelief matter to me one way or another. If you are interested, spend your time searching. Have fun.

 

Skliss, Gore told us long ago that New York City (and much more) would be under water by now. And then these climate change experts wonder why we don't trust them.  Uh huh. Gore Link   

Now, you and I and normal people know better than to trust sketchy people. But there is something of fascination for the libs of the world for cult leaders. Go figure.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.