The Federal Case Against Trump Is 'Very Strong,' His Former Attorney General Says
By taking records that did not belong to him and refusing to return them, William Barr says, Trump "provoked this whole problem himself."

Donald Trump picked William Barr as his second attorney general largely because Barr had criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of alleged ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. Barr still agrees with Trump that the Russia probe was a "witch hunt."
The former attorney general takes a strikingly different view of the federal indictment against Trump that was unsealed this month, which Barr calls "very, very damning." In contrast with many other prominent Republicans, Barr says the outrage is not the indictment but the "reckless conduct" that prompted it.
Like Trump's claim that the 2020 presidential election was rigged, his retention of government records after he left the White House presents Republicans with a choice. They can risk the wrath of Trump's supporters by acknowledging reality, or they can play it safe by embracing his delusions.
Barr has rejected the latter course since December 1, 2020, when he said the Justice Department had not seen "anything to substantiate" Trump's story of systematically corrupted voting machines or any other evidence of "fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election." Around that time, Barr later recalled, he repeatedly told Trump such claims were "bullshit."
Barr likewise has little patience for Trump's assertion that he had "the absolute right to do whatever I want" with the thousands of presidential records he took with him when he left office, which included more than 300 marked as classified. "He had no right to those documents," Barr said on Face the Nation this week. "He had no legal basis for keeping them."
Many Republican legislators have portrayed the criminal charges related to Trump's handling of those records as a politically motivated attack on Joe Biden's likely 2024 opponent. But as Barr noted, Trump "provoked this whole problem himself" by refusing to return the documents.
"The government tried for over a year, quietly and with respect, to get them back, which was essential that they do, and he jerked them around," Barr said. Trump remained recalcitrant even when he faced a federal subpoena seeking all the documents with classification markings stored at Mar-a-Lago.
"He didn't raise any legal arguments," Barr noted. Instead, according to the indictment, "he engaged in a course of deceitful conduct" aimed at hiding records covered by the subpoena. "If those allegations are true," Barr said, Trump's conduct was "outrageous" and "a clear crime."
Barr called the evidence supporting the charges against Trump, which include obstruction of justice and willful retention of national defense information, "very strong," noting that much of it "comes from his own lawyers." Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran's notes, for example, indicate that his client was inclined to defy the subpoena.
Consistent with that impression, Trump had boxes moved out of a Mar-a-Lago storage room before Corcoran could search them for relevant documents. Barr said he also believes Trump lied to the Justice Department by averring that he had fully complied with the subpoena—another crime listed in the indictment.
Trump has claimed every document he removed was "automatically declassified"—perhaps by a "standing order," perhaps just "by thinking about it," perhaps by the very act of removal. As Barr has previously noted, such claims are "highly improbable" and suggest a cavalier attitude toward national security. In any case, they are irrelevant under the statute dealing with national defense information, a category that can include unclassified material.
Trump also has argued that the Presidential Records Act gave him complete discretion to claim documents as his personal property. That legal theory is "absurd," Barr noted, because "the whole purpose of the statute" is to "stop presidents from taking official documents out of the White House."
Trump, whom Barr likened to "a defiant 9-year-old kid," bridled at the legal restrictions on his acquisitive impulses, insisting that no one had any business going through "my boxes." Barr is clearly correct when he observes that the case against Trump is "entirely of his own making."
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Many Republican legislators have portrayed the criminal charges related to Trump’s handling of those records as a politically motivated attack on Joe Biden’s likely 2024 opponent. But as Barr noted, Trump “provoked this whole problem himself” by refusing to return the documents.
And if we replace all the keywords in the phrases to [foreign leader this] and [foreign opposition leader that] in [foreign, exotic country X], then Reason would be portraying the criminal charges against Trump as politically motivated by a corrupt, despotic regime.
Just imagine, for a moment, that Trump was an über-genius Russian plant and he did walk out with nuclear launch codes or whatever and Barr said, “It’s a problem of his own making.”
I want to ask how someone that insanely stupid gets to become AG, but I was here for all of it. He actually is the tallest mental midget in the moral limbo contest. FUBARRed, absolutely FUBARRed.
Swamp Thing gonna swamp.
https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1671501327111798784?t=AIuGdNsDjcrF0WJYoS2HVw&s=19
BLACKROCK: After Zelenskyy cut deals with BlackRock and JPMorgan to manage the reconstruction of Ukraine, Biden is now sending Ukraine $1.3B to overhaul its energy grid and modernize its ports, railways and other infrastructure.
[Link]
*facedesk*
Easily start receiving more than $600 every single day from home in your part time. i made $18781 from this job in my spare time afte my college. easy to do job and its regular income are awesome. no skills needed to do this job all you need to know is how to copy and paste stuff online. join this today by follow details on this page.
.
.
Apply Now Here—————————->>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
This raises an important question. Which of Biden’s 21 shell corporations will ultimately receive his $130 million cut?
Odd how Republicans can't find any of those "shell companies" and how all their informants have gone missing as if they never existed at all.
Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I've started averaging 15k a month... The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start.
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)>>> https://www.Salarybiz.com
Don't you know anything about conspiracies? The lack of evidence doesn't mean they're false, it only proves how good the conspirators are at covering their tracks.
Once you've dived down that rabbit hole, it's awfully hard to climb back out. Conspiracy theorists become so invested in their beliefs that to renounce them would be to renounce an integral part of their own identity and admit they've devoted themself to a lie. For the truest true believers, giving up their beliefs would be like the Pope renouncing Catholicism.
The article misreports the facts.
The money will never go to Ukraine if Russia wins the war and it isn't going to Ukraine if the War is ongoing.
Further nothing will go to Ukraine if not authorized by congress.
You seem to be very confused about how your own country works.
Google is offering all people $179 per-hour, besides, benefit of weekly income ... any individual can also avail this work!!!... Google doesn't have restrictions like age or some computer skill therefore you may try too.I have obtained $20K only in 14 days. Check here what I do>>>>>>> http://Www.Easywork7.com
So, you're telling me that Trump the Great Swamp Drainer appointed a swamp creature to his own administration? And apparently only one of many, judging by how many other appointees he denounced once his actions pushed them past their ability to suppress their gag reflex.
In four years, Trump did precisely jack in the way of swamp draining. (Big surprise for a guy who has spent his entire adult life neck deep in the swamp.) His words and actions since suggest he learned nothing from the experience, and any new promises are as hollow as the old ones. Supporters claim great plans, but any close examination makes those "plans" look more like amateur hour fever dreams.
Supporters love to scream "TDS!" at the slightest criticism, and sometimes it might even be justified. But anyone who's still buying Trump's snake oil at this point proves that TDS comes in more than one strain.
He was in charge when the FIB got the Hunter Biden laptop, and failed to counter the 51 "intelligence" professionals' letter calling it "Russian disinformation", the entire theft of the 2020 election happened right under his nose, and he stopped any efforts to show that it had been done.
Yeah, I believe he knows his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to his confirmation bias of predicting Trump wouldn't get re-elected. /sarc
At this point, if you think the 2020 election was stolen then you are mentally ill, just like Trump.
"I want to ask how someone that insanely stupid gets to become AG"
He was appointed based on his political record by a president who is deeply mentally ill.
How did he become AG? IIRC, that very stable genius Trump appointed him as part of his stated policy of surrounding himself with only the best people. You know, up until those best people finally refused to further beclown themselves (and possibly break laws) just to stroke Trump's ego. Then it turned out they were actually weak and stupid cowards and putting them in positions of power certainly wasn't Trump's fault.
It’s hard to get past the denial stage sometimes.
Tell us about the 100% safe and effective vaccines again. Or how j6 was an insurrection. Or how Rittenhouse crossed state lines.
Is there a database of White Mike’s list of denial somewhere? At this point it’s getting hard to track.
No doctor said that vaccines were 100% effective.
Why do you feel a need to lie about it MAGAt?
No vaccine in history has ever been "100% safe and effective", and no one except the voices in your head has ever claimed they were. Vaccinated people sometimes get infected, and people sometimes suffer harm due to vaccines. The relevant consideration isn't whether vaccines are perfect, it's whether the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease. If the answer is "no" then logic says take the vaccine. Covid has killed over a million people in the US so far. It has sent millions more to hospitals, leaving some with lingering issues even after they recovered. It has also killed or endangered people who never even got it by clogging the healthcare system and preventing routine treatment that might have spotted heart disease, cancer, etc early and still easily treatable. The vaccines have clearly proved that their benefits far exceed their harms, however imperfect they may be.
J6 was more of a temper tantrum than an insurrection, but it did involve violent rioting. If people who engage in violent assaults and destruction of property go to jail, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. In the case of the J6 rioters, police and prosecutors seem to be focusing on people who committed actual crimes. This is a big contrast to the BLM protests, where cops seemed to spend a lot more time gassing, tasing and rubber bulleting non-violent protesters and journalists than they did going after the actual looters, arsonists and vandals.
I'm pretty sure Rittenhouse did cross state lines, although I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. A good case could be made that he never should have been there, but under the circumstances that actually prevailed, I believe he engaged in a legitimate act of self-defense.
Bill Barr is a member of a secret society of dominionists, gathered as movers at more powerful levels to lend paternoster a hand in consummating the divine plan of restoration -- anakatastasis. If you want to experience Barr and his world view, check out Bill Maher, S21E1., and listen to him closely after the obligatory jivving about Trump. He tells his world view in just yapping about the "big issues" for America. It's deeply, weirdly medieval.
Forget Trump's reckless endangerment of national security.
The cruel and unusual decorative horror Trump inflicted on Mar A Lago's bathrooms is a compelling argument for capital punishment.
Documents were in the bathroom because Trump was flushing as much of the evidence that he could.
I would put more credence in the Biden administration charges against Trump if the DNC hadn’t spent the last 6+ years on Russian scandals, flimsy impeachments, one-sided Jan 6th investigations and no-bail pre-trial jailings, and especially, right now, the incredibly tone deaf slap on the wrist for Hunter Biden.
And then there’s Jacob Sullum’s own TDS.
Sorry, no bill. He may well be convicted, but that won’t be any more honest than anything else the Deep State has been doing. It will simply be because enough spaghetti thrown often enough eventually leaves some trace, and Trump’s ego is too big to ever admit he might have played into their hands.
Trump’s ego is too big to ever admit he might have played into their hands.
In his defense, the cine que non of his sins that he played into their hands was winning an election.
It really is getting to a shooting-solution-only situation. I just don't see many other alternatives, nor, otherwise, what to save or lose.
"I would put more credence in the Biden administration charges against Trump if the DNC hadn’t spent the last 6+ years on ..."
The name of this publication is "Reason". You obviously read it as "Feelings", but that's inaccurate. There is no reason whatsoever for one to be dependent on another. If a soldier doe not get shot in 4 battles and then gets killed in the 4th would it be reasonable to refuse to believe he had not been killed? The enemy were obviously lousy shots in the first three battles, so would you imagine it is impossible for him to be killed in the next one?
If Mueller had found nothing in his investigation, if it hadn't been shown that Russia flooded Facebook with bullshit to try to get Trump elected, if Manafort had not been guilty of working with Russian oligarchs during the campaign it would be reasonable to think it was all truly a hoax. But before you slam Barr, do remember he wrote his own summary of Mueller's report spinning the fact that DOJ could not prosecute a sitting President into the familiar refrain of "Total Exoneration". The Durham report found far less that Mueller did. Do you call the Durham report a witch hunt too?
And I watched live footage from the January 6th insurrection. I followed the lead up to it and I paid attention to the hearings. As much as I believe the Democrats enjoyed putting on the hearings in hopes of political gain, what spin there may have been on it was dwarfed by the fact that it actually happened at all.
The lack of intellectual rigor and consistency and the anger at the messengers rather than the message makes it painfully clear that a lot of folks here imagine themselves far more "Reason"able than they act.
There are none so blind, as those, who will not see.
This article is so wrong on many counts. A president absolutely does have the the authority by statute to declassify documents. The VP does not. Nobody cares one bit whether Biden had classified documents in his home, his garage, or his little corner of the university. That alone shows that this is a political witch hunt.
Bill Barr already outed himself as not caring for the "rule of law", when he said that the long list of facts about how it came to be that Jeff Epstein "killed himself" was just a big coincidental "perfect storm of screw-ups. Right. And Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, and James Earl Ray, and Sirhan Sirhan. Right.
Reminds me of what a reporter from the USSR said to an American reporter at an international journalism conference. He told the American what a big advantage he had. Nobody believes what we write in the Pravda, but your readers believe what you write in the New York Times.
Boy has that flipped around!
"a defiant 9-year-old kid,"
"I would let a defiant 9-year-old kid walk out of the White House with classified documents and then charge him with a federal crime for doing so because it would be a problem of his own making." - Bill Barr
"We support Bill Barr's assessment of letting a defiant 9-year-old walk out of the White House with classified documents and then charging him with a federal crime for doing so because it would be a problem of his own making." - Reason Magazine
Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Do you people not hear yourself? The Deep State is, by your own telling, more careless with classified information than most parents of defiant 9-year-olds are with their credit cards and more judicially vindictive about their own incompetence in controlling said documents BY YOUR OWN FUCKING NARRATIVE!
WHAT DID HE TAKE? Per Barr's 9-year-old kid retardation, my own defiant 9 yr. old takes stuff that's not explicitly designated as his without his name written at the top and we take stuff that's his explicitly with his name written at the top all the time without even making a district-level case out of it.
Did he take nuclear launch codes? Who the fuck left them in a box for the (ex-)(Vice) President to walk out with? Why is it not a simple matter of updating them? Did he take a NOC list? A list of dry cleaning orders? My 13-year-old knows that he needs to figure out how to resolve the issue on his own and not to tattle for that bullshit.
My 9 year old takes my credit card or handgun and racks up some debt or ADs into somebody else's property do I get to play the "It was a problem of his own making." card too? Holy fucking shit it's inept 9 and 13 yr. olds playing "adults in the room" all the way down.
Whats amazing in all this is Obama, Biden, Pence. Comey, Hillary all did the same. But the focus here is not unequal treatment but trump bad trump guilty. Barr even makes the statist case that this is different because trump didn't return them the second he was asked to, despite that not being the law. The law is retention of documents, not retention of documents until daddy says return them.
Whats amazing in all this is Obama, Biden, Pence. Comey, Hillary all did the same.
Don’t forget Bill, which should set precedent for this case.
I know, that'll be "different", somehow. Mostly "Because Trump".
You can argue that about counts 1 to 33, but counts 34 to 38 are not about merely retaining documents. But apparently you refuse to read the indictment. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf
If Hillary, say, or Obama, had retained documents then lied about it, instructed their lawyers to lie about - and had not been charged - then you'd have a point. But no-one has suggested that they did that.
No doubt you're going to respond with your usual "statist"/"process crime" bullshit.
Funny how the Trumpists only discovered the iniquity of process crimes once Trump's people started getting done for them. I don't recall you or any other Trump defender conceding that Bill Clinton was only guilty of a process crime.
I see you've locked onto secondary charges leading to execution of the primary charges as how the legal system works. Tell us again how you failed out of school lol. That's not how the legal system works shrike.
The primary charges, espionage act, are not dependent on the secondary charges. This is a morons view of the legal system and why you keep getting mocked by asking is a bank robber guilty of he returns the money.
It is a retarded partisan argument made by simpleton like yourself. But keep pushing it shrike. Lol.
Still not shrike, fuckwit.
Your entire defence boils down to, "these are all process crimes and as there were no substantive crimes there were no crimes, period".
Also, I quite happily conceded I failed at law - as a lazy 21yo. And not out of school, idiot. That was more than 40 years ago, and though it's not evident in your case - you can continue to learn stuff after college.
As is evident from your inability to state the grounds on which the judge ruled in JW v NARA, you're basically a Dunning-Krugerite in legal matters.
I have never once said they were all process crimes shrike. Not once.
I have said the Espionage Act does not apply here and gave you reasons from a lawyer retard. Youre the only one hedging on the secondary charges to excuse the other politicians and government workers not named trump.
I have literally posted the JW lawyers statements and actual citations from the case you fucking halfway. Yet you still claim you understand what the sock drawer case was about.
Here it is again retard.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28
Truly amazing shrike. Youre doing great.
You are correct. And many lawyers have pointed that out. The Espionage Act in no way applies to Trump, or any president. But does apply in other cases, like Secretaries of State trying to cover their tracks.
"Still not shrike, fuckwit."
You should take this as a complement, you piece of shit.
Define 'retaining documents'.
Does destroying them beyond the possibility of recovery instead of turning them over when required count? Because that's exactly what Hillary did.
If Hillary, say, or Obama, had retained documents then lied about it, instructed their lawyers to lie about – and had not been charged – then you’d have a point. But no-one has suggested that they did that.
Perhaps I might direct you to a recent Reason interview with a CATO lawyer where he described Hillary doing exactly that, but the reason we didn't prosecute her is because she conducted herself more demurely at DC cocktail parties. Trump brought this on himself indeed.
How sad that everybody is turning on Trump.
They all know that he is mentally ill and incompetent and needs a long stay in a padded room.
Give him some toe crayons and some big pieces of paper to draw on.
Here's a quarter, buy yourself some reading comprehension. Trump may have been acting like a "defiant 9yo kid", but the point is that any adult shouldn't act like that, much less the POTUS. The way you twist language and logic suggests you must be a professional contortionist.
Do you think any of them have thought far enough ahead to consider what happens if they convict Trump and he wins or even just spoils the election?
Seems like they explicitly have thought of that and are trying to convict him before Nov. ’24 to specifically generate the intended outcome or they haven’t considered the issue and its implications at all.
The best case scenario is that they convict him in the next couple of months hoping people will forget about it by Nov. ’24. But even that is still going to cast a really long shadow. Especially if they continue to validate every other conspiracy theory under the sun and don’t actually ever reveal what was in the classified documents he took (or do reveal it and it's not nuclear launch codes or a NOC list that he sold and actually documentation about Fast and Furious, Fauci's handling of COVID, Russiagate, any one of a number of FBI clusterfucks...).
I presume they want him to "spoil" the election. It'll make ensuring a D win that much easier. Unless you mean something else by "spoils" than "taking votes from the real R candidate after he's in jail". Which you may well.
Trump will spoil the 2024 election no matter. He can't win if nominated and if he is not nominated he will likely work to take down the Republican nominee.
He can’t win if nominated and if he is not nominated he will likely work to take down the Republican nominee.
Setting aside your presumptions on the first part. Trump spoiling the election of his own accord is electoral fair play. Democrats spoiling the election by convicting a majority-opposition candidate is Banana Republic-level shit.
Not setting aside your presumptions on the first part, the latter sentence is the. exact. point. Even if Trump did absolutely nothing from this point forward except get convicted and die in a prison cell or under house arrest or otherwise keep his mouth shut, the timelines make it nigh-impossible to refute the assertion that the Biden DOJ spoiled the election *for Republicans* far worse than anything Nixon even attempted.
Trump spoiling the election as "fair play"? Hobbling your own team is hardly fair play. What team would accept that?
If Trump is convicted it will not be Democrats it will be a jury, Just like everyother convict that has a jury trial.
Trump spoiling the election as “fair play”? Hobbling your own team is hardly fair play. What team would accept that?
Not the Democrats, as Bernie supporters, and Hillary 2008 supporters will attest.
What team would accept that?
Whose team are you arguing on behalf of here? Trump's? The GOP?
I could put in some effort to be more clear about the statement but with zero effort, I can stand back and watch as you punch yourself in the junk with both fists.
Trump's mental illness will not permit him to be the Republican candidate, and yes he will work to further destroy the country if he is not re-elected.
Ultimately it doesn't matter because America is beyond the point of being saved, due to a half century of Republican and Libertarian Treason.
Unless you mean something else by “spoils” than “taking votes from the real R candidate after he’s in jail”.
Nope, that or effectively analogous (e.g. taking votes from the R-primary victor while ineligible as a convict) is what I meant.
I'm not able to fully conceive whatever else you meant but they would seem to fall between 'electoral fair play' and 'private action' IMO. At least, significantly less "spoiling" of an election than criminally convicting a majority-opposition candidate.
No, that was mostly it. I agree that the other option (doing a Perot) would be legitimate election activity, but it would definitely fuck the Rs.
Dunno. I'm about ready to completely give up hope for the future anyway. :-/
He should have given 10% to the big guy and he'd be in the clear.
Yeah. If we're indicting Trump for a problem of his own making can we go ahead and indict Anthony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, J.B. Pritzker, James Comey, Andrew Cuomo, etc., etc., etc. for the problems of their own making?
Seems like each one individually has done something more approaching actual harm to more actual people openly, whether directly through quid pro quo with corrupt, hostile foreign regimes or indirectly through theft and expenditure of taxpayer dollars and locking people in their homes and depriving them of their human rights, than anything Trump's done with classified information.
Or a simpler plan: give back the documents without obstruction.
Thats not what the law says no matter how many democrats claim it does.
Rule number one of people like White Mike is you NEVER give up the con. Even when caught red handed.
All 120 of them? And should he email them as PDFs or send them in a zip file?
The printed out copies he had sitting around would have done fine.
I can think of two arguments you are hinting at with this remark about emails and PDFs, but apparently are afraid to make plainly and deliberately explicitly.
Barr says things on both sides of the fence when it comes to Trump. Bar was the Democrats choice for Atty General when Trump needed to replace the old one. That should tell you something, he was never a friend of Trump. What Barr has to say is a partisan political opinion, nothing more.
“Barr says things on both sides of the fence”
“What Barr has to say is a partisan political opinion”
Those two statements contradict each other.
No, they don’t. It’s just beyond your comprehension.
Barr has been a great example of how partisans work. One day he's loved by Trump supporters and hated by the left, the next day he's hated by Trump supporters and loved by the left.
It's all depends on what team he is helping, not on anything of substance he says.
I don't think Barr is getting many points from the Democrats. The fact is he was willing to go far in supporting Trump, he simple had limits.
Oh, I've definitely read happy pieces about Barr from people on the left when he began pushing back against Trump.
Happy pieces without a question of why he did not speak up sooner?
Does not partisanship require 100% devotion and no disagreement ever? Confused by the assertion.
If you say partisanship is picking and choosing which appeal to the same authority you take, it almost makes sense, but then still requires 100% agreement to not be partisan which is a terrible inference.
I would claim 100% compliance to a partisan authority is more proof of blind partisanship.
What I'm saying is the underlying substance of the statement is not of concern to a partisan, the concern is who is benefitted by the statement being made.
But Barr is on a team. See media who all claims it is true. In any team there will be disagreements. He'll thats why many here separate out the GOPe from the GOP and not the liberal caucus vs the few blue dog dems that remain. There is never 100% compliance even in a team.
Um, okay. I think we are talking about different things.
Yeah, intentional or not, the statement comes across as a sarcasmic-level transcendentally non-partisan oxymoron:
“People switching positions in a manner in which I regard as anti-partisan is evidence of just how idiotically partisan they really are.” – Inquisitive Squirrel
It assumes a strictly one-dimensional analysis of (at least) Republicans who rather openly, didn’t love Barr but were content that he was better than Mueller or Comey or Garland or similar. Ignoring the fact that at least a not-insignificant fraction of the (Trump) GOP doesn’t just draw a left/right line but also draws a left vs. right *and* deep state or swamp creature or bureaucrat vs. outsider line.
The GOP is filled with sub teams. GOPe is constantly mocked. Those posters claim are conservatives here attack the GOP all the time such as with the debt deal agreement, CARES, etc. There isn't even blind allegiance inside of the GOP.
You are trying really hard here to disagree with the fact that tribalism is a thing. Why?
I can't tell if you both purposefully work to not understand the simple concept I pointed out, or you actually don't understand it. But your "quote" of me clearly shows a huge lack of understanding as that's not remotely what I said.
TL,DR: You’re not being clear and blaming us doesn’t help you to be so.
Neither one of us said tribalism isn’t a thing. I can’t speak for JesseAz but, myself, quite the opposite. Racism is also a thing. Phobias are also things.
Consider, maybe, cardinal and relative directions. Pointing at people switching between left and right as being lost doesn’t clearly demonstrate that you’re facing N, S, E or W and, even or specifically if you assume yourself to be Northbound, as you (or you, JesseAz, and I) meander around in a Northerly fashion, you will switch between left and right in an indistinguishable fashion.
English, natural language, is a mixture. I've distilled or precipitated out what I believe to be the essence of what you've said. If you think you actually said something else that I've boiled off or decanted, please restate your point without the precipitate or apparent contaminate that I've enriched for you.
That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth (Genesis 11:8-9)
Mental health professionals revolt against "Woke" APA.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/06/mental-health-professionals-push-back-on-woke-therapy/
"The American Psychological Association, which has nearly 150,000 members and accredits psychology training programs, has served as perhaps the prime example of the field’s social-justice embrace. On the homepage of its website, the APA lists “utilizing psychology to make a positive impact on critical societal issues” as the first tactic of its overall mission. Its enthusiasm for intersectionality dates back to 2017. (“Intersectionality” is the concept that a person’s different “oppressed” identity categories, such as race and gender, combine to account for greater disadvantage than each category would individually.) This was followed by a new definition of racism as a structural force as opposed to internal and interpersonal prejudice.
Since then, the APA has questioned scientific and objective standards in psychology with a view toward radically transforming society. (In an excellent piece originally on Substack, Eddie Waldrep, a clinical psychologist, critiqued this mission in detail.) Ideologically motivated therapists even “fire” their patients on the grounds that their beliefs are “unsafe” or influenced by “white supremacy.” Instead of viewing patients as individuals, some therapists view them within the framework of “critical social justice,” which places “identity” front and center and scoffs at objectivity. Multiple mental-health institutions have followed the APA line.
In an interview,...Dr. Andrew Hartz, told me that “therapists being trained now increasingly don’t have competency to treat patients with diverse viewpoints.” He notes that a Ph.D. takes nearly a decade to complete, and candidates may never be introduced or exposed to ideas outside the left-wing bubble. As a result, not only might they lack an understanding of patients who hold conservative views, they might even be uncomfortable supporting those patients."
That's fine, 90% of people diagnosed with mental disorders are progressives
Or is it 90% of progressives are diagnosed with mental disorders?
It’s 100%. Or how could they be progressives? No mentally healthy person could ever be a progressive.
"Progressivism" is a mental disease.
This sack of crap belongs in prison with Trump anyhow.
Careful now. 'Drain the swamp' talk like that will get you labeled as a Trumpista by one of the oxymoronic lefty trolls like chemjeff, SRG, or raspberrydinners.
I’m not a leftist, except in the cultist sense of not being a Trump brown
shirt-tonguer.Youre a leftist soros worshipper shrike.
Lemme guess, [holds grey “Comment hidden because this user is muted.” box to forehead Carnac the Magnificent-style] an oxymoronic, NeverTrump, lefty troll showed up to textually refute but behaviorally affirm that they’re at least 2 of the 3 adjectives by refuting only one of the 3 adjectives *and* did so purely without proof and of their own ego.
Imagine that the best, most clever intellectual representation you can muster is being a sock serving as a stooge that makes raspberrydinners look good when he accidentally pulls a “Black Jeopardy with Tom Hanks”.
Another lying fuckwit. But "oxymoronic" is meaningless in context - indeed, I wonder whether you even know the meaning of the word- probably thinking it has something to do with "moron", and "troll" is a matter of opinion; only "lefty" is a factual matter.
As I have consistently and unambiguously advocated on these pages for capitalism and free trade and have likewise argued against socialism - real socialism, not the weasel word used by the ignoranti to describe anything political or economic they don't like - I cannot be a leftist, by definition.
Now fuck off.
Fuck off Shreek.
Tumors like Barr or Sullum used to be tarred and feathered for their disgraceful behavior.
There really is no nice solution when your opponents have nothing resembling integrity and never suffer any real, physical consequences for lying.
Some people need to do some things.
Word! Throw people like Pompeo, Haley, & Bolton in as well.
If Trump does somehow win in 2024 he better clean house & stay away from any GOP establishment figures.
With "friends" like that, who needs enemies.
DHHS is still 100% sure that the Covid vaccine would stop the outbreak, 100% safe and effective. They are also sure it started in a wet market from racoon dogs. They aslo have never seen any evidence masks don't work and of covid travelling more than 6 ft from an infected person.
Trust the government experts - Reason
Yep, as to Barr's comment about 'not seeing any evidence', that tends to happen when you refuse to investigate.
And when you actively tell your subordinates to stop investigating.
DeSantis campaign looking more and more like typical swamp every day
https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1671353893522124802?t=S35a0i26MiiOypmvGzpvUQ&s=19
Trump "father of the vaccine"
--> refused to fire Fauci
--> vax mandates enacted
--> kids harmed
11 yo female, 5 mins after 1st dose said she couldn't hear and she "couldn't feel her ears". Lost consciousness. Seizure for 5 mins. Screamed to mom "Make it stop" 1/
[Thread of vax injuries to children]
You'll notice Christina Pushaw, former aide to Saakashvili and Zelensky, current coms director for DeSantis, chirping in the replies.
So the team hired, at a rate of tens of millions of dollars, to run the DeSantis campaign is now blaming Trump for mandates that he never enacted and injuries to children from a vaccine that wasn't offered to children until well after Trump left office.
"Trumpism without Trump" appears to just be establishment republican, but "edgy"...
https://twitter.com/CatchUpFeed/status/1671372796876984320?t=POcKUwf5YmoYWICzri6EyQ&s=19
The CEO of OceanGate, which is operating the missing Titanic tourist submarine, explains that the company didn’t want to hire any experienced “50 year old white guys” because they weren’t “inspirational.”
[Video]
That’s sure to be in the forthcoming lawsuits against the U Boat commander.
though they might have been competent!! Geez Luis!!
https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1671481511365734401?t=atEtArzowvKW24yonKYMBQ&s=19
We all knew Washington was corrupt, but $10k for a Senator is just insulting -- have some pride in the kleptocracy.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/blackrock-recruiter-claims-senators-can-be-bought-10k-war-good-business-okeefe
There is no case against Trump.
Not one. Anywhere.
Every charge is based on a lie.
“And I’m gonna hold my breath and stomp my feet until everyone agrees with me!”
Yes, you and your fellow travelers keep doing that. But we all know you’re lying Marxist pieces of shit.
Where are the lies here?
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf
Several of them aren't even charges. 36 is rather literally between "Trump said some things." and a Remy "This is CNN."-style "Leaking Heroes: Reality Winner, Bradley Manning; Leaking Zeroes: Julian Assange, Matt Taibbi, Ed Snowden, Donald Trump".
Weird. Barr also said this:
"The public needs to be assured that the two pending investigations about the Bidens – the one about mishandling of classified material and the broader one in Delaware – are being pursued with the same rigor as the case against Trump," Barr told Fox News Digital.
.
Barr said this assurance is "especially needed now because of recent reports that an FBI whistleblower is suggesting some shenanigans possibly directed at undermining the Delaware investigation," he said.
.
"In light of the slow pace of that investigation, these reports are, frankly, very concerning. Chairman Comer and key senators are trying to get to the bottom of this," he said.
Buy sullum and reason won't talk about the bribery issue.
Perhaps they're still waiting on hearing the evidence of bribery contained in those recordings that Grassley, Jordan and Comer admit they have no clue if they actually exist yet?
Do you mean the recordings the FIB should have been assiduously seeking, since the whistleblower revealed their possible existence...but haven't?
"the whole purpose of the statute" is to "stop presidents from taking official documents out of the White House." In North Korea maybe. POTUS can walk out with the nuclear codes before his term of office ends. Biden, Pence and others walked out with documents. It will be up to the S. Ct. (if jury nullification doesn't happen) to invalidate using the 'Espionage Act' to criminalize legal behavior.
I think that's the most ridiculous thing about all this. As president he did have the power to declassify anything and take any documents he wanted out of the WH. And it has to be that way. Otherwise the government can keep secrets from the public forever with no recourse to any elected official. It's one of the few ways the more secretive parts of the national security apparatus can be prevented from operating without any accountability.
And it has to be that way. Otherwise the government can keep secrets from the public forever with no recourse to any elected official. It’s one of the few ways the more secretive parts of the national security apparatus can be prevented from operating without any accountability.
+1
I don't think Trump is innocent. I think in a Gödel-esque "The next statement is true. The previous statement is false." he cannot be legitimately found guilty in any court of law. If they had some sort of evidence that he shared intelligence with foreign assets or even disclosed the identity of private American agents, there's a case that he endangered some people but, by Barr's own arguments, the only people Trump has hurt is himself if he's even hurt himself at all. He asserts this is a problem of Trump's own making but, since the beginning, this has been a case of "If a document gets declassified in the woods and no one's around to hear it..." which is a problem with (de)classification of state secrets, not the person declassifying things.
No, the elected President cannot be a whistleblower against his own administration. The rules are made by __________ and __________, _________, _________, __________ and __________, oh, and don't forget ____________, and it goes without saying ____________, ___________, __________, ___________, __________, _________, __________, ___________ and __________.
https://twitter.com/QuetzalPhoenix/status/1671258606594052097?t=hpoMhnnQ7BjmgMgQLkb7NA&s=19
All immigration moves the country towards the left because loyalty to left controlled institutions compensates for not having roots.
No one votes for their own deportation.
Until a major cultural shift happens, all immigration will be left wing immigration. Period.
Even "good" immigrants that assimilate, will 99% assimilate into striver libs (see Asian women that vote Democrat and every Indian politician in Anglo countries)
https://twitter.com/mkhammer/status/1671483615794933760?t=GsUfheDAxC6psJ-qGYOcsQ&s=19
My fave healing moments are when the President says he’ll F-16 me so I shouldn’t worry about defending myself.
Biden: “I love these guys who say the 2nd Amendment is — you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15.”
[Link]
Afghanistan cave dwellers on line 1 Mr Biden.
And even the caves in Afghanistan are a relatively banal instantiation of Biden's dementia locking him into WWII/Cold War/Pre-asymmetric warfare era thinking.
Imagine a US President launching an air strike against "insurgents" less than a quarter-mile away from LAX, SFO, ORD, JFK, IAD... even Trump is too humble or coherent or well-advised or otherwise has the wherewithal to avoid such idiocy.
The AR-15 is at the same time an impossibly powerful destructive "weapon of war" that doesn't belong in the hands of civilians AND so weak as to be inconsequential as a useful weapon.
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1671505012227469317?t=ewPMBSM1yjhttaxhcfyigQ&s=19
Joe Biden appoints to AG, the guy his former boss nominated the supreme court, and he goes after the former other President whom prevented him from that nomination, and you seriously want to still argue "DOJ independence"
[Link]
Yeah that doesn't work anymore. You were warned where this goes. Now it's going there and you shocked by it.
Garland’s kabuki dance continues. His band of thugs is beginning to resemble the “esteemed” cast of doctors from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Crazies running the asylum. Jack Smith has suddenly become Dr. Scanlan- the famous Dr. Scanlan. One wonders why he forgot to mention the PRA in his general indictment. Yea, the governing statute. Oh, right. No criminality up that tree. Pity the PRA will make so much doodley squat out of his case.
This ain’t The Hague, Jack, where you get to cherry-pick the ground rules. Did you forget a specific statute prevails over a general one? Or that a current statute trumps an old one?
No worries. Smith and Garland will have to sell this charade to the courts, maybe the Supreme Court. That’s the place, just to remind, where the embittered bureaucrat Garland will never become a Justice. Ouch.
What is the controversy here? Libertarians believe Trump is a POS. So is Obama, Biden, Clinton, Harris, Bush, most of the House and Senate, D.,C. Swamp critters, etc. All belong in jail for violating the Constitution and individual rights. No more excusing misdeeds and carrying water for any of these assholes.
Oh stop wasting time with all the BS.. The “reckless conduct” was his attempts to clean the D.C. swamp. Otherwise; ever other president would’ve been indicted for their “reckless conduct”.
So Biden had twice as many documents but didn’t lash out against there collection. Well let me clue you in; Trump didn’t lash out with anything but words (freedom of speech) and the same documents were collected. So go blow your BS somewhere else Barr. The very fact he didn't bow down to the Nazi-Empire is the very reason he's being charged by the Nazi-Empire post-solution phase.
It's a retaliation strike by the Nazi-Empire; pure and simple.
What about the case against Trump valet Walt Nauta? He strikes me as the Ashli Babbit in this affair - the innocent victim we'd all prefer to ignore.
Well, he's probably not innocent - obeying orders whether you're a soldier or a valet not usually making one innocent - but certainly not as culpable as the man giving the orders. Perhaps he's in the middle of a bidding war atm.
DOJ: if you testify against Trump, 1 year in low-security prison
Trump: if you stay shtum, $500,000 into your offshore bank account
DOJ: 6 months
Trump: $1mm
DOJ: 2 years suspended
Trump: $2mm
etc etc.
"Well, he’s probably not innocent "
If Trump is innocent, then Nauta is even innocenter.
If the sky is green, then the clouds are emerald.
It’s interesting to watch you and your fellow travelers babble at each other. But then, I’m always fascinated by lower forms of life.
The Valet, after inspecting the documents and indeed finding them genuine, accepted Trump's order to move the boxes and boxes and boxes of classified documents around the Mar a Lago estate.
Ashli Babbitt is not the best choice if you are going for an example of an innocent. She made the choice to attempt to climb through a broken window to force her way into the barricaded Speaker’s Lobby at the head of a violent mob.
lol... "head of a violent mob". That's some pretty funny stuff after seeing the video. What was it like 12-teenagers?
Along with 3 armed officers on the side of that "violent mob." It is on video so Mike didn't watch it.
And an entire squad of armored, assault weapon-carrying tactical soldiers 12 seconds down the stairs.
Oh, is this one of those right-wing arguments that expects the Capitol Police to make decisions based on information they didn’t have at the time, but you have after the fact.
His Party has already told him what happened. The video is merely republican heresy against the Divine Word.
And now you're lying about the video.
You should really find the video of events leading up to her death. It is nothing like what you say. She was there, talking to police. She had stepped through the broken glass door (not climbed through a window) several times, with no one attempting to stop her, before she was shot (off camera).
Capital punishment for trespassing in a government building while unarmed is the most libertarians belief one can hold.
If the mob had been black, you'd have said, "fuck around and find out" and had there been an article on Reason pointing out that the shooting was unwarranted, if you'd have said anything rather than doing your usual ignoring these kind of reports, it would have been to defend the cop.
So spare me your pious libertaryanism (sic).
What is it with all you left-leaners being so racist?
Oh yeah; The left is the party of slavery.
It wouldn't matter if Ashli was blue, purple, black or green.... But it's all that matters to your Nazi-Democrat leaners. They'd be using sex discrimination if Ashli wasn't of the correct sex now wouldn't they?
Two things can be true at once: The Dems and "deep state" went after Trump continuously based on flimsy and fraudulent predicates from the beginning, and Trump is also corrupt, shady, and brought this one on himself.
Trump isn't absolved from breaking the law just because his detractors have wanted to show that he has broken the law.
Perhaps we can hang him for J-Walking too? /s
LOL!
TDS-addled shit IS is all for it!
Trump isn’t absolved from breaking the law just because his detractors have wanted to show that he has broken the law.
The pro-Trump posters here evidently think he is.
Yeah; I mean we're all touting "LOCK UP BIDEN" for throwing secure documents around in his garage.....
PROJECTION 101.
Nah, that was reserved for Hillary. Still, your response is hardly relevant to my point.
That day Hillary was indicted.................? And just stamp a big fat never-mind about her purposely destroying the evidence and the difference between open internet access and a locked closet.
I'm sure Trump would be let go if he had just destroyed all those papers and put them on an open server huh? Right, right... If only he had handled it like Hillary did.... /s
TDS-addles shits here evidently don't care, so long ass Trump is in trouble.
“Trump isn’t absolved from breaking the law just because…”
Or maybe that’s not the correct proposition. Maybe the proposition is whether this general law should even be applied. Or applied (in) equally.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was not just the boast of the Stalin regime. It’s the twisted mentality and orthodoxy of every statist and ideologue.
I’m fine with the discussion about whether a particular law should exist and how a law is applied. I don’t get behind the concept that since others break the law, it’s cool to break the law.
The central issue, or question, in my mind is why the DOJ applied the espionage act rather than deferring to the PRA. And I mean going beyond the criminalization element of the former v. the latter.
Doing so screams persecution. Or desperation. The PRA has long grounded presidential docs. And its substance preexisted its 1970s legislation, which simply defined it to handcuff Nixon.
I think the court(s) need to ask and answer that question, the result of which should end this case.
Trump isn’t absolved from breaking the law just because his detractors have wanted to show that he has broken the law.
^Oblique assertion of primacy of the State from the lowest to the highest level = Statist.
The State doesn’t exist solely to enforce it’s own laws. It exists to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. At best, this action undermines the Union, disrupts Tranquility, provides defence for only a narrow portion of the elite, corrodes general Welfare, and forfeits the Blessings of Liberty of ourselves and our Prosperity in order to achieve their own definitions of *j*ustice.
But it’s not an assertion of the primacy of state. Is this what you do, you constantly reframe someone’s argument in order to rebut something they didn’t assert?
And then you go into bizarre and amorphous claims of something about what the state is supposed to do?
Man, if you have to use sophistry to get around the concept that criminal laws should be enforced, you’re grasping too hard at straws.
But it’s not an assertion of the primacy of state.
Yes it is. You just didn't say, "I think the State is of primal importance here.", thus "obliquely".
"Absolution" assumes guilt or holds sin as a prerequisite and, per your own comment, his detractors or accusers don't have proof they have a want of it.
You're literally saying in the case of a Federal indictment, that it's Trump's fault other people don't like him, that he's guilty or sinful until his detractors declare him to be cleansed.
I remain unconvinced that he actually did break the laws he's accused of breaking. I don't trust the media to present the case even realistically, let alone fairly.
so what you're saying is - THIS TIME we SHOULD BELIEVE the Dems and the “deep state” who lied repeatedly and went after Trump continuously based on flimsy and fraudulent predicates (again lies) ...
Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Or maybe better stated - fool me once shame on you - fool me constantly - shame on me.
It takes a special kind of stupid to believe anything they say now...
Trump's superpower is the ability to corrupt people. That power has limits, but William Barr shows that Trump can take people a long way down the road to corruption before they pull out. Barr is not alone and other people who escaped Trump's corruption whirlpool are starting to speak out. This more than anything will bring a close to Trump's political career not quickly, but surely.
"Starting to speak out?"
I think it’s been a constant drone since he’s gotten into office.
Constant drone from the people in the Trump administration? I disagree, many supported him until they no longer could.
De-Regulation is corruption? Please go on with your bad-self.
"In a swamp full of corruption, Trump is a unique black hole of corruption that lots and lots of people have escaped." - Retardation4ever
Interesting
Sounds like Bill is fishing for a job with CNN.
TDS-addled shit Barr claims and TDS-addled asshole Sullum buys it.
Stuff it up your ass, Sullum. Your head is asking for company.
It is. So is the case against a ham sandwich.
No, what provoked this case is that Trump went after the deep state.
Trump's carelessness and political inexperience made it particularly easy to attack him this way. That's also what has limited his effectiveness as a president. But, you know, it took them six years to finally find something they could make legally stick.
Oh, and Barr is a greedy a**hole.
"But everyone else did it too!" is the dumbest excuse ever. It's childish. Literally a childish excuse, because it's what children say when they are caught doing something wrong.
But in this case everyone else was NOT doing it. The charges are not that Trump accidentally or willfully took documents home with him. The charges are that he did not return them when subpoenaed to return them. Biden never did this. Obama never did this. Bush never did this. No president ever did this.
So stop it with this stupid childish excuse.
And where are the documents now? Now there's need to lock him up? After the fact? He wasn't cited for not returning the documents; he was indicted for exactly what Biden, Obama and Bush did (keeping secure documents).
What's childish is retaliation charges; and that's what this is.
I also would like to note the constant misinformation in the media on this. I have heard many people say some variant of "he's not being charged for A, that would be absurd. He's being charged for B". When B is something that either didn't happen, isn't a crime, or isn't the charge, and the "absurd" crime A is the actual thing that he's under investigation or prosecution for.
Except there is the issue. Fighting a legal battle is not a violation of a subpoena.
And the issue isn't a childish "he did it too". The issue is that there is a clear double standard in play here. Clinton literally had documents hidden in his sock drawer and yet was not charged, while Trump keeping them in locked and identified boxes while the legal battle played out is somehow a felony. Selective prosecution is a direct violation of the concept of justice, and it seems very much like it's a political prosecution.
This is doubly so when this is released the same week that the president's son gets a sweetheart plea deal despite comic-book levels of evidence against him for accepting bribes for his father, gun crimes, and cocaine usage.
Political prosecution doesn't necessarily mean making up laws entirely. It means dropping the hammer on one side while giving the other free pass.
",,,while giving the other free pass."
(cough) Hunter Biden (cough)
Fighting a legal battle is not a violation of a subpoena.
Trump could have legally challenged the subpoena. He chose lying and obstruction, instead. This point is literally covered in the blog post above.
You have a political point about unfairness. But you do understand it is not a point that makes a difference in a courtroom, right?
True enough. Nothing ever makes a difference in Stalin's/Hitler's courtroom.
But it is a point that makes a difference on the ballot box and in congressional investigations.
Sure. That is correct.
"“But everyone else did it too!” is the dumbest excuse ever..."
TDS-addled brandyshit shows up to prove his raging case of TDS is not improving.
“But everyone else did it too!” is the dumbest excuse ever. It’s childish. Literally a childish excuse, because it’s what children say when they are caught doing something wrong.
I'm sorry, for democracy, that you feel this way about democracy. I admit that it's not a perfect system, but if you really feel that you need parental figures to enforce their frivolous rules about overdue library books over all their children unerringly and with an iron fist, there are plenty of other options for you to choose from.
Just know that when you or your children or your children's children tire of them beating you and multitudes of their other children in the name of the law, there are, or will have been, places where adult children didn't beat adult children in such a fashion.
Why does it take 37 counts to accuse someone of contempt of court?
Because Trump!
No, it's not "childish". Selective prosecution is a serious threat to democracy and liberty.
Correct. The subpoena should not have been issued, and it was arguably invalid.
True: Biden and Clinton did much worse things.
I believe the argument posited on Reason via a friendly legal expert was, “Everyone else did it too, but one simply does not just go after the Obamas, the Bidens or the Clintons, it’s simply not done in polite company."
*leans back on fainting couch, fanning herself vigorously*
Lawyer v narcissist.
Who will win?
Who really wants to be coerced into listening to either?
I know. Id love to listen to you both but I've got a root canal scheduled.
I foresee most if not all of this ridiculous indictment being tossed out from various pre-trial motions.
This is what we need to know about the Justice Department.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/05/17/assorted-ethics-observations-on-the-durham-report-part-ii-the-substance/
They have the credibility of Wanetta Gibson!
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Trump observed that the Clintons were able to monetize the Clinton Presidency to make lots of money for themselves; for example, the Uranium deal. He kept these documents for so long because he is always looking to make money, and wanted to figure out various ways where he could do the same. Clinton reportedly got a $500,000 speaker fee, which is a huge amount for such a thing in Russia.
A very strong case on a very weak charge.
And one that pretty much nobody with an IQ above that of a potted plant cares about. If anything, this will bring undecideds to Trump's side -- I very much doubt that it will do anything to hurt his election chances.
This being the same William Barr who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Ruby Ridge murderer, Lon Horiuchi. 'Reason' really knows how to pick its Heroes of Probity.
An easy and quick way to make money online by working part-time and earning an additional $15,000 or more. by working in my spare time in 1ce85 In my previous month (bgr-03), I made $17250, and this job has made me very happy. You can try this right now by following the instructions here
.
.
.
Check Profile______ Reason7.Com