THE CESSPOOL 

Previous



THE DOJ T-RUMP CONNECTION

THE CESSPOOL THAT REPLACED THE SWAMP


CRITICAL MASS YOU IDIOTS 
Now we have more than half the Cabinet leaders and Secretaries of Departments missing or quit, got fired or scared of hanging around a madman.  Careers have been bashed,  and those who got out early were the smartest, they just leave it off their resume.

The rest will be remembered for really stupid choices and lack of integrity to work for such a corrupt establishment.   And for agreeing such false claims by T-RUMP which now number 10,000.

Both the Washington Post and Politifact hit 10,000 in agreement.  For T-Rump Yes, results do count, and yes the stock market has grown, thanks to being pulled out of a recession by Barack Obama,  not T-RUMP.    

Yes, the rich got richer, by virtue of fake tax breaks set up to look good for the middle class, but they were not, they had hidden parts like State taxes not being tax deductible and Paul Ryan and Trumps Corporate Gifts which make them more money in their coffers. 

But they were tricks and benefitted nothing for them by PAUL RYAN the do-nothing speaker of the house who left with the worst clusterf*ck tax break for the middle class the house has ever been in.  But many in the middle class, the GOP and Evangelical base supported T-RUMP.   Maybe they will understand I warned them about T-RUMP and they were too stupid to listen.

So far the only consequence will be a recession when the three trillion dollar debt which is on the horizon comes to bear at the end of the year and a possible duplication from the unrestricted president known as the square peg in the Oval office.   

At the same time billions have been removed from education, infrastructure, and hundreds of programs that thwart illiteracy,  health and good for the common man,  and the rich got richer. And that schmuck wanted parades, 21 million dollars estimated cost,  he sent troops to the border, 21 million dollars estimated cost and build a wall 24-34 billion dollars.  

The man is sick and no one has the balls to go against him.  Millions of dollars getting played by Kim Jong Un wasted on N. Korea and he has softened our power by elimination of training with South Korea.  Goodness is the that much of an egotistical idiot bullshitter... I’m afraid so... And he has slowly corrupted those around him or those he put in position like SIR WILLIAM “FATASS” BARR.


DIVE DEEP INTO THE MUELLER REPORT


BARR AND TRUTH
Barr tries to (re)explain what he was doing with four-page letter.  Now that we know that Mueller took issue with the way that Barr described the report in his summary letter on March 24, the AG sought to re-classify what he meant to do with the letter. He compared it to offering a verdict in a trial, with the transcript of the proceedings (the Mueller report) to come out later. Barr said that public interest was such -- and the stakes were so high -- that he felt the need to offer the summary or verdict immediately after receiving the report.

THE LIE -   To hear Barr tell it then, what happened with his letter was all a big misunderstanding. ("We were not trying to summarize the report," Barr told the Judiciary committee on Wednesday.) It was never meant to fully categorize the nature of Mueller's investigations, according to Barr; that misunderstanding is why Mueller wasn't thrilled with Barr's letter.

THE LIE - Barr blames the media for Mueller’s reaction to his letter  Asked what, specifically, Mueller took issue with in his four-page summary letter, Barr said that the special counsel was unhappy with the description of obstruction as it relates to the President; "The press was reading too much into it," Barr said of what he took from the phone conversation with Mueller on March 28.

THE LIE - But that's not at all what Mueller said in the March 27 letter to Barr, which was released Wednesday morning. There's no mention of the media in that letter. In fact, Mueller seems to directly criticize Barr's handling of the letter. Wrote Mueller:  "The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions," Mueller wrote. "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation." 

MORE LIES -  The difference between “firing" and "removal for conflict" Barr tried to thread a very narrow needle in explaining why President Trump telling then White House counsel Don McGahn to get rid of Mueller was not obstruction of justice. Barr claimed that T-RUMP never told McGahn to "fire" Mueller but rather to remove him from his position due to alleged conflicts of interest.
GETS BETTER - The difference, according to Barr? Firing Mueller would eliminate the special counsel while removing Mueller for cause would ensure a new individual would be named to carry on the special counsel investigation. Therefore, no obstruction. That’s slicing the onion very, very thinly...

MORE OBSTRUCTION - One more thing: In May 2017, the Department of Justice made clear that Mueller had no ethical conflicts and was perfectly capable of overseeing the special counsel investigation. A month later, Trump told McGahn to remove Mueller for conflicts of interest. So, how did Trump not already know that the DOJ had said no such conflicts existed?

THE SETUP - COLLUSION Barr has "questions" about the origins of the FBI counterintelligence probe  If you blinked, you might have missed this exchange between Graham and Barr:

GRAHAM: "Do you share my concerns about the counterintelligence probe and how it was started?"
BARR: "Yes."

BULLSHIT  -   Big deal. Barr’s agreement with Graham means that the attorney general is now at odds with both the FBI and the Mueller report, which made clear that the counterintelligence probe began after the Australians approached the US following the release on WikiLeaks of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee to tell them that a one-time Trump aide named George Papadopoulos had told an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

SCUMBAG MANO SCUMBIRD -  Barr’s statement on Wednesday puts him -- or at least potentially puts him -- much more in line with Trump, who has repeatedly claimed that the counterintelligence investigation was based on an opposition research document put together by former British spy Christopher Steele.  (Steele's work was paid for, at times, by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.)

MORE BULLSHIT:  Barr won’t be apologizing for saying “spying".  Last month, in a Capitol Hill hearing, Barr said that he believed "spying" had occurred on the Trump campaign in 2016. Controversy followed, as national security officials insisted that the AG referring to the legal use of a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page was deeply irresponsible.

On Wednesday, Barr refused to back down from the use of that word -- insisting that "spying is a good English word that in fact doesn't have synonyms because it is the broadest word incorporating really all forms of covert intelligence collection." Challenged by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) as to whether the term "spying" is used commonly in the Department of Justice, Barr retorted: "It's commonly used by me."



 UNDERSTANDING BULLSHIT

  Try to follow Barr’s logic on the Mueller letter - TERMED BARR-SH*T

FACTS - The facts are these: More than a week after Barr received Mueller’s letter expressing concern about how the AG’s summary letter had characterized the obstruction evidence -- and talked to Mueller on the phone about it -- he appeared before Congress. And he had this exchange with Florida Democratic Rep. Charlie Crist:

CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the report's findings. Do you know what they are referencing with that?

BARR: No, I don’t.  Asked about that moment on Wednesday, Barr explained what looks like willful obfuscation -- basically -- this way: I didn't know what specific "reports" Crist was referring to or who on the special counsel's team he was talking about. Therefore, my answer is accurate.

Which is, well, whoa. Or, better put, it is a hugely legalistic answer to the question of whether Barr misled Crist and the broader country. Common sense dictates that, when asked about whether he was aware of any frustrations from the special counsel regarding his four-page letter, the letter from Mueller -- and their subsequent phone conversation -- would jump immediately to mind

Barr can make a lawyerly argument that he didn't understand what Crist was specifically referring to in his question. But that doesn’t pass the smell test.  It did however score a 10 on the suck test, same one we use for T-RUMP since his remarks always suck a ten.

BARR BACK-WALKS -  Barr made clear he did not “exonerate” T-RUMP on obstruction.   Pressed on his critical decision not to charge Trump with obstructing the Mueller probe, Barr made a bit of news. Here's what he said: "I didn't exonerate. I said that we didn't believe that there was sufficient evidence to establish an obstruction offense."

That's broadly in keeping with how the Mueller report described its own findings on Trump and obstruction, writing this:

"(I)f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. ... Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

All of that is VERY different than how Trump himself has described the findings of the Mueller report and what Barr decided after reading it. "No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!," Trump tweeted on March 24.

THE KEY THING TO REMEMBER HERE: NOT BRINGING CHARGES IS NOT
THE SAME THING AS INNOCENCE OR EXONERATION


 WHITE HOUSE INFLUENCE  - California Sen. Kamala Harris asked Barr a simple question: Did anyone in the White House ask or suggest that he open an investigation into a person or people?
Barr was taken aback, asking Harris to repeat the question. He then said he wasn’t entirely sure what she meant by the word "suggest."  All of that potentially suggests -- ahem -- that someone in the White House has either asked or suggested that Barr and the DOJ look into a matter. Which is interesting, to say the least.




START HERE

--------*02-18-2019 aljacobsladder.com