Trump just tried to remove the SDNY prosecutor investigating him

[time4fun]

Just when you thought the corruption couldn't get any worse, they just tried to remove the SDNY lead prosecutor who has been running investigations into numerous Trump associates: (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/politics/southern-district-of-new-york-geoffrey-berman-jay-clayton/index.html)


In a fast-escalating crisis Friday night, Attorney General William Barr tried to oust Geoffrey Berman, the powerful US attorney for the Southern District of New York who has investigated a number of associates of President Donald Trump, but Berman defied him by refusing to step down.

In an extraordinary statement, Berman said he learned of his exit from a press release.

"I have not resigned, and have no intention of resigning, my position, to which I was appointed by the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I will step down when a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate," Berman said. "Until then, our investigations will move forward without delay or interruption."

Berman's rebuttal came about an hour after the Department of Justice announced Trump intends to nominate Jay Clayton, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who has never been a prosecutor.

This after illegally removing 4 independent government oversight watchdogs and replacing them with political appointees running the very agencies they're supposed to providing oversight of.

And after he has had Barr interfere with Cases against Trump associates to try to stop the prosecutions or substantially reduce sentencing.

And after blackmailing the Ukraine to get them to announce a phony investigation into a political rival.

This is a level of corruption this country hasn't seen since Hoover's blatant abuses of the DoJ- which is what prompted the agency rules in place to keep these things from happening. These are the kinds of things that happen in corrupt countries run by authoritarians. This isn't what America is supposed to be.

[Tgo01]

Hasn't this guy been "investigating" Trump since like before Trump ever took office?

Democrats just found the perfect loophole: always be investigating your boss or publicly say how much you dislike your boss and you can apparently keep your job forever because if you're fired you can just screech "corruption!"

Oh wait, until a Democrat gets back in the White House, then it will suddenly be okay to fire people investigating you or blowing all those whistles, you know like what Obama did for 8 years and not one peep from the likes of time4fun.

[Seran]

Just when you thought the corruption couldn't get any worse, they just tried to remove the SDNY lead prosecutor who has been running investigations into numerous Trump associates: (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/politics/southern-district-of-new-york-geoffrey-berman-jay-clayton/index.html)



This after illegally removing 4 independent government oversight watchdogs and replacing them with political appointees running the very agencies they're supposed to providing oversight of.

And after he has had Barr interfere with Cases against Trump associates to try to stop the prosecutions or substantially reduce sentencing.

And after blackmailing the Ukraine to get them to announce a phony investigation into a political rival.

This is a level of corruption this country hasn't seen since Hoover's blatant abuses of the DoJ- which is what prompted the agency rules in place to keep these things from happening. These are the kinds of things that happen in corrupt countries run by authoritarians. This isn't what America is supposed to be.

It's going to take a while to undo all the corruption and damage the president has done to our government and independent justice department.

[Ardwen]

As he wasn't in office before Trump took office he couldn't have been investigating him, this was Bharara's office well into the Trump Administration. He was appointed by a court when Trump refused to name a new SDNY chief for whatever reason. He is Investigating Giuliani and Deutschbank, Among likely hundreds of other more mundane cases. He's been acting for more then 2 years, no one was ever nominated for the office that is why he's still there.

[ClydeR]

In his statement announcing that Berman is stepping down, Barr gave the outgoing US Attorney high praise. Berman can put it on his resume when he starts looking for a new job. Also, Barr misspelled Jeff.


With tenacity and savvy, Geoff has done an excellent job leading one of our nation’s most significant U.S. Attorney’s Offices, achieving many successes on consequential civil and criminal matters.

More... (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barr-nomination-jay-clayton-serve-us-attorney-southern-district)

[ClydeR]

Berman's statement was not nearly as nice as Barr's statement. Berman didn't say a single nice thing about Barr. And what are the "investigations" to which he refers?


“I learned in a press release from the Attorney General tonight that I was ‘stepping down’ as United States Attorney. I have not resigned, and have no intention of resigning, my position, to which I was appointed by the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I will step down when a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate. Until then, our investigations will move forward without delay or interruption. I cherish every day that I work with the men and women of this Office to pursue justice without fear or favor – and intend to ensure that this Office’s important cases continue unimpeded.”

More... (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-us-attorney-geoffrey-s-berman-announcement-attorney-general-barr)

[~Rocktar~]

It's going to take a while to undo all the corruption and damage the president has done to our government and independent justice department.

Yes, it will take decades to fix the damage Obama has done.

[Methais]

Just when you thought the corruption couldn't get any worse, they just tried to remove the SDNY lead prosecutor who has been running investigations into numerous Trump associates: (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/politics/southern-district-of-new-york-geoffrey-berman-jay-clayton/index.html)



This after illegally removing 4 independent government oversight watchdogs and replacing them with political appointees running the very agencies they're supposed to providing oversight of.

And after he has had Barr interfere with Cases against Trump associates to try to stop the prosecutions or substantially reduce sentencing.

And after blackmailing the Ukraine to get them to announce a phony investigation into a political rival.

This is a level of corruption this country hasn't seen since Hoover's blatant abuses of the DoJ- which is what prompted the agency rules in place to keep these things from happening. These are the kinds of things that happen in corrupt countries run by authoritarians. This isn't what America is supposed to be.

You smell like onions.

[Furryrat]

Just when you thought the corruption couldn't get any worse, they just tried to remove the SDNY lead prosecutor who has been running investigations into numerous Trump associates: (https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/politics/southern-district-of-new-york-geoffrey-berman-jay-clayton/index.html)



This after illegally removing 4 independent government oversight watchdogs and replacing them with political appointees running the very agencies they're supposed to providing oversight of.

And after he has had Barr interfere with Cases against Trump associates to try to stop the prosecutions or substantially reduce sentencing.

And after blackmailing the Ukraine to get them to announce a phony investigation into a political rival.

This is a level of corruption this country hasn't seen since Hoover's blatant abuses of the DoJ- which is what prompted the agency rules in place to keep these things from happening. These are the kinds of things that happen in corrupt countries run by authoritarians. This isn't what America is supposed to be.

Not tried, he will be removed once the Senate confirms his replacement. He was appointed to the role as an interim replacement by Jeff Sessions after Trump dismissed his predecessor Preet Bharara. He was not an arbiter of truth against Trump, he charged Avenatti, Epstein and many others associated with both sides.

He was supposed to fill the role for 120 days, but was chosen to continue indefinitely by the District, in a very unusual move. The Southern District of NY seems to have an uncanny ability to sway people to do their bidding and uses their power to ruin and destroy anyone that stands in their way.

You know nothing of corruption. You are a child in a chair being fed with a spoon.

[time4fun]

Not tried, he will be removed once the Senate confirms his replacement. He was appointed to the role as an interim replacement by Jeff Sessions after Trump dismissed his predecessor Preet Bharara. He was not an arbiter of truth against Trump, he charged Avenatti, Epstein and many others associated with both sides.

He was supposed to fill the role for 120 days, but was chosen to continue indefinitely by the District, in a very unusual move. The Southern District of NY seems to have an uncanny ability to sway people to do their bidding and uses their power to ruin and destroy anyone that stands in their way.

You know nothing of corruption. You are a child in a chair being fed with a spoon.

He was initially appointed as interim, but since he wasn't able to get Senate confirmation he was later appointed by the Judiciary- which I presume is part of why he's able to just say no here.

SDNY doesn't have the uncanny ability to do anything- they're some of the best Federal prosecutors in the nation, and they take their work very seriously. And they don't take cases that they don't think they can win. All you're doing here is adding a fictional layer of interpretation that has no basis in reality.

So out of curiosity- if it had been President Clinton firing independent watchdogs and Prosecutors who were investigating her and her friends- are you telling me you would be absolutely fine with that?

[Parkbandit]

He was initially appointed as interim, but since he wasn't able to get Senate confirmation he was later appointed by the Judiciary- which I presume is part of why he's able to just say no here.

SDNY doesn't have the uncanny ability to do anything- they're some of the best Federal prosecutors in the nation, and they take their work very seriously. And they don't take cases that they don't think they can win. All you're doing here is adding a fictional layer of interpretation that has no basis in reality.

So out of curiosity- if it had been President Clinton firing independent watchdogs and Prosecutors who were investigating her and her friends- are you telling me you would be absolutely fine with that?

If Clinton has the ability to fire "independent" watchdogs and Prosecutors, then yes.

Don't like the President having this power, change the law. Don't cry and moan when you don't like it when a Republican does it, then be completely silent when a Democrat does it.

Makes you look more retarded than usual.

[Seran]

Not tried, he will be removed once the Senate confirms his replacement. He was appointed to the role as an interim replacement by Jeff Sessions after Trump dismissed his predecessor Preet Bharara. He was not an arbiter of truth against Trump, he charged Avenatti, Epstein and many others associated with both sides.

He was supposed to fill the role for 120 days, but was chosen to continue indefinitely by the District, in a very unusual move. The Southern District of NY seems to have an uncanny ability to sway people to do their bidding and uses their power to ruin and destroy anyone that stands in their way.

You know nothing of corruption. You are a child in a chair being fed with a spoon.

Yeah, the truth being exposed by a non-partisan investigator will often result in more trust being placed. This example of obstruction of justice won't go unpunished.

[Furryrat]

He was initially appointed as interim, but since he wasn't able to get Senate confirmation he was later appointed by the Judiciary- which I presume is part of why he's able to just say no here.

SDNY doesn't have the uncanny ability to do anything- they're some of the best Federal prosecutors in the nation, and they take their work very seriously. And they don't take cases that they don't think they can win. All you're doing here is adding a fictional layer of interpretation that has no basis in reality.

So out of curiosity- if it had been President Clinton firing independent watchdogs and Prosecutors who were investigating her and her friends- are you telling me you would be absolutely fine with that?

I am for the fair and balanced application of justice for ALL peoples, including those marching in the streets, and even those villainous small-government conservatives. My view of the SDNY has been formed by watching these past few years of abuses and oversteps of power with a seemingly unlimited mandate directed by the Democratic party during the Mueller investigation. They granted injunction after injunction to frustrate the legal proceedings and deny due process to the defense. Where you laud a win-first motivation evidenced by a shockingly high 95% conviction rate, I bemoan a glaring loss of impartiality and draw parallels to criminal justice systems more the likes of Russia and Japan.

The only corruption they have exposed and convicted over that time has been in the NY State Senate in Albany and even in one of Governor Cuomo's top deputies. That is their mandate, and where the citizens of NY should want their attention focused. They should never have been allowed to be weaponized simply due to Trump being born and operating in NYC.

[Ardwen]

Barr refired Berman, saying Trump did it. Trump on the south lawn just threw Barr under the bus saying that Barr did it and that he wasn't involved.

[Seran]

Barr refired Berman, saying Trump did it. Trump on the south lawn just threw Barr under the bus saying that Barr did it and that he wasn't involved.

Barr will walk that back at lightspeed at Trump's order as the last thing he wants is another obstruction of justice impeachment

[time4fun]

Barr will walk that back at lightspeed at Trump's order as the last thing he wants is another obstruction of justice impeachment

Barr has nothing to worry about on that front, I'm afraid. He'll likely be out of the White House in 6 months. Congress isn't going to start another impeachment trial before the election- neither side wants that right now.

[time4fun]

I am for the fair and balanced application of justice for ALL peoples, including those marching in the streets, and even those villainous small-government conservatives. My view of the SDNY has been formed by watching these past few years of abuses and oversteps of power with a seemingly unlimited mandate directed by the Democratic party during the Mueller investigation. They granted injunction after injunction to frustrate the legal proceedings and deny due process to the defense. Where you laud a win-first motivation evidenced by a shockingly high 95% conviction rate, I bemoan a glaring loss of impartiality and draw parallels to criminal justice systems more the likes of Russia and Japan.

The only corruption they have exposed and convicted over that time has been in the NY State Senate in Albany and even in one of Governor Cuomo's top deputies. That is their mandate, and where the citizens of NY should want their attention focused. They should never have been allowed to be weaponized simply due to Trump being born and operating in NYC.

So first- Mueller's mandate had nothing to do with the Democratic party. It was from Republican Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein. And SDNY merely picked up criminal referrals made by the Mueller team based on evidence they had found.

I think the big problem with your entire assessment here is you're not actually leaving room for the possibility (reality) that Trump and his people were criminals. Several Judges were involved in the various cases, and they all came to the same conclusions based on the evidence.


And absolutely none of this has any bearing on the question at hand: Should the President of the Untied States of America (which is supposedly a Democratic nation) be firing everyone who is investigating him and his friends? Should POTUS be firing Inspectors General and replacing them with his own appointees who are running the agencies they're supposed to be providing oversight of?

Should POTUS be ordering people to attack peaceful protesters? Should he be up there on Twitter and at rallies and even with official White House Press Releases- threatening protesters? And not protesters who are breaking laws- ALL protesters who are protesting on the side of an issue he doesn't agree with?

Should the President of the US be doing loyalty purges throughout the Federal government? Purging career civil servants because he's afraid they'll follow the law instead of his orders? (Keeping in mind that civil servants do NOT serve as the "pleasure of the President", and that it's against Federal law to fire a Federal employee because of their political ideology?

Should he be firing whistleblowers who correctly pointed out that he broke Federal law and risked compromising our national security to try to invite foreign meddling into a US election? (which is also against Federal law, btw)

Should he be retweeting not-so-thinly-veiled threats to US citizens who belong to the opposition party? Is that what Democracy looks like?


Can you give me an example of a country where these things happen and where you would want to live?

There's a lot of stake here. There's an entire Democracy that needs to be protected so it can last long after any given President. And if this is the direction this country is intent on going in- it's not going to make it.

[Furryrat]

So first- Mueller's mandate had nothing to do with the Democratic party. It was from Republican Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein. And SDNY merely picked up criminal referrals made by the Mueller team based on evidence they had found.

Wrong. The basis for the first FISA warrants and the Mueller investigation into fabricated Russian collusion was the Steele dossier now openly known to have been funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.


I think the big problem with your entire assessment here is you're not actually leaving room for the possibility (reality) that Trump and his people were criminals. Several Judges were involved in the various cases, and they all came to the same conclusions based on the evidence.

None of 'his people' were known to have been criminals at the time and were convicted of crimes entirely unrelated to the investigation. Yes, that matters.

As for the rest, you can speculate all you want on what should and shouldn't be. In your righteous glory you see a tyrant, nay Caesar, and liken yourself Brutus. I see a duly elected President of the United States tearing at the shackles that bind him.

[time4fun]

Wrong. The basis for the first FISA warrants and the Mueller investigation into fabricated Russian collusion was the Steele dossier now openly known to have been funded by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.



None of 'his people' were known to have been criminals at the time and were convicted of crimes entirely unrelated to the investigation. Yes, that matters.

As for the rest, you can speculate all you want on what should and shouldn't be. In your righteous glory you see a tyrant, nay Caesar, and liken yourself Brutus. I see a duly elected President of the United States tearing at the shackles that bind him.

First off- your assertion that Mueller's investigation was based on the Steel dossier is incorrect. (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/dec/11/william-barr/barr-disputes-inspector-generals-report/) Now I think what you're actually referring to is the FBI investigation that predated the Mueller investigation, but the IG report found that the FBI had "authorized purpose" and an "articulable factual basis,". And it was not based on the Steel Dossier- though Trump and Barr repeatedly made statements to the contrary (despite knowing full well that the IG report said that was nonsense). You really should never take anything Trump says as factual on its face. Always fact check what you hear from him.

I'm not sure if you've ever read the actual IG report's findings on the Page FISA warrants, but it's an interesting read. (https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf#page=14) The report is extremely critical of parts of that process- specifically in terms of omissions made. But by the report's own admission, many of the omissions were of little consequence ultimately. It's more that the IG felt they should have been present. And while the report absolutely states that it's possible different decisions would have been made had the errors been corrected- it never once makes the claim that the warrants were improperly approved. In fact, the most serious "what if" that it concretely posits is that the renewal requests might have been delayed had the errors been fixed. As a matter of all practicality- given that FISA warrants are virtually never turned down- there's no reason to suspect that correcting those errors would have changed anything in regards to the final approvals.

Also SDNY had nothing to do with the FISA warrants. The FISA Courts are their own semi-autonomous judicial system, and only Federal government investigators submit FISA warrant requests- not Federal prosecutors. And the FISA Courts are in DC, not in NYC. So you're not only misrepresenting what actually happened in the investigations, but you're lumping together two entirely separate things.

I should also note here that the Dossier having been funded by a political party does not, in any legal way, make it inadmissible- or even of lesser consequence- as evidence. In fact, a substantial amount of the evidence that is submitted through Courts comes from "biased" sources. While the motivation for seeking the evidence is generally acknowledged (as it was in the FISA applications for Page), it doesn't change the veracity of the evidence itself. Evidence is accepted on its own merits. If you cut out all evidence from "biased" sources- you wouldn't really have much left. (Think of how much of the evidence in a case is submitted from the Defendant or Plaintiff- which are always biased sources).

Case and point: many parts of the dossier have turned out to be correct (https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective) based on what has come out of the un-redacted portions of the Mueller report and the numerous Court cases that came out of it. Some of it has been demonstrated to be false, but much of it just hasn't been corroborated or discredited either way and likely never will. But the overall narrative of the Dossier- that the Russian government was meddling in our elections and was finding the Trump campaign to be very open to their efforts (putting it mildly) was correct. And that seems to be missing from your analysis.

This line about the report having been funded by the Clinton campaign is just another version of the "he's a disgruntled ex-employee!" argument. It's an ad hominem argument and is completely irrelevant. The source of the information doesn't automatically substantiate or discredit the information in most cases. And this line of reasoning also leaves out the fact that actually originally funded by the conservative publication The Washington Free Beacon. The Clinton campaign just picked up the tab after they decided they were done paying for it.


Also, I'm not sure why you think that the Trump associates were largely convicted of crimes unrelated to the investigation, but that's patently false. Obstruction of Justice was a major theme for a reason. It's funny how they ALL decided they needed to lie when Federal investigators came knocking. That's typically not a great sign that everything was okay.

And finally, has it ever occurred to you that the "shackles" binding a President are there for a reason? Those "shackles" you mention are things like the 1st Amendment and Federal statutory law. You're celebrating someone who is violating fundamental pieces of our laws, and he's the person who's supposed to be faithfully executing them. This is incredibly dangerous territory.

[Furryrat]

First off- your assertion that Mueller's investigation was based on the Steel dossier is incorrect. (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/dec/11/william-barr/barr-disputes-inspector-generals-report/) Now I think what you're actually referring to is the FBI investigation that predated the Mueller investigation, but the IG report found that the FBI had "authorized purpose" and an "articulable factual basis,". And it was not based on the Steel Dossier- though Trump and Barr repeatedly made statements to the contrary (despite knowing full well that the IG report said that was nonsense). You really should never take anything Trump says as factual on its face. Always fact check what you hear from him.

I'm not sure if you've ever read the actual IG report's findings on the Page FISA warrants, but it's an interesting read. (https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf#page=14) The report is extremely critical of parts of that process- specifically in terms of omissions made. But by the report's own admission, many of the omissions were of little consequence ultimately. It's more that the IG felt they should have been present. And while the report absolutely states that it's possible different decisions would have been made had the errors been corrected- it never once makes the claim that the warrants were improperly approved. In fact, the most serious "what if" that it concretely posits is that the renewal requests might have been delayed had the errors been fixed. As a matter of all practicality- given that FISA warrants are virtually never turned down- there's no reason to suspect that correcting those errors would have changed anything in regards to the final approvals.

Also SDNY had nothing to do with the FISA warrants. The FISA Courts are their own semi-autonomous judicial system, and only Federal government investigators submit FISA warrant requests- not Federal prosecutors. And the FISA Courts are in DC, not in NYC. So you're not only misrepresenting what actually happened in the investigations, but you're lumping together two entirely separate things.

I should also note here that the Dossier having been funded by a political party does not, in any legal way, make it inadmissible- or even of lesser consequence- as evidence. In fact, a substantial amount of the evidence that is submitted through Courts comes from "biased" sources. While the motivation for seeking the evidence is generally acknowledged (as it was in the FISA applications for Page), it doesn't change the veracity of the evidence itself. Evidence is accepted on its own merits. If you cut out all evidence from "biased" sources- you wouldn't really have much left. (Think of how much of the evidence in a case is submitted from the Defendant or Plaintiff- which are always biased sources).

Case and point: many parts of the dossier have turned out to be correct (https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective) based on what has come out of the un-redacted portions of the Mueller report and the numerous Court cases that came out of it. Some of it has been demonstrated to be false, but much of it just hasn't been corroborated or discredited either way and likely never will. But the overall narrative of the Dossier- that the Russian government was meddling in our elections and was finding the Trump campaign to be very open to their efforts (putting it mildly) was correct. And that seems to be missing from your analysis.

This line about the report having been funded by the Clinton campaign is just another version of the "he's a disgruntled ex-employee!" argument. It's an ad hominem argument and is completely irrelevant. The source of the information doesn't automatically substantiate or discredit the information in most cases. And this line of reasoning also leaves out the fact that actually originally funded by the conservative publication The Washington Free Beacon. The Clinton campaign just picked up the tab after they decided they were done paying for it.


Also, I'm not sure why you think that the Trump associates were largely convicted of crimes unrelated to the investigation, but that's patently false. Obstruction of Justice was a major theme for a reason. It's funny how they ALL decided they needed to lie when Federal investigators came knocking. That's typically not a great sign that everything was okay.

And finally, has it ever occurred to you that the "shackles" binding a President are there for a reason? Those "shackles" you mention are things like the 1st Amendment and Federal statutory law. You're celebrating someone who is violating fundamental pieces of our laws, and he's the person who's supposed to be faithfully executing them. This is incredibly dangerous territory.

I simply haven't the time to invest, but allow me this. My position is, and always will be, one of a distanced outsider with an independent voice and a conservative leaning toward policy of governance. I do not hear, read, or otherwise ingest political language from any party and accept it at face value, and any implication that I do is offensive.

The fact is plain and apparent that there has been an orchestrated attack on the Trump Administration, put in motion before he even took office. These investigations were predicated upon the slightest of 'evidence' discerned from a few conversations and broad innuendo. The SDNY played an integral role from the very beginning as a sounding board, and by nature of their reputation and anti-corruption bravado, effectively took up a position against the Trump Administration long before any wrongdoing was evidenced or discovered.

Obstruction is the most abused charge in the political arena and the only one with no defense. It may as well be a bat with nails protruding. Only Roger Stone was convicted of this, and he was guilty, but of what? Attempting to hide activities surrounding WikiLeaks publishing Hillary Clinton's hidden emails. One act of obstruction to blur the uncovering of another.

Anyway, back to Trump firing Berman. Or Barr firing Berman, whatever they say it is today. It wasn't a crime, or obstruction, or the end of any investigation into his dealings, when Preet Bharara was fired in 2017, and it won't be now. In fact, it's likely to be more damaging of an act, as I believe he has already walked the red carpet straight to Congress.

[~Rocktar~]

First off- your assertion that Mueller's investigation was based on the Steel dossier is incorrect. (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/dec/11/william-barr/barr-disputes-inspector-generals-report/) Now I think what you're actually referring to is the FBI investigation that predated the Mueller investigation, but the IG report found that the FBI had "authorized purpose" and an "articulable factual basis,". And it was not based on the Steel Dossier- though Trump and Barr repeatedly made statements to the contrary (despite knowing full well that the IG report said that was nonsense). You really should never take anything Trump says as factual on its face. Always fact check what you hear from him.

I'm not sure if you've ever read the actual IG report's findings on the Page FISA warrants, but it's an interesting read. (https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf#page=14) The report is extremely critical of parts of that process- specifically in terms of omissions made. But by the report's own admission, many of the omissions were of little consequence ultimately. It's more that the IG felt they should have been present. And while the report absolutely states that it's possible different decisions would have been made had the errors been corrected- it never once makes the claim that the warrants were improperly approved. In fact, the most serious "what if" that it concretely posits is that the renewal requests might have been delayed had the errors been fixed. As a matter of all practicality- given that FISA warrants are virtually never turned down- there's no reason to suspect that correcting those errors would have changed anything in regards to the final approvals.

Also SDNY had nothing to do with the FISA warrants. The FISA Courts are their own semi-autonomous judicial system, and only Federal government investigators submit FISA warrant requests- not Federal prosecutors. And the FISA Courts are in DC, not in NYC. So you're not only misrepresenting what actually happened in the investigations, but you're lumping together two entirely separate things.

I should also note here that the Dossier having been funded by a political party does not, in any legal way, make it inadmissible- or even of lesser consequence- as evidence. In fact, a substantial amount of the evidence that is submitted through Courts comes from "biased" sources. While the motivation for seeking the evidence is generally acknowledged (as it was in the FISA applications for Page), it doesn't change the veracity of the evidence itself. Evidence is accepted on its own merits. If you cut out all evidence from "biased" sources- you wouldn't really have much left. (Think of how much of the evidence in a case is submitted from the Defendant or Plaintiff- which are always biased sources).

Case and point: many parts of the dossier have turned out to be correct (https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective) based on what has come out of the un-redacted portions of the Mueller report and the numerous Court cases that came out of it. Some of it has been demonstrated to be false, but much of it just hasn't been corroborated or discredited either way and likely never will. But the overall narrative of the Dossier- that the Russian government was meddling in our elections and was finding the Trump campaign to be very open to their efforts (putting it mildly) was correct. And that seems to be missing from your analysis.

This line about the report having been funded by the Clinton campaign is just another version of the "he's a disgruntled ex-employee!" argument. It's an ad hominem argument and is completely irrelevant. The source of the information doesn't automatically substantiate or discredit the information in most cases. And this line of reasoning also leaves out the fact that actually originally funded by the conservative publication The Washington Free Beacon. The Clinton campaign just picked up the tab after they decided they were done paying for it.


Also, I'm not sure why you think that the Trump associates were largely convicted of crimes unrelated to the investigation, but that's patently false. Obstruction of Justice was a major theme for a reason. It's funny how they ALL decided they needed to lie when Federal investigators came knocking. That's typically not a great sign that everything was okay.

And finally, has it ever occurred to you that the "shackles" binding a President are there for a reason? Those "shackles" you mention are things like the 1st Amendment and Federal statutory law. You're celebrating someone who is violating fundamental pieces of our laws, and he's the person who's supposed to be faithfully executing them. This is incredibly dangerous territory.


https://youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c

[Parkbandit]

Barr has nothing to worry about on that front, I'm afraid. He'll likely be out of the White House in 6 months.

You're epic meltdown in 2016 will be nothing compared to the one this year.

I personally can't wait.

[HOUSE]

You're epic meltdown in 2016 will be nothing compared to the one this year.

I personally can't wait.

How do you feel about another blatant case for obstruction of justice by the president again?

It always turns into a negative personal attack when you lack the logic for a convincing argument that the president shouldn't be able to operate without checks and balances?

Please try and convince me how its ok for the president to try use his power over Barr to remove a prosecutor working on a case against the president.

[Parkbandit]

How do you feel about another blatant case for obstruction of justice by the president again?

It always turns into a negative personal attack when you lack the logic for a convincing argument that the president shouldn't be able to operate without checks and balances?

Please try and convince me how its ok for the president to try use his power over Barr to remove a prosecutor working on a case against the president.

You: "ZOMG RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!"

Finding: No. Stop being retarded.

You: "ZOMG OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!"

Finding: No. Stop being retarded.

You: "ZOMG OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAIN!!"

You're boring. Tell us about your dream job as a gay porn actor again.. because we never get tired of how you can't break into the industry.

[Seran]

How do you feel about another blatant case for obstruction of justice by the president again?

It always turns into a negative personal attack when you lack the logic for a convincing argument that the president shouldn't be able to operate without checks and balances?

Please try and convince me how its ok for the president to try use his power over Barr to remove a prosecutor working on a case against the president.

You really can't expect logic from folks like PB and Dreaven. Their loyalty for Trump isn't based on logic, knowledge or reasoning, it's solely a result of their fanaticism. No matter how well crafted your argument or reasoning, they're just going to ignore it and mock you.

[Methais]

You really can't expect logic from folks like PB and Dreaven. Their loyalty for Trump isn't based on logic, knowledge or reasoning, it's solely a result of their fanaticism. No matter how well crafted your argument or reasoning, they're just going to ignore it and mock you.

https://media.giphy.com/media/BVKghMztg3TFK/giphy.gif

[HOUSE]

You: "ZOMG RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!"

Finding: No. Stop being retarded.

Didn't the FBI conclude that there was Russian interference with the election? The real answer is yes.


You: "ZOMG OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!"

Finding: No. Stop being retarded.

I believe according to the Muller report, he believed there was obstruction, but it was up to the congress to do something about it, they didn't.


You: "ZOMG OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAIN!!"

You're boring. Tell us about your dream job as a gay porn actor again.. because we never get tired of how you can't break into the industry.

You're a traitor to everything America is about.

[Parkbandit]

You really can't expect logic from folks like PB and Dreaven. Their loyalty for Trump isn't based on logic, knowledge or reasoning, it's solely a result of their fanaticism. No matter how well crafted your argument or reasoning, they're just going to ignore it and mock you.

We don't expect a "well crafted argument" from you... it's something you are not capable of.

We would settle for something you drew out in crayons that actually made some sort of coherent sense... yet, we're still waiting.

[Ashlander]

Didn't the FBI conclude that there was Russian interference with the election? The real answer is yes.

Interference and collusion are two different things. Damn near every country interferes with other countries elections including the US.