Attorney General Declined Trump Request to Declare Nothing Illegal in Ukraine Call

[Kenneth Griffin]

 

[Hawk It Up]

He must want more cash (in an offshore account) or a bigger condo from Trump.

 

[Joes Place]

Wait........if no laws were broken, then this is a fairly simple thing for Barr to come out and clarif-........OOOOOOHHHHHH...........

So, this is kind've a "tell".

Laws.Were.Broken.

 

[Joes Place]

Mr. Barr had been involved in the decision to release the transcript of the call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky, according to multiple White House officials, and a Justice Department official said at the time that he supported the idea of being transparent.

FUNFACT: What was released was NOT a "transcript". Jeebus, NYT!!!!

 

[Joes Place]

 

[Joes Place]

....kind of like this organized crime group who's name rhymes with "JOB"....

 

[The Tradition]

Deep Thoughts:

Does Joe have any original opinions about anything, or just tweets from people he follows?

 

[Hawkeye_311]

 

[Hawkeye_311]

 

[ft254]

You are a freaking idiot.

 

[ft254]

View embedded media

Tell us why Sally Yates was fired. Right wingnut fruitcake.

 

[Hawkeye_311]

You are a freaking idiot.

 

[Joes Place]

Slip-up.

He really meant to say "Beetlejuice" three times.
It just came out "Biden" each time....

 

[Joes Place]

Deep Thoughts:

Does Joe have any original opinions about anything, or just tweets from people he follows?

 

[Joes Place]

 

[Joes Place]

 

[Joes Place]

Man.....u'd think if one (or more) of the FISA judges had been "duped" on improper evidence he/she would have reported it long before now....

What gives?

 

[Cougar63]

Wait........if no laws were broken, then this is a fairly simple thing for Barr to come out and clarif-........OOOOOOHHHHHH...........

So, this is kind've a "tell".

Laws.Were.Broken.

I've never seen that botched like that before.

EDIT: "So, this is kind have a "tell"." Interesting.

 

[lucas80]

Barr is comfortable being a corrupt enabler behind the scenes. He won’t do it out in public.

 

[Joes Place]

I've never seen that botched like that before.

EDIT: "So, this is kind have a "tell"." Interesting.

It looked better than "this is kind'f a tell".....

 

[Joes Place]

First, after John Demers went to the White House and discovered that his boss was implicated in a phone call that a whistleblower had complained about, when the Intelligence Community Inspector General sent a more formalized complaint to DOJ, DOJ limited the scope of their review of the complaint to one small part of it, just the TELCON, not the full complaint. This had the effect of preventing anyone from doing what the entire surveillance apparatus of FBI has been designed to do since 9/11, which is to search in their databases for all the people mentioned in a lead to find out if that lead connects to other known criminals. Here’s some of what DOJ knew when on the Ukraine investigation.

Had anyone followed the standard connect-the-dot rules in reviewing the whistleblower complaint, they would have searched on all the names in the references in the complaint, including those in this OCCRP piece, which was mentioned multiple times in the complaint.

That piece is a profile of Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas.

So if any person reviewing the whistleblower complaint had followed the approach put into place to protect the nation after 9/11, that person would have discovered:

• 
  
  
  • Fruman and Parnas were making big donations to Republicans tied to certain policy outcomes and paying for those donations through a shell company
  • Parnas was also involved in propaganda sent, on White House stationary, to State in support of the same policy outcomes
  • The money for the shell company came from a lawyer who specializes in laundering money through real estate for foreigners
  • One policy issue Fruman and Parnas were pushing with their donations was one of the policy outcomes described in the Trump-Zelensky call, the withdrawal of Marie Yovanovitch

In short, there is no way a competent investigator would have done a connect-the-dots assessment on the whistleblower complaint and not realized it was closely related to a Full Investigation bearing down on an indictment in SDNY.

Instead of doing that marginally competent assessment, DOJ instead gave the whistleblower complaint the all-clear, in part by severing the transcript (which was damning enough) from the backup (which described OMB withholding funds, which is a separate crime, but also included the reference to the profile on suspects against whom SDNY had a fully predicated investigation into related actions). The decision to consider only the transcript affirmatively prevented DOJ from doing the kind of dot-connecting everything since 9/11 has claimed to support.

Whoever made that decision — whether willfully or unknowingly — prevented DOJ from formally realizing that the President’s call was closely tied to behavior that DOJ would indict less than two months later.
​

 

[Bonerfarts]

Deep Thoughts:

Does Joe have any original opinions about anything, or just tweets from people he follows?

I prefer users that link to their sources, instead of the conservative drools that wait for Hannity to tell them what to think, and then regurgitate it all over this board.

 

[Joes Place]

I prefer users that link to their sources, instead of the conservative drools that wait for Hannity to tell them what to think, and then regurgitate it all over this board.

I'm not sure they know how to click on links, or that the Twitter posts and feeds that I pass along contain said sourcing....

 

[Huey Grey]

It's already been said a hundred times, but I think it bears repeating: Barr is unable to say that what Trump did was legal. This blows my mind.