The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

which is what I said.

Beyond that the case failed through a poorly prepared brief, not the evidence.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sen. Hawley: "Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?"

IG Horowitz: "We did not reach that conclusion."

---

Are you serious? To answer that question any other way, Horowitz would have had to guarantee that political bias did not play ANY role in the investigation. That's utterly impossible to guarantee.

Are you really this stupid? There's a reason what Durham didn't release his report, man. There's a reason this Horowitz report did not make any splash. They all confirmed what any non hack (like you) already knew: Crossfire Hurricane was on the up-and-up.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

I just wanted to make sure you see this.

When even the most corrupt Attorney General in modern American History says there's no fraud, there's no fraud.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ag-barr-confirms-lack-of-widespread-fraud-in-election-2020-12

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sen. Hawley: "Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?"

IG Horowitz: "We did not reach that conclusion."

---

Are you serious? To answer that question any other way, Horowitz would have had to guarantee that political bias did not play ANY role in the investigation. That's utterly impossible to guarantee.

Are you really this stupid? There's a reason what Durham didn't release his report, man. There's a reason this Horowitz report did not make any splash. They all confirmed what any non hack (like you) already knew: Crossfire Hurricane was on the up-and-up.

---

hahaha

We have a special counsel!

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

When even the most corrupt Attorney General in modern American History says there's no fraud, there's no fraud.

---

I'm asking you to support the charge in BOLD above

Please be specific

Yeah. This Flynn guy seems to be a real sweetheart.

What's the definition of insurrection, again?

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

When even the most corrupt Attorney General in modern American History says there's no fraud, there's no fraud.

---

I'm asking you to support the charge in BOLD above

Please be specific

---

My God. I will answer this question, but I'm not going to let you distract from the substance of the post.

Bill Barr is corrupt. He's been misusing and abusing the office of the AG to subvert justice at all kinds of turns. He's NOT the President's lawyer. He works for you and me.

But let's count the ways he's broken that.

He's been forcing out US DA's for doing their jobs. And yes, he knows that's wrong. How do w know that?

Remember when he got caught LYING about Geoff Berman, the most prominent Prosecutor in the country as US Attorney for the southern district of New York? He said Berman was "stepping down" and said nice things about him in a press release. Except Berman said he wasn't stepping down -and there was no ground to fire him. He was DOING HIS JOB and winning cases... just against Trumps literally corrupt friends. Literally. They're in jail.

Barr couldn't do anything and got caught in a bold-faced lie, so Trump swooped in and fired Berman. Supposedly, it was to promote another lawyer, except that they didn't need to fire Berman to do that, and the other lawyer wasn't nearly as qualified.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-can-anyone-trust-bill-barrs-justice-department-now/2020/06/21/34d1a83c-b339-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html

Or we could talk about how Barr directed police to fire tear gas on lawful protestors so our moron-in-chief could take a picture next to a church with a Bible upside down (message, anyone?) and not look like a little bone-spur ***** after he got caught hiding in a White House bunker. Wait... "inspecting" the White House bunker. That's TOTALLY what he was doing!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/politics/barr-trump-bunker-george-floyd.html

They just lie constantly.

Want more? Okay!
He lied about ballots being collected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-claims-a-man-collected-1700-ballots-and-filled-them-out-as-he-pleased-prosecutors-say-thats-not-what-happened/2020/09/03/923aafac-ee2e-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html

He's intervened to help Roger Stone who was DEFINITELY guilty, and bragged about being guilty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/democrats-to-subpoena-william-barr/2020/06/23/2fd49260-b558-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html

He's used the DOJ to [unsuccessfully] step in and protect Trump from defamation suits to 1. Save the President from having to spend his own money and 2. To subvert justice by treating the DOJ as the lawyer of the President -which they are literally not-.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/jean-carroll-trump-justice-department/2020/09/08/37faa380-f22a-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html

Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had the AG defend him during his affair/scandal? You'd have been apoplectic, and rightfully so!

Nearly 3,000 DOJ alumni have formally called on Barr to resign for his actions. That's a lot of Democrat AND Republican lawyers who feel this way.
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-the-events-surrounding-the-sentencing-of-roger-stone-c2cb75ae4937

Do you need more? If so, go Google it. If that won't convince you, nothing will.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sen. Hawley: "Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?"

IG Horowitz: "We did not reach that conclusion."

---

Are you serious? To answer that question any other way, Horowitz would have had to guarantee that political bias did not play ANY role in the investigation. That's utterly impossible to guarantee.

Are you really this stupid? There's a reason what Durham didn't release his report, man. There's a reason this Horowitz report did not make any splash. They all confirmed what any non hack (like you) already knew: Crossfire Hurricane was on the up-and-up.

---

hahaha

We have a special counsel!

---

So.. will you share ANY crackpot twitter troll who posts? Because it seems like you will.

Guess what? Absolutely NOTHING is going to come from the Durham report IF it's even published. Just like absolutely NOTHING came from the Horowitz report -because there was nothing in it, champ.

It's just sad, this. You're just sad, at this point.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sen. Hawley: "Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?"

IG Horowitz: "We did not reach that conclusion."

---

Are you serious? To answer that question any other way, Horowitz would have had to guarantee that political bias did not play ANY role in the investigation. That's utterly impossible to guarantee.

Are you really this stupid? There's a reason what Durham didn't release his report, man. There's a reason this Horowitz report did not make any splash. They all confirmed what any non hack (like you) already knew: Crossfire Hurricane was on the up-and-up.

---

hahaha

We have a special counsel!

---

So.. will you share ANY crackpot twitter troll who posts? Because it seems like you will.

Guess what? Absolutely NOTHING is going to come from the Durham report IF it's even published. Just like absolutely NOTHING came from the Horowitz report -because there was nothing in it, champ.

It's just sad, this. You're just sad, at this point.

---

Completely disagree about the Horowitz report, but that's a debate from a long time ago.

Flynn calling for martial law is absolutely beyond the pale. If there's still a way to demote him, they should.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sen. Hawley: "Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?"

IG Horowitz: "We did not reach that conclusion."

---

Are you serious? To answer that question any other way, Horowitz would have had to guarantee that political bias did not play ANY role in the investigation. That's utterly impossible to guarantee.

Are you really this stupid? There's a reason what Durham didn't release his report, man. There's a reason this Horowitz report did not make any splash. They all confirmed what any non hack (like you) already knew: Crossfire Hurricane was on the up-and-up.

---

hahaha

We have a special counsel!

---

So.. will you share ANY crackpot twitter troll who posts? Because it seems like you will.

Guess what? Absolutely NOTHING is going to come from the Durham report IF it's even published. Just like absolutely NOTHING came from the Horowitz report -because there was nothing in it, champ.

It's just sad, this. You're just sad, at this point.

---

Completely disagree about the Horowitz report, but that's a debate from a long time ago.

Flynn calling for martial law is absolutely beyond the pale. If there's still a way to demote him, they should.

---

Quote:

---

Flynn calling for martial law is absolutely beyond the pale. If there's still a way to demote him, they should.

---

There may be a basis to strip a retired general of his rank for sedition or treason.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sen. Hawley: "Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?"

IG Horowitz: "We did not reach that conclusion."

---

Are you serious? To answer that question any other way, Horowitz would have had to guarantee that political bias did not play ANY role in the investigation. That's utterly impossible to guarantee.

Are you really this stupid? There's a reason what Durham didn't release his report, man. There's a reason this Horowitz report did not make any splash. They all confirmed what any non hack (like you) already knew: Crossfire Hurricane was on the up-and-up.

---

hahaha

We have a special counsel!

---

So.. will you share ANY crackpot twitter troll who posts? Because it seems like you will.

Guess what? Absolutely NOTHING is going to come from the Durham report IF it's even published. Just like absolutely NOTHING came from the Horowitz report -because there was nothing in it, champ.

It's just sad, this. You're just sad, at this point.

---

Kevin Clinesmith was identified by Horowitz for fudging an email to say Carter Page wasn't a CIA asset used to bust Russians when in fact he was.

Clinesmith plead guilty. He is going to prison.

If you didn't understand my response, Durham has been upgraded to his own special counsel and he's REQUIRED to write a report. DOJ says he's focused on the FBI/Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

When even the most corrupt Attorney General in modern American History says there's no fraud, there's no fraud.

---

I'm asking you to support the charge in BOLD above

Please be specific

---

My God. I will answer this question, but I'm not going to let you distract from the substance of the post.

Bill Barr is corrupt. He's been misusing and abusing the office of the AG to subvert justice at all kinds of turns. This is a talking point. It is an accusation, not a fact. He's NOT the President's lawyer. He works for you and me. True, and I'm grateful he works for you and me.

But let's count the ways he's broken that.

He's been forcing out US DA's for doing their jobs. And yes, he knows that's wrong. How do w know that? Clinton fired every US Attorney during the 1st months of his presidency. The US Attorny position is a political appointee tee. Biden will soon be "forcing out" all Trump appointed US Attorneys.

Remember when he got caught LYING about Geoff Berman, the most prominent Prosecutor in the country as US Attorney for the southern district of New York? He said Berman was "stepping down" and said nice things about him in a press release. Except Berman said he wasn't stepping down -and there was no ground to fire him. Barr was trying to be nice. Being polite isn't lying. "Does this dress make my ass look large?" Berman was being replaced and Barr tried to give him a graceful way out. No cases were dismissed or not pursued because of his departure and he says so here (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)
He was DOING HIS JOB and winning cases... just against Trumps literally corrupt friends. Literally. They're in jail. And the office continued to do its job after he was gone.

Barr couldn't do anything and got caught in a bold-faced lie, so Trump swooped in and fired Berman. Clinton summarily fired every US Attorney in the 1st year of his presidency. So did W. Bush. So will Biden. US Attorneys are political appointees.
Supposedly, it was to promote another lawyer, except that they didn't need to fire Berman to do that, and the other lawyer wasn't nearly as qualified. That isn't what Berman said about his replacement.(https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-can-anyone-trust-bill-barrs-justice-department-now/2020/06/21/34d1a83c-b339-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html

Or we could talk about how Barr directed police to fire tear gas on lawful protestors so our moron-in-chief could take a picture next to a church with a Bible upside down (message, anyone?) and not look like a little bone-spur ***** after he got caught hiding in a White House bunker. Wait... "inspecting" the White House bunker. That's TOTALLY what he was doing!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/politics/barr-trump-bunker-george-floyd.html
Where to start. I read your article and another NYTimes article concerning the walk to the church. This is the article about the walk. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/trump-st-johns-church-bible.html. There is no mention of Barr directing the tear gas. Whether Trump was inspecting or hiding in the bunker has nothing to do with Barr.

They just lie constantly. Democrat talking point, baseless accusation for political purposes


Want more? Okay!
He lied about ballots being collected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-claims-a-man-collected-1700-ballots-and-filled-them-out-as-he-pleased-prosecutors-say-thats-not-what-happened/2020/09/03/923aafac-ee2e-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html
It is behind a pay wall so I can't review, but here is an update from another source. https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

He's intervened to help Roger Stone who was DEFINITELY guilty, and bragged about being guilty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/democrats-to-subpoena-william-barr/2020/06/23/2fd49260-b558-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html
Some intervention. He was found guilty.

He's used the DOJ to [unsuccessfully] step in and protect Trump from defamation suits to 1. Save the President from having to spend his own money and 2. To subvert justice by treating the DOJ as the lawyer of the President -which they are literally not-.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/jean-carroll-trump-justice-department/2020/09/08/37faa380-f22a-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html

Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had the AG defend him during his affair/scandal? You'd have been apoplectic, and rightfully so! Obama did using his AG

Nearly 3,000 DOJ alumni have formally called on Barr to resign for his actions. That's a lot of Democrat AND Republican lawyers who feel this way.
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-the-events-surrounding-the-sentencing-of-roger-stone-c2cb75ae4937 It is behind a pay wall.
So what? People have political differences all the time. There are tens of thousands of former DOJ employees. It would be surprising for all of them to come down on the same side of a political issue.

Do you need more? If so, go Google it. If that won't convince you, nothing will. Google convinced me you are incorrect. Talking points are not dispositive or convincing.

---

Thanks for the response. My answers are in Bold above

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

Standing wasn't even among the issues raised on appeal. As stated on page 9 (without your edit), "the Campaign does not challenge the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing, so we do not consider their claims."

Most of the appeals court's decision was based on a substantive analysis of Trump's claims, in which it found that they were not likely to succeed. The court also points out that most of Trump's issues have already been litigated and lost on the merits in Pennsylvania state courts.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

Standing wasn't even among the issues raised on appeal. As stated on page 9 (without your edit), "the Campaign does not challenge the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing, so we do not consider their claims."

Most of the appeals court's decision was based on a substantive analysis of Trump's claims, in which it found that they were not likely to succeed. The court also points out that most of Trump's issues have already been litigated and lost on the merits in Pennsylvania state courts.

---

Incorrect, from what I have read.

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

When even the most corrupt Attorney General in modern American History says there's no fraud, there's no fraud.

---

I'm asking you to support the charge in BOLD above

Please be specific

---

My God. I will answer this question, but I'm not going to let you distract from the substance of the post.

Bill Barr is corrupt. He's been misusing and abusing the office of the AG to subvert justice at all kinds of turns. This is a talking point. It is an accusation, not a fact. It He's NOT the President's lawyer. He works for you and me. True, and I'm grateful he works for you and me.

But let's count the ways he's broken that.

He's been forcing out US DA's for doing their jobs. And yes, he knows that's wrong. How do w know that? Clinton fired every US Attorney during the 1st months of his presidency. The US Attorny position is a political appointee tee. Biden will soon be "forcing out" all Trump appointed US Attorneys.

Holy ***** There is a giant difference between dismissing US Attorneys appointed by a different president when taking over office and dismissing US Attorney that you appointed yourself absent misconduct.
You just made my point for me. If it was on the up and up, then why did Barr lie, twice about it? You're wrong.

Remember when he got caught LYING about Geoff Berman, the most prominent Prosecutor in the country as US Attorney for the southern district of New York? He said Berman was "stepping down" and said nice things about him in a press release. Except Berman said he wasn't stepping down -and there was no ground to fire him. Barr was trying to be nice. Being polite isn't lying. "Does this dress make my ass look large?" Berman was being replaced and Barr tried to give him a graceful way out. No cases were dismissed or not pursued because of his departure and he says so here (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)

He was fired for retribution. It is abundantly clear. That is wrong. That is why Barr lied twice about it. If he was doing it to give him a "graceful way out" then you'd think that Berman would take that. Still, a lie is a lie.

He was DOING HIS JOB and winning cases... just against Trumps literally corrupt friends. Literally. They're in jail. And the office continued to do its job after he was gone.

Barr couldn't do anything and got caught in a bold-faced lie, so Trump swooped in and fired Berman. Clinton summarily fired every US Attorney in the 1st year of his presidency. So did W. Bush. So will Biden. US Attorneys are political appointees.
Supposedly, it was to promote another lawyer, except that they didn't need to fire Berman to do that, and the other lawyer wasn't nearly as qualified. That isn't what Berman said about his replacement.(https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-can-anyone-trust-bill-barrs-justice-department-now/2020/06/21/34d1a83c-b339-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html

See above. I get you're desperate to explain away this misconduct, but there is a giant difference between cleaning a slate at the beginning of his presidency and then doing it mid-stream. It doesn't matter if it is legal or not, you can only abuse powers that you have.

Or we could talk about how Barr directed police to fire tear gas on lawful protestors so our moron-in-chief could take a picture next to a church with a Bible upside down (message, anyone?) and not look like a little bone-spur ***** after he got caught hiding in a White House bunker. Wait... "inspecting" the White House bunker. That's TOTALLY what he was doing!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/politics/barr-trump-bunker-george-floyd.html
Where to start. I read your article and another NYTimes article concerning the walk to the church. This is the article about the walk. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/trump-st-johns-church-bible.html. There is no mention of Barr directing the tear gas. Whether Trump was inspecting or hiding in the bunker has nothing to do with Barr.

They just lie constantly. Democrat talking point, baseless accusation for political purposes
The fact that you think the statement that this White House "lies constantly" is "baseless" pretty much says all that needs to be said about your grip on reality.

Want more? Okay!
He lied about ballots being collected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-claims-a-man-collected-1700-ballots-and-filled-them-out-as-he-pleased-prosecutors-say-thats-not-what-happened/2020/09/03/923aafac-ee2e-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html
It is behind a pay wall so I can't review, but here is an update from another source. https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

Here's a non paywall link to the bold-faced lie Barr told. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/04/texas-william-barr-mail-in-voting/

But since we're having fun, you can watch this video and tell me Barr isn't lying to appear to be obsequious to Trump.


He's intervened to help Roger Stone who was DEFINITELY guilty, and bragged about being guilty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/democrats-to-subpoena-william-barr/2020/06/23/2fd49260-b558-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html
Some intervention. He was found guilty.
So because he wasn't successful, it doesn't count? Let me call the judge about my friend in jail for attempted murder!

He's used the DOJ to [unsuccessfully] step in and protect Trump from defamation suits to 1. Save the President from having to spend his own money and 2. To subvert justice by treating the DOJ as the lawyer of the President -which they are literally not-.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/jean-carroll-trump-justice-department/2020/09/08/37faa380-f22a-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html

Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had the AG defend him during his affair/scandal? You'd have been apoplectic, and rightfully so! Obama did using his AG
Nope. You are either wrong or lying. Pick. Obama didn't use the Justice Department to defend him in a personal case that happened outside of his duties as President.

Are you lying or wrong? Please pick.

Nearly 3,000 DOJ alumni have formally called on Barr to resign for his actions. That's a lot of Democrat AND Republican lawyers who feel this way.
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-the-events-surrounding-the-sentencing-of-roger-stone-c2cb75ae4937 It is behind a pay wall.
So what? People have political differences all the time. There are tens of thousands of former DOJ employees. It would be surprising for all of them to come down on the same side of a political issue.

No. This "doesn't happen all the time." Find me one other time where 3,000 DOJ alums have written a letter calling for an AG to resign.

I'LL WAIT.

Do you need more? If so, go Google it. If that won't convince you, nothing will. Google convinced me you are incorrect. Talking points are not dispositive or convincing.

You can't be convinced when you won't accept facts.

---

Thanks for the response. My answers are in Bold above

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

When even the most corrupt Attorney General in modern American History says there's no fraud, there's no fraud.

---

I'm asking you to support the charge in BOLD above

Please be specific

---

My God. I will answer this question, but I'm not going to let you distract from the substance of the post.

Bill Barr is corrupt. He's been misusing and abusing the office of the AG to subvert justice at all kinds of turns. This is a talking point. It is an accusation, not a fact. It He's NOT the President's lawyer. He works for you and me. True, and I'm grateful he works for you and me.

But let's count the ways he's broken that.

He's been forcing out US DA's for doing their jobs. And yes, he knows that's wrong. How do w know that? Clinton fired every US Attorney during the 1st months of his presidency. The US Attorny position is a political appointee tee. Biden will soon be "forcing out" all Trump appointed US Attorneys.

Holy ***** There is a giant difference between dismissing US Attorneys appointed by a different president when taking over office and dismissing US Attorney that you appointed yourself absent misconduct.
You just made my point for me. If it was on the up and up, then why did Barr lie, twice about it? You're wrong.

Remember when he got caught LYING about Geoff Berman, the most prominent Prosecutor in the country as US Attorney for the southern district of New York? He said Berman was "stepping down" and said nice things about him in a press release. Except Berman said he wasn't stepping down -and there was no ground to fire him. Barr was trying to be nice. Being polite isn't lying. "Does this dress make my ass look large?" Berman was being replaced and Barr tried to give him a graceful way out. No cases were dismissed or not pursued because of his departure and he says so here (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)

He was fired for retribution. It is abundantly clear. That is wrong. That is why Barr lied twice about it. If he was doing it to give him a "graceful way out" then you'd think that Berman would take that. Still, a lie is a lie.

He was DOING HIS JOB and winning cases... just against Trumps literally corrupt friends. Literally. They're in jail. And the office continued to do its job after he was gone.

Barr couldn't do anything and got caught in a bold-faced lie, so Trump swooped in and fired Berman. Clinton summarily fired every US Attorney in the 1st year of his presidency. So did W. Bush. So will Biden. US Attorneys are political appointees.
Supposedly, it was to promote another lawyer, except that they didn't need to fire Berman to do that, and the other lawyer wasn't nearly as qualified. That isn't what Berman said about his replacement.(https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-can-anyone-trust-bill-barrs-justice-department-now/2020/06/21/34d1a83c-b339-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html

See above. I get you're desperate to explain away this misconduct, but there is a giant difference between cleaning a slate at the beginning of his presidency and then doing it mid-stream. It doesn't matter if it is legal or not, you can only abuse powers that you have.

Or we could talk about how Barr directed police to fire tear gas on lawful protestors so our moron-in-chief could take a picture next to a church with a Bible upside down (message, anyone?) and not look like a little bone-spur ***** after he got caught hiding in a White House bunker. Wait... "inspecting" the White House bunker. That's TOTALLY what he was doing!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/politics/barr-trump-bunker-george-floyd.html
Where to start. I read your article and another NYTimes article concerning the walk to the church. This is the article about the walk. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/trump-st-johns-church-bible.html. There is no mention of Barr directing the tear gas. Whether Trump was inspecting or hiding in the bunker has nothing to do with Barr.

They just lie constantly. Democrat talking point, baseless accusation for political purposes
The fact that you think the statement that this White House "lies constantly" is "baseless" pretty much says all that needs to be said about your grip on reality.

Want more? Okay!
He lied about ballots being collected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-claims-a-man-collected-1700-ballots-and-filled-them-out-as-he-pleased-prosecutors-say-thats-not-what-happened/2020/09/03/923aafac-ee2e-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html
It is behind a pay wall so I can't review, but here is an update from another source. https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

Here's a non paywall link to the bold-faced lie Barr told. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/04/texas-william-barr-mail-in-voting/

But since we're having fun, you can watch this video and tell me Barr isn't lying to appear to be obsequious to Trump.


He's intervened to help Roger Stone who was DEFINITELY guilty, and bragged about being guilty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/democrats-to-subpoena-william-barr/2020/06/23/2fd49260-b558-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html
Some intervention. He was found guilty.
So because he wasn't successful, it doesn't count? Let me call the judge about my friend in jail for attempted murder!

He's used the DOJ to [unsuccessfully] step in and protect Trump from defamation suits to 1. Save the President from having to spend his own money and 2. To subvert justice by treating the DOJ as the lawyer of the President -which they are literally not-.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/jean-carroll-trump-justice-department/2020/09/08/37faa380-f22a-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html

Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had the AG defend him during his affair/scandal? You'd have been apoplectic, and rightfully so! Obama did using his AG
Nope. You are either wrong or lying. Pick. Obama didn't use the Justice Department to defend him in a personal case that happened outside of his duties as President.

Are you lying or wrong? Please pick.

Nearly 3,000 DOJ alumni have formally called on Barr to resign for his actions. That's a lot of Democrat AND Republican lawyers who feel this way.
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-the-events-surrounding-the-sentencing-of-roger-stone-c2cb75ae4937 It is behind a pay wall.
So what? People have political differences all the time. There are tens of thousands of former DOJ employees. It would be surprising for all of them to come down on the same side of a political issue.

No. This "doesn't happen all the time." Find me one other time where 3,000 DOJ alums have written a letter calling for an AG to resign.

I'LL WAIT.

Do you need more? If so, go Google it. If that won't convince you, nothing will. Google convinced me you are incorrect. Talking points are not dispositive or convincing.

You can't be convinced when you won't accept facts.

---

Thanks for the response. My answers are in Bold above

---

---

Just so we can understand the rules, if someone makes an inaccurate statement, is it willful lying?

PayPal CEO Dan Schulman said the use of digital currencies is set to go mainstream as more merchants take a "digital first" approach to payments, looking to digital wallets filled with crypto. Cash looks like it's on the way out.

This is what is coming next. Putting the puzzle together or what?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

Standing wasn't even among the issues raised on appeal. As stated on page 9 (without your edit), "the Campaign does not challenge the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing, so we do not consider their claims."

Most of the appeals court's decision was based on a substantive analysis of Trump's claims, in which it found that they were not likely to succeed. The court also points out that most of Trump's issues have already been litigated and lost on the merits in Pennsylvania state courts.

---

Oh not yet. This is just getting started my friend...

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

Standing wasn't even among the issues raised on appeal. As stated on page 9 (without your edit), "the Campaign does not challenge the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing, so we do not consider their claims."

Most of the appeals court's decision was based on a substantive analysis of Trump's claims, in which it found that they were not likely to succeed. The court also points out that most of Trump's issues have already been litigated and lost on the merits in Pennsylvania state courts.

---

Incorrect, from what I have read.

---

How can it be different from what you've read when you've been shown the quote from the court twice now saying the Campaign abandoned the standing claim, I quoted it and now Sam has, too. From what you have now read twice, standing is not going up on appeal.

wuzzybear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

Standing wasn't even among the issues raised on appeal. As stated on page 9 (without your edit), "the Campaign does not challenge the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing, so we do not consider their claims."

Most of the appeals court's decision was based on a substantive analysis of Trump's claims, in which it found that they were not likely to succeed. The court also points out that most of Trump's issues have already been litigated and lost on the merits in Pennsylvania state courts.

---

Oh not yet. This is just getting started my friend...

---

Don't get coy now, go ahead and tell us what's coming. Is it SCOTUS? RoboSCOTUS??

This is so exciting, I love PCTs.

quash said:

---

wuzzybear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

Standing wasn't even among the issues raised on appeal. As stated on page 9 (without your edit), "the Campaign does not challenge the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing, so we do not consider their claims."

Most of the appeals court's decision was based on a substantive analysis of Trump's claims, in which it found that they were not likely to succeed. The court also points out that most of Trump's issues have already been litigated and lost on the merits in Pennsylvania state courts.

---

Oh not yet. This is just getting started my friend...

---

Don't get coy now, go ahead and tell us what's coming. Is it SCOTUS? RoboSCOTUS??

This is so exciting, I love PCTs.

---

More fact free assertions no doubt.

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

When even the most corrupt Attorney General in modern American History says there's no fraud, there's no fraud.

---

I'm asking you to support the charge in BOLD above

Please be specific

---

My God. I will answer this question, but I'm not going to let you distract from the substance of the post.

Bill Barr is corrupt. He's been misusing and abusing the office of the AG to subvert justice at all kinds of turns. This is a talking point. It is an accusation, not a fact. It He's NOT the President's lawyer. He works for you and me. True, and I'm grateful he works for you and me.

But let's count the ways he's broken that.

He's been forcing out US DA's for doing their jobs. And yes, he knows that's wrong. How do w know that? Clinton fired every US Attorney during the 1st months of his presidency. The US Attorny position is a political appointee tee. Biden will soon be "forcing out" all Trump appointed US Attorneys.

Holy ***** There is a giant difference between dismissing US Attorneys appointed by a different president when taking over office and dismissing US Attorney that you appointed yourself absent misconduct.
You just made my point for me. If it was on the up and up, then why did Barr lie, twice about it? You're wrong.

Remember when he got caught LYING about Geoff Berman, the most prominent Prosecutor in the country as US Attorney for the southern district of New York? He said Berman was "stepping down" and said nice things about him in a press release. Except Berman said he wasn't stepping down -and there was no ground to fire him. Barr was trying to be nice. Being polite isn't lying. "Does this dress make my ass look large?" Berman was being replaced and Barr tried to give him a graceful way out. No cases were dismissed or not pursued because of his departure and he says so here (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)

He was fired for retribution. It is abundantly clear. That is wrong. That is why Barr lied twice about it. If he was doing it to give him a "graceful way out" then you'd think that Berman would take that. Still, a lie is a lie.

He was DOING HIS JOB and winning cases... just against Trumps literally corrupt friends. Literally. They're in jail. And the office continued to do its job after he was gone.

Barr couldn't do anything and got caught in a bold-faced lie, so Trump swooped in and fired Berman. Clinton summarily fired every US Attorney in the 1st year of his presidency. So did W. Bush. So will Biden. US Attorneys are political appointees.
Supposedly, it was to promote another lawyer, except that they didn't need to fire Berman to do that, and the other lawyer wasn't nearly as qualified. That isn't what Berman said about his replacement.(https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-can-anyone-trust-bill-barrs-justice-department-now/2020/06/21/34d1a83c-b339-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html

See above. I get you're desperate to explain away this misconduct, but there is a giant difference between cleaning a slate at the beginning of his presidency and then doing it mid-stream. It doesn't matter if it is legal or not, you can only abuse powers that you have.

Or we could talk about how Barr directed police to fire tear gas on lawful protestors so our moron-in-chief could take a picture next to a church with a Bible upside down (message, anyone?) and not look like a little bone-spur ***** after he got caught hiding in a White House bunker. Wait... "inspecting" the White House bunker. That's TOTALLY what he was doing!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/politics/barr-trump-bunker-george-floyd.html
Where to start. I read your article and another NYTimes article concerning the walk to the church. This is the article about the walk. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/trump-st-johns-church-bible.html. There is no mention of Barr directing the tear gas. Whether Trump was inspecting or hiding in the bunker has nothing to do with Barr.

They just lie constantly. Democrat talking point, baseless accusation for political purposes
The fact that you think the statement that this White House "lies constantly" is "baseless" pretty much says all that needs to be said about your grip on reality.

Want more? Okay!
He lied about ballots being collected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-claims-a-man-collected-1700-ballots-and-filled-them-out-as-he-pleased-prosecutors-say-thats-not-what-happened/2020/09/03/923aafac-ee2e-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html
It is behind a pay wall so I can't review, but here is an update from another source. https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

Here's a non paywall link to the bold-faced lie Barr told. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/04/texas-william-barr-mail-in-voting/

But since we're having fun, you can watch this video and tell me Barr isn't lying to appear to be obsequious to Trump.


He's intervened to help Roger Stone who was DEFINITELY guilty, and bragged about being guilty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/democrats-to-subpoena-william-barr/2020/06/23/2fd49260-b558-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html
Some intervention. He was found guilty.
So because he wasn't successful, it doesn't count? Let me call the judge about my friend in jail for attempted murder!

He's used the DOJ to [unsuccessfully] step in and protect Trump from defamation suits to 1. Save the President from having to spend his own money and 2. To subvert justice by treating the DOJ as the lawyer of the President -which they are literally not-.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/jean-carroll-trump-justice-department/2020/09/08/37faa380-f22a-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html

Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had the AG defend him during his affair/scandal? You'd have been apoplectic, and rightfully so! Obama did using his AG
Nope. You are either wrong or lying. Pick. Obama didn't use the Justice Department to defend him in a personal case that happened outside of his duties as President.

Are you lying or wrong? Please pick.

Nearly 3,000 DOJ alumni have formally called on Barr to resign for his actions. That's a lot of Democrat AND Republican lawyers who feel this way.
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-the-events-surrounding-the-sentencing-of-roger-stone-c2cb75ae4937 It is behind a pay wall.
So what? People have political differences all the time. There are tens of thousands of former DOJ employees. It would be surprising for all of them to come down on the same side of a political issue.

No. This "doesn't happen all the time." Find me one other time where 3,000 DOJ alums have written a letter calling for an AG to resign.

I'LL WAIT.

Do you need more? If so, go Google it. If that won't convince you, nothing will. Google convinced me you are incorrect. Talking points are not dispositive or convincing.

You can't be convinced when you won't accept facts.

---

Thanks for the response. My answers are in Bold above

---

---

Just so we can understand the rules, if someone makes an inaccurate statement, is it willful lying?

---

Barr's office said they received incorrect information and that the AG repeated the incorrect information.

Osodecentx said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

When even the most corrupt Attorney General in modern American History says there's no fraud, there's no fraud.

---

I'm asking you to support the charge in BOLD above

Please be specific

---

My God. I will answer this question, but I'm not going to let you distract from the substance of the post.

Bill Barr is corrupt. He's been misusing and abusing the office of the AG to subvert justice at all kinds of turns. This is a talking point. It is an accusation, not a fact. It He's NOT the President's lawyer. He works for you and me. True, and I'm grateful he works for you and me.

But let's count the ways he's broken that.

He's been forcing out US DA's for doing their jobs. And yes, he knows that's wrong. How do w know that? Clinton fired every US Attorney during the 1st months of his presidency. The US Attorny position is a political appointee tee. Biden will soon be "forcing out" all Trump appointed US Attorneys.

Holy ***** There is a giant difference between dismissing US Attorneys appointed by a different president when taking over office and dismissing US Attorney that you appointed yourself absent misconduct.
You just made my point for me. If it was on the up and up, then why did Barr lie, twice about it? You're wrong.

Remember when he got caught LYING about Geoff Berman, the most prominent Prosecutor in the country as US Attorney for the southern district of New York? He said Berman was "stepping down" and said nice things about him in a press release. Except Berman said he wasn't stepping down -and there was no ground to fire him. Barr was trying to be nice. Being polite isn't lying. "Does this dress make my ass look large?" Berman was being replaced and Barr tried to give him a graceful way out. No cases were dismissed or not pursued because of his departure and he says so here (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)

He was fired for retribution. It is abundantly clear. That is wrong. That is why Barr lied twice about it. If he was doing it to give him a "graceful way out" then you'd think that Berman would take that. Still, a lie is a lie.

He was DOING HIS JOB and winning cases... just against Trumps literally corrupt friends. Literally. They're in jail. And the office continued to do its job after he was gone.

Barr couldn't do anything and got caught in a bold-faced lie, so Trump swooped in and fired Berman. Clinton summarily fired every US Attorney in the 1st year of his presidency. So did W. Bush. So will Biden. US Attorneys are political appointees.
Supposedly, it was to promote another lawyer, except that they didn't need to fire Berman to do that, and the other lawyer wasn't nearly as qualified. That isn't what Berman said about his replacement.(https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-can-anyone-trust-bill-barrs-justice-department-now/2020/06/21/34d1a83c-b339-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html

See above. I get you're desperate to explain away this misconduct, but there is a giant difference between cleaning a slate at the beginning of his presidency and then doing it mid-stream. It doesn't matter if it is legal or not, you can only abuse powers that you have.

Or we could talk about how Barr directed police to fire tear gas on lawful protestors so our moron-in-chief could take a picture next to a church with a Bible upside down (message, anyone?) and not look like a little bone-spur ***** after he got caught hiding in a White House bunker. Wait... "inspecting" the White House bunker. That's TOTALLY what he was doing!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/politics/barr-trump-bunker-george-floyd.html
Where to start. I read your article and another NYTimes article concerning the walk to the church. This is the article about the walk. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/trump-st-johns-church-bible.html. There is no mention of Barr directing the tear gas. Whether Trump was inspecting or hiding in the bunker has nothing to do with Barr.

They just lie constantly. Democrat talking point, baseless accusation for political purposes
The fact that you think the statement that this White House "lies constantly" is "baseless" pretty much says all that needs to be said about your grip on reality.

Want more? Okay!
He lied about ballots being collected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-claims-a-man-collected-1700-ballots-and-filled-them-out-as-he-pleased-prosecutors-say-thats-not-what-happened/2020/09/03/923aafac-ee2e-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html
It is behind a pay wall so I can't review, but here is an update from another source. https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

Here's a non paywall link to the bold-faced lie Barr told. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/04/texas-william-barr-mail-in-voting/

But since we're having fun, you can watch this video and tell me Barr isn't lying to appear to be obsequious to Trump.


He's intervened to help Roger Stone who was DEFINITELY guilty, and bragged about being guilty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/democrats-to-subpoena-william-barr/2020/06/23/2fd49260-b558-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html
Some intervention. He was found guilty.
So because he wasn't successful, it doesn't count? Let me call the judge about my friend in jail for attempted murder!

He's used the DOJ to [unsuccessfully] step in and protect Trump from defamation suits to 1. Save the President from having to spend his own money and 2. To subvert justice by treating the DOJ as the lawyer of the President -which they are literally not-.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/jean-carroll-trump-justice-department/2020/09/08/37faa380-f22a-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html

Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had the AG defend him during his affair/scandal? You'd have been apoplectic, and rightfully so! Obama did using his AG
Nope. You are either wrong or lying. Pick. Obama didn't use the Justice Department to defend him in a personal case that happened outside of his duties as President.

Are you lying or wrong? Please pick.

Nearly 3,000 DOJ alumni have formally called on Barr to resign for his actions. That's a lot of Democrat AND Republican lawyers who feel this way.
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-the-events-surrounding-the-sentencing-of-roger-stone-c2cb75ae4937 It is behind a pay wall.
So what? People have political differences all the time. There are tens of thousands of former DOJ employees. It would be surprising for all of them to come down on the same side of a political issue.

No. This "doesn't happen all the time." Find me one other time where 3,000 DOJ alums have written a letter calling for an AG to resign.

I'LL WAIT.

Do you need more? If so, go Google it. If that won't convince you, nothing will. Google convinced me you are incorrect. Talking points are not dispositive or convincing.

You can't be convinced when you won't accept facts.

---

Thanks for the response. My answers are in Bold above

---

---

Just so we can understand the rules, if someone makes an inaccurate statement, is it willful lying?

---

Barr's office said they received incorrect information and that the AG repeated the incorrect information.

---

Depends on whether he knew or should have known it was incorrect.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

Standing wasn't even among the issues raised on appeal. As stated on page 9 (without your edit), "the Campaign does not challenge the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing, so we do not consider their claims."

Most of the appeals court's decision was based on a substantive analysis of Trump's claims, in which it found that they were not likely to succeed. The court also points out that most of Trump's issues have already been litigated and lost on the merits in Pennsylvania state courts.

---

Incorrect, from what I have read.

---

How can it be different from what you've read when you've been shown the quote from the court twice now saying the Campaign abandoned the standing claim, I quoted it and now Sam has, too. From what you have now read twice, standing is not going up on appeal.

---

The post to which I replied claimed

1. that the appeals court made a "substantive analysis of Trump's claims" - no

2. Trump's issues have been litigated "on the merits" in Pennsylvania - also no, the courts ruled on procedural basis, not evidence.

I do agree that the lawyers appear to have made poor arguments (seriously, confusing Minnesota with Michigan?), but the evidence has not yet been weighed and validated.

To me, this is the meat of the matter. Either there is valid reason to doubt the claim that Biden won, or the allegations need to be refuted. What has happened up to now is simply that Biden's team has shot down efforts to discuss the evidence. In terms of winning in court that makes sense for Biden, but it's bad optics.

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

When even the most corrupt Attorney General in modern American History says there's no fraud, there's no fraud.

---

I'm asking you to support the charge in BOLD above

Please be specific

---

My God. I will answer this question, but I'm not going to let you distract from the substance of the post.

Bill Barr is corrupt. He's been misusing and abusing the office of the AG to subvert justice at all kinds of turns. This is a talking point. It is an accusation, not a fact. It He's NOT the President's lawyer. He works for you and me. True, and I'm grateful he works for you and me.

But let's count the ways he's broken that.

He's been forcing out US DA's for doing their jobs. And yes, he knows that's wrong. How do w know that? Clinton fired every US Attorney during the 1st months of his presidency. The US Attorny position is a political appointee tee. Biden will soon be "forcing out" all Trump appointed US Attorneys.

Holy ***** There is a giant difference between dismissing US Attorneys appointed by a different president when taking over office and dismissing US Attorney that you appointed yourself absent misconduct.
You just made my point for me. If it was on the up and up, then why did Barr lie, twice about it? You're wrong.

Remember when he got caught LYING about Geoff Berman, the most prominent Prosecutor in the country as US Attorney for the southern district of New York? He said Berman was "stepping down" and said nice things about him in a press release. Except Berman said he wasn't stepping down -and there was no ground to fire him. Barr was trying to be nice. Being polite isn't lying. "Does this dress make my ass look large?" Berman was being replaced and Barr tried to give him a graceful way out. No cases were dismissed or not pursued because of his departure and he says so here (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)

He was fired for retribution. It is abundantly clear. That is wrong. That is why Barr lied twice about it. If he was doing it to give him a "graceful way out" then you'd think that Berman would take that. Still, a lie is a lie.

He was DOING HIS JOB and winning cases... just against Trumps literally corrupt friends. Literally. They're in jail. And the office continued to do its job after he was gone.

Barr couldn't do anything and got caught in a bold-faced lie, so Trump swooped in and fired Berman. Clinton summarily fired every US Attorney in the 1st year of his presidency. So did W. Bush. So will Biden. US Attorneys are political appointees.
Supposedly, it was to promote another lawyer, except that they didn't need to fire Berman to do that, and the other lawyer wasn't nearly as qualified. That isn't what Berman said about his replacement.(https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-geoffrey-s-berman)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-can-anyone-trust-bill-barrs-justice-department-now/2020/06/21/34d1a83c-b339-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html

See above. I get you're desperate to explain away this misconduct, but there is a giant difference between cleaning a slate at the beginning of his presidency and then doing it mid-stream. It doesn't matter if it is legal or not, you can only abuse powers that you have.

Or we could talk about how Barr directed police to fire tear gas on lawful protestors so our moron-in-chief could take a picture next to a church with a Bible upside down (message, anyone?) and not look like a little bone-spur ***** after he got caught hiding in a White House bunker. Wait... "inspecting" the White House bunker. That's TOTALLY what he was doing!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/us/politics/barr-trump-bunker-george-floyd.html
Where to start. I read your article and another NYTimes article concerning the walk to the church. This is the article about the walk. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/trump-st-johns-church-bible.html. There is no mention of Barr directing the tear gas. Whether Trump was inspecting or hiding in the bunker has nothing to do with Barr.

They just lie constantly. Democrat talking point, baseless accusation for political purposes
The fact that you think the statement that this White House "lies constantly" is "baseless" pretty much says all that needs to be said about your grip on reality.

Want more? Okay!
He lied about ballots being collected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-claims-a-man-collected-1700-ballots-and-filled-them-out-as-he-pleased-prosecutors-say-thats-not-what-happened/2020/09/03/923aafac-ee2e-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html
It is behind a pay wall so I can't review, but here is an update from another source. https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d

Here's a non paywall link to the bold-faced lie Barr told. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/04/texas-william-barr-mail-in-voting/

But since we're having fun, you can watch this video and tell me Barr isn't lying to appear to be obsequious to Trump.


He's intervened to help Roger Stone who was DEFINITELY guilty, and bragged about being guilty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/democrats-to-subpoena-william-barr/2020/06/23/2fd49260-b558-11ea-a510-55bf26485c93_story.html
Some intervention. He was found guilty.
So because he wasn't successful, it doesn't count? Let me call the judge about my friend in jail for attempted murder!

He's used the DOJ to [unsuccessfully] step in and protect Trump from defamation suits to 1. Save the President from having to spend his own money and 2. To subvert justice by treating the DOJ as the lawyer of the President -which they are literally not-.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/jean-carroll-trump-justice-department/2020/09/08/37faa380-f22a-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html

Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had the AG defend him during his affair/scandal? You'd have been apoplectic, and rightfully so! Obama did using his AG
Nope. You are either wrong or lying. Pick. Obama didn't use the Justice Department to defend him in a personal case that happened outside of his duties as President.

Are you lying or wrong? Please pick.

Nearly 3,000 DOJ alumni have formally called on Barr to resign for his actions. That's a lot of Democrat AND Republican lawyers who feel this way.
https://medium.com/@dojalumni/doj-alumni-statement-on-the-events-surrounding-the-sentencing-of-roger-stone-c2cb75ae4937 It is behind a pay wall.
So what? People have political differences all the time. There are tens of thousands of former DOJ employees. It would be surprising for all of them to come down on the same side of a political issue.

No. This "doesn't happen all the time." Find me one other time where 3,000 DOJ alums have written a letter calling for an AG to resign.

I'LL WAIT.

Do you need more? If so, go Google it. If that won't convince you, nothing will. Google convinced me you are incorrect. Talking points are not dispositive or convincing.

You can't be convinced when you won't accept facts.

---

Thanks for the response. My answers are in Bold above

---

---

Just so we can understand the rules, if someone makes an inaccurate statement, is it willful lying?

---

Barr's office said they received incorrect information and that the AG repeated the incorrect information.

---

Depends on whether he knew or should have known it was incorrect.

---

Read the article that he linked

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

Standing wasn't even among the issues raised on appeal. As stated on page 9 (without your edit), "the Campaign does not challenge the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing, so we do not consider their claims."

Most of the appeals court's decision was based on a substantive analysis of Trump's claims, in which it found that they were not likely to succeed. The court also points out that most of Trump's issues have already been litigated and lost on the merits in Pennsylvania state courts.

---

Incorrect, from what I have read.

---

How can it be different from what you've read when you've been shown the quote from the court twice now saying the Campaign abandoned the standing claim, I quoted it and now Sam has, too. From what you have now read twice, standing is not going up on appeal.

---

The post to which I replied claimed

1. that the appeals court made a "substantive analysis of Trump's claims" - no

2. Trump's issues have been litigated "on the merits" in Pennsylvania - also no, the courts ruled on procedural basis, not evidence.

I do agree that the lawyers appear to have made poor arguments (seriously, confusing Minnesota with Michigan?), but the evidence has not yet been weighed and validated.

To me, this is the meat of the matter. Either there is valid reason to doubt the claim that Biden won, or the allegations need to be refuted. What has happened up to now is simply that Biden's team has shot down efforts to discuss the evidence. In terms of winning in court that makes sense for Biden, but it's bad optics.

---

Winning is bad optics?

You don't get to produce evidence until you properly plead a cause of action. A cause of action arises from what you can prove. If there is abundant evidence of fraud then it shouldn't be hard to bring a fraud case. Where is a fraud case currently pending?

Quash: 'winning is bad optics?'

This is bad optics:




So is this:



So is this:



et cetera, et cetera

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

Standing wasn't even among the issues raised on appeal. As stated on page 9 (without your edit), "the Campaign does not challenge the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing, so we do not consider their claims."

Most of the appeals court's decision was based on a substantive analysis of Trump's claims, in which it found that they were not likely to succeed. The court also points out that most of Trump's issues have already been litigated and lost on the merits in Pennsylvania state courts.

---

Incorrect, from what I have read.

---

How can it be different from what you've read when you've been shown the quote from the court twice now saying the Campaign abandoned the standing claim, I quoted it and now Sam has, too. From what you have now read twice, standing is not going up on appeal.

---

The post to which I replied claimed

1. that the appeals court made a "substantive analysis of Trump's claims" - no

2. Trump's issues have been litigated "on the merits" in Pennsylvania - also no, the courts ruled on procedural basis, not evidence.

I do agree that the lawyers appear to have made poor arguments (seriously, confusing Minnesota with Michigan?), but the evidence has not yet been weighed and validated.

To me, this is the meat of the matter. Either there is valid reason to doubt the claim that Biden won, or the allegations need to be refuted. What has happened up to now is simply that Biden's team has shot down efforts to discuss the evidence. In terms of winning in court that makes sense for Biden, but it's bad optics.

---

1. See pages 11-16 of the 3rd Circuit decision.

2. See pages 12-14, "The Campaign has already litigated and lost most of these issues."

The appeals court cites four cases - In re: Canvass of Absentee and Mail-in Ballots, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, In re: Canvassing Observation Appeal of: City of Phila. Bd. of Electors, and Bognet v. Sec'y Commonwealth of Pa.

All of these are available online. The first three were decided on fact evidence and constitutional and statutory interpretation (e.g., from Boockvar, "[T]he parties engaged in extensive fact and expert discovery"). The Bognet precedent is about standing, but again that was not challenged on appeal.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: 'winning is bad optics?'

This is bad optics:




So is this:



So is this:



et cetera, et cetera

---

Holy ***** You think this is real?

they had to tape up the windows because people were taking pictures, ID'ing the election-workers AND SENDING DEATH THREATS. Are you REALLY that detached from reality?

And the sign Lewandowski (famous piece of ****, that he is) refers to trained observers, who were there. Not a bunch of mouth-breathing Q-Anon believers who will do ANYTHING they are commanded to do on OAN.

If you think that tweet is real, then you deserve every bad thing that happens to you.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: 'winning is bad optics?'

This is bad optics:




So is this:



So is this:



et cetera, et cetera

---

Holy ***** You think this is real?

they had to tape up the windows because people were taking pictures, ID'ing the election-workers AND SENDING DEATH THREATS. Are you REALLY that detached from reality?

And the sign Lewandowski (famous piece of ****, that he is) refers to trained observers, who were there. Not a bunch of mouth-breathing Q-Anon believers who will do ANYTHING they are commanded to do on OAN.

If you think that tweet is real, then you deserve every bad thing that happens to you.

---

1. Taking pictures of a public process is fully legal. No reason to hide

2. Call BS on the 'death threat' lie

3. The reports of poll watchers being forced out has been verified. Trump's one court win, in fact, confirmed that happened.

4. You get bitter and vicious awfully fast.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: 'winning is bad optics?'

This is bad optics:




So is this:



So is this:



et cetera, et cetera

---

Holy ***** You think this is real?

they had to tape up the windows because people were taking pictures, ID'ing the election-workers AND SENDING DEATH THREATS. Are you REALLY that detached from reality?

And the sign Lewandowski (famous piece of ****, that he is) refers to trained observers, who were there. Not a bunch of mouth-breathing Q-Anon believers who will do ANYTHING they are commanded to do on OAN.

If you think that tweet is real, then you deserve every bad thing that happens to you.

---

1. Taking pictures of a public process is fully legal. No reason to hide

2. Call BS on the 'death threat' lie

3. The reports of poll watchers being forced out has been verified. Trump's one court win, in fact, confirmed that happened.

4. You get bitter and vicious awfully fast.

---

1. Obviously, that's false. There IS reason to hide. I don't care if you agree about death threats or not. Local REPUBLICANS did. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/us/election-officials-threats-trump.html

Here is a Republican BEGGING people to stop.




2. How do you know it's a "lie." Show me PROOF now.

3. Sigh... the case that Trump won wasn't that they were being "forced out." It's that they weren't being allowed to be close enough. They were granted the ability to be within 6 feet. The case was then appealed and remanded. No trained, approved election observer was ever "forced out." You are either wrong or just lying.

4. Yeah, I guess I'm a Patriot who gets upset when someone throws a hissy-fit and spreads lies to subvert our election because he didn't like the result. I am ashamed of you.

You are no 'patriot'. You are a partisan thug who cannot stand disagreement.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The appeals court states that most of their decision was based on the position that

"the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing" (page 9)

---

You misspelled "none of."

---

I miss Rational Sam, getting tired of Smartass Sam.

For those actually reading the decision, note the reference to the standing decision leaving only a narrow decision remaining for the court to rule, which Sam would like to pretend was the main point. He ducks the fact that standing was a major factor in almost every case dismissed.

---

Standing wasn't even among the issues raised on appeal. As stated on page 9 (without your edit), "the Campaign does not challenge the District Court's finding that the voters lacked standing, so we do not consider their claims."

Most of the appeals court's decision was based on a substantive analysis of Trump's claims, in which it found that they were not likely to succeed. The court also points out that most of Trump's issues have already been litigated and lost on the merits in Pennsylvania state courts.

---

Incorrect, from what I have read.

---

How can it be different from what you've read when you've been shown the quote from the court twice now saying the Campaign abandoned the standing claim, I quoted it and now Sam has, too. From what you have now read twice, standing is not going up on appeal.

---

The post to which I replied claimed

1. that the appeals court made a "substantive analysis of Trump's claims" - no

2. Trump's issues have been litigated "on the merits" in Pennsylvania - also no, the courts ruled on procedural basis, not evidence.

I do agree that the lawyers appear to have made poor arguments (seriously, confusing Minnesota with Michigan?), but the evidence has not yet been weighed and validated.

To me, this is the meat of the matter. Either there is valid reason to doubt the claim that Biden won, or the allegations need to be refuted. What has happened up to now is simply that Biden's team has shot down efforts to discuss the evidence. In terms of winning in court that makes sense for Biden, but it's bad optics.

---

Winning is bad optics?

You don't get to produce evidence until you properly plead a cause of action. A cause of action arises from what you can prove. If there is abundant evidence of fraud then it shouldn't be hard to bring a fraud case. Where is a fraud case currently pending?

---

Oldbear, your pictures were a deflection. Fraud cases aren't hard to plead, I could cannibalize one of my pending cases and draft a fresh petition in about ten minutes.

There are dozens of cases out there and you seem to know about them all, so is there a fraud case pending?