You believe that smokescreen by Barr? He’s working with Guiliani.

That's a valid complaint by Barr. The timing of Trump's tweet, though it agrees with Barr's assessment about the Stone case, has a tendency to fuel conspiracy theories among the Twitterati.

This is round 1 of 2. Round 2 will contain about 10 questions from my Impeachment thread.

1. If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

2. In the other thread "Do the ends Justify the Means" You said, and I quote:

"The ends could justify the means but only if the means are just. If the means are just so are the ends."

What if the means are unjust? How does that square with your support of the Dumpertrumper?

3. You said: "Even the appearance of bias can be ruinous to the entire justice system". Would the appearance of bias in an Impeachment trial be ruinous to the constitutional system?

4. You said: "It looks like the trial against Stone is rigged. The jury foreman is an anti-Trump democratic candidate and Russia truther". Question to you from Mike: If they were Trump supporting Republican,
would it have been rigged in Stones favor?.

1. If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

I have never supported POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes. The question is loaded because it assumes, without evidence, that POTUS was influencing DOJ.

In the other thread "Do the ends Justify the Means" You said, and I quote:

"The ends could justify the means but only if the means are just. If the means are just so are the ends."

What if the means are unjust? How does that square with your support of the Dumpertrumper?

If the means were unjust I wouldn't support it.

3. You said: "Even the appearance of bias can be ruinous to the entire justice system". Would the appearance of bias in an Impeachment trial be ruinous to the constitutional system?

It would and it was.

4. You said: "It looks like the trial against Stone is rigged. The jury foreman is an anti-Trump democratic candidate and Russia truther". Question to you: "If they were Trump supporting Republican would it have been rigged in Stone’s favour?"

It would, yes. Do you think it would not be?

You believe that smokescreen by Barr? — Noah Te Stroete

Absolutely agree: Smokescreen. Ball and cups game.

Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me.

Let's parse these questions very carefully one at a time. What did you mean from your quote above?

Then we will get to Dumpertrumper's tweets that influenced public policy (the second part of question #1). — NOS4A2

Cannot wait for the national debates between Bernie and Trump. — creativesoul

I don't think Trump will debate. He can't possibly look competent. He might just say they are rigged and be done with it.

I think Dumpertrumper met his match with Bloomberg, as well. Interesting irony there for sure...

Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me. — NOS4A2

(This might read a little better.) Let's parse these questions very carefully one at a time. What did you mean from your quote above?

have never supported POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes. The question is loaded because it assumes, without evidence, that POTUS was influencing DOJ. — NOS4A2

Then we will get to Dumpertrumper's tweets that influenced public policy (the second part of your above answer to question #1).

Again your assumption that Trump’s tweet somehow influenced Barr’s decision is just that, an assumption, and one that isn’t backed by any evidence save for fantasy. Carry on with your analysis.

Don't Mind if I do. We will get to that shortly. Let's get to your own statement credibility issues first, where you seem to be evading the question.

You said: "Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me."
— NOS4A2

Explain what you meant by that?

I believe it is unjust to punish someone in a manner not appropriate to their crime.

You're evading the question again. In your words, why was it justice that they left the DOJ?

You're evading the question again. In your words, why was it justice that they left the DOJ?

I was speaking about DOJ’s decision to change its recommendation.

You are evading the question once again. We already know that their job as prosecutors is to recommend sentencing. Again, why was it justice they left the DOJ?

You are evading the question once again. We already know that their job as prosecutors is to recommend sentencing. Again, why was it justice they left the DOJ?

Again, I was speaking about the recommendation of the DOJ for a lesser sentence. Someone linked to an article saying it was corruption. I said it sounded it justice. If you don’t want to know what I meant, why ask?

That's a valid complaint by Barr. The timing of Trump's tweet, though it agrees with Barr's assessment about the Stone case, has a tendency to fuel conspiracy theories among the Twitterati. — NOS4A2

A conpiracy theory is:

"a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" source

Trump's tweet doesn't suggest a conspiracy. Rather, it suggests he's interfering in the criminal justice process. And it IS an inappropriate interference- that's an unequivocal fact - and it's a clear counterexample to your claim that Trumps words don't matter.

Did the tweet have an effect? It's possible. Trump's behavior casts suspicion - that's the consequence of doing something inappropriate.

You're dancing. I know the article that was linked and I read it. Let's examine your reasoning:

a. If they weren't there, then would Justice have been better served ? Why or why not?

↪Relativist You believe that smokescreen by Barr? He’s working with Guiliani. — Noah Te Stroete

He criticized inappropriate action by Trump. That was the correct thing to do. Contrast this with the typical things we hear: telling us how wonderful it is that he hear exactly what the President thinks.
.

Trump's tweet doesn't suggest a conspiracy. Rather, it suggests he's interfering in the criminal justice process. And it IS an inappropriate interference- that's an unequivocal fact - and it's a clear counterexample to your claim that Trumps words don't matter.

Did the tweet have an effect? It's possible. Trump's behavior casts suspicion - that's the consequence of doing something inappropriate.

First, it is not inappropriate to call foul on injustice. In fact I think it is quite appropriate. Either way, how does a tweet have any bearing on a trial? If it does interfere that is a problem with the justice system, not the person who tweeted.

a. If they weren't there, then would Justice have been better served ? Why or why not?

I’d hope that their political affiliations did not come into play, that’s for sure. If there is a conflict of interest then it puts doubt on the whole process of justice.

First, it is not inappropriate to call foul on injustice. In fact I think it is quite appropriate — NOS4A2

Ah, so you disagree with Barr.

Our justice system is based on the premise of impartiality in its application. In his position as President, anything he says can potentially have an influence. So it is unequivocally wrong, and your inability to admit this suggests you truly think the man can do no wrong.

Did the tweet have an effect? — Relativist

It's the power of the tweet. So much plausible deniability in obstruction-by-tweet.

He criticized inappropriate action by Trump. That was the correct thing to do. Contrast this with the typical things we hear: telling us how wonderful it is that he hear exactly what the President thinks. — Relativist

Barr has to keep the DOJ together after four prosecutors resigned from the Roger Stone case and one altogether quit.

“Mr. President, you can’t go tweeting out our friends and enemies list otherwise I won’t be able to keep prosecutors on staff. This won’t work if you telegraph our plans to the world. I will go on TV to try to recover whatever credibility I might still have, but you’ve got to keep quiet!” -AG Barr (mutters under his breath, “What a fucking moron!”)

Barr : "shut up so I can concentrate on sucking your cock".

Don't kid yourself in him suddenly growing a moral backbone.

Don't kid yourself in him suddenly growing a moral backbone. — Benkei

I'm not. But I think it appropriate to identify behavior that is at least superficially good. I think one's credibility is damaged when one finds fault with everything the "opposition" does, just as credibility is damaged when one refuses to see fault in anything your side does (like NOS4A2 does).

Barr has to keep the DOJ together after four prosecutors resigned from the Roger Stone case and one altogether quit. — Noah Te Stroete

That's very possible, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

Did the tweet have an effect? — Relativist


It's the power of the tweet. So much plausible deniability in obstruction-by-tweet. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'm reminded of Michael Cohen's description of the way Trump let you know he'd like you to buy him some tie he'd seen. Trump would never directly ask for the tie, he'd just talk about how nice the ties is, and how good he thinks he'd look in it.

You’re still not getting it. The interview on ABC was a ruse. Barr and Trump have a friends and enemies list. Because Trump tweeted about Stone as Barr was recommending a lighter sentence than the four resigning prosecutors did, Barr HAD to go on TV.

OK, but would it have been better if Barr had pulled a Mike Pence, and lavished praise on Trump for sharing his innermost feelings? My point is there are worse things he could have said, and I don't know that there are things he could have said that would have been better.