Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1126888)

3/25/2019 9:12:56 PM

From: Brumar89

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
rdkflorida2

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574773

Barr claimed 'no Americans were charged who conspired with foreign agents.'

That has to be categorically false. Manafort, Gates, Stone, Papadopulos, Page. Then there is Richard Pinedo, who sold fake IDs and bank accounts (who the hell even knew that was a thing) to the Russians supplying them the means to set up their fake social media accounts. That was discovered from the filing for the 13 Russian indictments.

The Stone indictment, as Andrew pointed out, alleged someone from the campaign instructed him to contact Wiki. Wiki has been proven to be a Russian GRU front. The legalese bullshit comes into play there that, no, there probably isn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump himself instructed Stone to do that. There is probably enough circumstantial evidence though.

Barr used legalese bullshit to obfuscate between the "Russian government" and Russian oligarchs working for the Russian government implying there is no direct connection between those. Barr knows that was blurring the lines implying there are no provable direct links parsing that "there is no evidence the 'Russian government' conspired with the Trumps.

Then there are Barr's own words:
"Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding's truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction."

"Do you believe a President could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient's promise to not incriminate him?" Leahy asked.

"No. That would be a crime," Barr responded.

Trump has done 3 things that Barr says amounts to crimes:
1) Floated pardons to at least 3 people
2) Had his lawyer edit false testimony
3) Draft a statement that became false testimony

THENEWSBLENDER