Trump Calls On Barr to "Act" on Biden Before Election Day

[mollyBrown]

@Mountain_Soldier

@mollyBrown

@Mountain_Soldier

@margaretms2

Today, in totally normal news that’s cool, the President has been calling on the US attorney general to “act”—indict, prosecute—his political opponents in the two weeks before the election.

The president made the remark during an interview with “Fox & Friends,” after days of caustic criticism of Mr. Biden, the moderators of the presidential debates, the news media and, increasingly, Mr. Barr. He recently said the attorney general would go down in history “as a very sad, sad situation” if he did not indict Democrats like Mr. Biden and former President Barack Obama LINK

Remember back in 2016, when an ex-president with no power meeting with an attorney general caused pearl-clutching, fainting, and vapors? As a writer in The National Review noted, the optics alone were disqualifying:

That means the appearance that everything is on the up-and-up is just as important as the fact that it is. The most critical thing about decisions the system reaches is not that they are right but that we can have confidence they are arrived at in good faith. LINK

And let’s not forget the coverage at the time, which contrasts nicely with the current situation:

There’s no real furor now, in part, because this tire-fire-on-a-shipwreck of an administration destroyed all expectations for ethical behavior years ago.

Is everyone cool with the President pressuring the AG to prosecute a political opponent two weeks before the election?
.

Oh cool. Liberals finally have a problem with this. I remember a much different reaction back in 2016.

Oh look trying to compare apples with rotten maggot infested garbage.

Was the meeting of Lynch and Clinton not completely and thoroughly explained away and defended at the time? I seem to recall that quite vividly. Nobody on the left even batted an eye.

Why talk in absolutes? What not hold the party you support up to a standard higher then the partY you dislike?

You were wrong of course again. It happens often when trying to do whataboutism.

Bipartisan Disapproval Follows Bill Clinton's Meeting With Loretta Lynch

[DOLOOP]

@TommyLucchese

Guys guys guys he’s just asking publicly for the attorney general to indict his political opponent two weeks before Election Day. This is totally cool.

Trumpists are all in on it.

Gonna have to kick Trumpism to the dark corners of American political life. Just like we did with the slavers and the fascists in the 40s. They always come scurrying back, but we usually can get a generation or two of them whimpering in the dark. Granted, this time, they’ll have a Supreme Court majority to help keep the lights on for a while, but even that court will try couch its darkest impulses in some feel good language.

Gonna be a bumpy ride, but it’s got to be done.

[margaretms2]

@Mountain_Soldier

Was the meeting of Lynch and Clinton not completely and thoroughly explained away and defended at the time? I seem to recall that quite vividly. Nobody on the left even batted an eye.

Even the liberal New Republic thought it was stupid at the time:

Bill Clinton Can’t Help Himself

Note: there’s exactly zero evidence that Bill Clinton—who was not the President of the United States—discussed anything of substance with Lynch, who apologized afterwards:

“People have a whole host of reasons to have questions about how we in government do our business,” Ms. Lynch said at an Aspen Institute conference in Colorado. “My meeting on the plane with former President Clinton could give them another reason to have questions and concerns.”

And she said as a result, she would she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case.

But Bill Clinton was not the ■■■■■■■ President, nor—again—is there any evidence that anything unethical actually occurred. I guess we’ll wait for Trump’s apology, though.

In contrast, what Trump is doing is flat-out authoritarian banana-republic ■■■■■■■■■ Rather than parse, deflect, and both-sides it, why not just say: YEAH. I WANT TRUMP AND BARR TO DO THIS?

[WuWei]

@margaretms2

Note: there’s exactly zero evidence that Bill Clinton—who was not the President of the United States—discussed anything of substance with Lynch, who apologized afterwards:

My emphasis.

[margaretms2]

@WuWei

It’s not a thing at all.

The President of the United States pressuring the US attorney general to indict/prosecute a political opponent and an ex-President a couple weeks before an election is definitely a “thing.”

[WuWei]

@margaretms2

@WuWei

It’s not a thing at all.

The President of the United States pressuring the US attorney general to indict/prosecute a political opponent and an ex-President a couple weeks before an election is definitely a “thing.”

No, it is not.

[margaretms2]

Okay, Henry James. Spell it out for the slow kids: I have no idea what this means.

[WuWei]

The caveat. I fixed it.

My name is not Henry James.

[mobiusptc]

@margaretms2

Today, in totally normal news that’s cool, the President has been calling on the US attorney general to “act”—indict, prosecute—his political opponents in the two weeks before the election.

The president made the remark during an interview with “Fox & Friends,” after days of caustic criticism of Mr. Biden, the moderators of the presidential debates, the news media and, increasingly, Mr. Barr. He recently said the attorney general would go down in history “as a very sad, sad situation” if he did not indict Democrats like Mr. Biden and former President Barack Obama LINK

Remember back in 2016, when an ex-president with no power meeting with an attorney general caused pearl-clutching, fainting, and vapors? As a writer in The National Review noted, the optics alone were disqualifying:

That means the appearance that everything is on the up-and-up is just as important as the fact that it is. The most critical thing about decisions the system reaches is not that they are right but that we can have confidence they are arrived at in good faith. LINK

And let’s not forget the coverage at the time, which contrasts nicely with the current situation:

There’s no real furor now, in part, because this tire-fire-on-a-shipwreck of an administration destroyed all expectations for ethical behavior years ago.

Is everyone cool with the President pressuring the AG to prosecute a political opponent two weeks before the election?
.

gotta love and support his policies

[margaretms2]

@mollyBrown

Why talk in absolutes? What not hold the party you support up to a standard higher then the partY you dislike?

You were wrong of course again. It happens often when trying to do whataboutism.

After Bill Clinton Met With Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Republicans And Democrats Disapproved : NPR

We’ll wait for the chorus of reflective and circumspect Republicans to say: Hey, maybe this is over the line. That is, we can wait for two seconds and stop waiting because it’s never going to happen—at least while Trump is still in office. Later, we’ll hear most of these people swear they were always against his cartoonishly obvious abuses of power because something something he was a liberal anyway.

[mollyBrown]

@margaretms2

@mollyBrown

Why talk in absolutes? What not hold the party you support up to a standard higher then the partY you dislike?

You were wrong of course again. It happens often when trying to do whataboutism.

After Bill Clinton Met With Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Republicans And Democrats Disapproved : NPR

We’ll wait for the chorus of reflective and circumspect Republicans to say: Hey, maybe this is over the line. That is, we can wait for two seconds and stop waiting because it’s never going to happen—at least while Trump is still in office. Later, we’ll hear most of these people swear they were always against his cartoonishly obvious abuses of power because something something he was a liberal anyway.

Much like Jeff Flake on his call or John Corryn silently opposing Trump. The lying to ones self is sad and disgusting. We are going to see a lot of it.

[DOLOOP]

@margaretms2

@mollyBrown

Why talk in absolutes? What not hold the party you support up to a standard higher then the partY you dislike?

You were wrong of course again. It happens often when trying to do whataboutism.

After Bill Clinton Met With Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Republicans And Democrats Disapproved : NPR

We’ll wait for the chorus of reflective and circumspect Republicans to say: Hey, maybe this is over the line. That is, we can wait for two seconds and stop waiting because it’s never going to happen—at least while Trump is still in office. Later, we’ll hear most of these people swear they were always against his cartoonishly obvious abuses of power because something something he was a liberal anyway.

Cornyn’s already trying to walk his massive, massive collaboration back.

[TommyLucchese]

@WuWei

If there is a reason to indict, the election is no reason not to.

No one is above the law.

Ignoring the fact that the Justice Department disagrees with you, what exactly is the crime? Please only answer if you’re going to tell me what the crime Biden should be indicted for is.

[WuWei]

Libs are so different and morally superior to everyone else we are truly fortunate to have you © deign to favor us with your © presence.

[WuWei]

Crime? Collusion.

[TommyLucchese]

@WuWei

It’s not a thing at all.

Knew you couldn’t do it. Lol

[highroller]

Crap like this is why I didn’t vote for Clinton, and crap like this is why I voted for Biden. While you are saying “Libs didn’t have a problem back then,” people like me are running for the hills from your candidate.

[TommyLucchese]

@WuWei

Crime? Collusion.

Oh so Trump is just asking questions publicly ordering Barr to indict Biden. What has happened to you guys.

[WuWei]

Why would I? It’s not a thing. Trump talks out of his ass.

[DOLOOP]

@WuWei

Libs are so different and morally superior to everyone else we are truly fortunate to have you © deign to favor us with your © presence.

Heh, heh.