Barr says Russia probe was started 'without basis'
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General William Barr believes the Russia investigation that shadowed President Donald Trump for the first two years of his administration was started without any basis and amounted to an effort to “sabotage the presidency,” he said in an interview with Fox News Channel that aired Thursday.
Barr offered no support for his assertion that the FBI lacked a basis for opening the investigation and made no mention of the fact that the bureau began its probe after a Trump campaign adviser purported to have early knowledge that Russia had dirt on Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.
Barr, who has appointed a U.S. Attorney to lead an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, said the Justice Department has evidence there was “something far more troubling” than just mistakes during the investigation that eventually morphed into special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.
“I think the president has every right to be frustrated, because I think what happened to him was one of the greatest travesties in American history,” Barr said in the interview with Fox News Channel's Laura Ingraham.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barr-says-russia-probe-was-started-without-basis/ar-BB12pF2S?li=BBnb7Kz
It seems like Barr is aiming to one-up Rudy Giuliani. Even scheduling meetings with Russian representatives to get dirt on an opponent or asking Russia hack an opponent is not enough to start an investigation?
= new reply since forum marked as read
ginger ale, or water?
going with gingerale
i may be rough but not heartless 😇
As it stands now, Trump's impeachment trial proved, there is no law, only what Fat Donnie decrees it to be. Witnesses and evidence presented during a trial? What an archaic concept. The Repugs were on board with that. Within an hour of Scalia's death, Moscow Mitch announced he would keep the SCOTUS seat empty until the 2016 election, but now he's taken the opposite position and says he'd rush through a Trump appointment during 2020 if Trump lost and a seat on the Court opened up. Constitutional oversight? Out the window! The Emoluments Clause? Who really cares if Trump uses the presidency to make a few bucks on the side? He's a businessman -- it's in his nature to make deals. Besides, he said he's forgoing his salary, so it all balances out, doesn't it?
As far as the SCOTUS goes, it's almost as if the concept of stare decisis has been totally thrown out by the conservative majority. In a recent case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the blistering dissent and accused the court’s conservatives of bias in favor of Trump.
Sotomayor said the administration has too quickly gone to the Supreme Court to appeal unfavorable decisions made by lower courts, and that by taking the cases, the Supreme Court is “putting a thumb on the scale in favor of” the president.
“Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each,” Sotomayor wrote. “And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow.”
My post about the Repugs trying to annul the impeachment was written tongue-in-cheek. 
Of course you're right; the Constitution doesn't provide for annuling an impeachment. I would bet the Repugs would disagree -- what's a little annulment among friends?
I still wonder about Barr's end game; I wish I could figure out what he's up to, other than trying to rewrite history before Trump leaves office.
