NDBC

Quick! Someone fetch Tom's fainting couch.

The reason NBC had to apologize is because Todd basically smeared Barr by stating "He didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law".  When in fact Barr made that exact case in the very next sentenence.  You know...the one that was cut.  "I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law".  

I'm glad I can help you understand that journalists shouldn't cut what the US Attorney General says from a video clip and then claim the person never said it.  The irony is Todd was rewriting history in real time.

Charles supports the lying Trump lackey, Barr (no one disputes that he lied about the findings of the Mueller report, among many, many other things). He supports Trump, the pathological liar.

Charles loves, supports, and admires liars. Barr may have been misquoted this one time. That doesn't excuse his dozens of bald-faced lies in the past.

I was simply responding to the topic and explaining to PJ why NBC had to apologize for their 'journalist' claiming Barr said the exact opposite of what he actually said....after they cut that from their video. 

And you call David Miller 'Stalker' yet you have to respond to my every post.  Even though you claimed you could ignore me you just can't.   You are obsessed with my thoughts because your TDS and narcissism won't allow you to not respond to me.  Sad.  Seek help.

Huh...what? 

Chuck Todd is 100% correct.  Barr did not make the case for it upholding the rule of law.     

Barr did not cite any precedent...or show any evidence Flynn did not do the things he pleaded guilty to...or defend  Flynn's dealings with the Russians or his lies to the FBI about them.    

I mean, unless NBC cut that out too.   Maybe you can show us where Barr spelled out how the rule of US law is to exonerate a convicted felon by virtue of their friendly relationship to the White House.

You're not getting this.  The question in Barr's interview was 'How will history look at this'.  Barr made a quip that history is written by the winners.  And in the next sentence (that was cut) claimed:  "I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law".  

Chuck Todd acted like all Barr said was history is written by the winners and remarked how cynical that was and that Barr's appeal to history "didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law".  When in fact that's exactly the case Barr made in his next sentence...but that ended up on the NBC News cutting room floor.  It's almost as if Chuck only saw the cut version.

If you want to argue the actual facts of the case and why it was dropped that's different than Chuck Todd directly misrepresenting what Barr said in these sound bites.  Maybe you could start by reviewing the Government's motion to dismiss.  Then point out in what way this does not in fact uphold the rule of law and give General Flynn relief from serious FBI and prosecutorial misconduct.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6936-michael-flynn-motion-to-dismiss/fa06f5e13a0ec71843b6/optimized/full.pdf

Of course you want to make this all about Barr and use your hatred of President Trump to smear Barr and claim he was acting as a puppet to Trump.  That's not the case.  The recommendation to drop the case was made by US Attorney Jeff Jensen (Who has been a prosecutor for 10 years and was an FBI agent for 10 years).   His independent review of the case brought to light how flawed this prosecution was and lead to the 105 page motion filed above.

Also note that U.S. Attorney Tim Shea signed the motion to dismiss, agreed with Jensen’s recommendation and said "the FBI had no reason to investigate Flynn after they didn’t find illegal activity from their initial investigations."

In addition to the FBI not having a valid reason to even interview Flynn in the first place, the prosecutor in the case did not produce exculpatory evidence ordered by the court in October 2019 until it was 'found' two weeks ago.  That included handwritten FBI notes suggesting that their objective may have been to get Flynn to lie and get him fired.

Now if PJ's model of the 'Rule of Law' is a country that sends in law enforcement without cause to interview a citizen in order to trap him in a lie and then withholds exculpatory evidence at his trial, then we have different opinions on what the Rule of Law is.

I could ignore you, and I often choose to do exactly that. Sometimes I respond when you spout a particularly egregious stupid Trumper lie. In such cases, I'm responding to the lie, not you. You are of no importance.

And BTW, I call it "Stalker" because it has threatened to find me and kill me on two separate occasions, and other forum participants as well. Not that it actually has the balls to do any such thing.

Here's what the people who weren't "the winners" said about the rule of law and Barr's historicaly corrupt action.   Barr has yet to change his view or issue an apology.    I guess he wont get a job at NBC.

Open letter signed by 2000 former DOJ Officials from both parties 

"If anyone else who is not a friend of the president "were to lie to federal investigators in the course of a properly predicated counterintelligence investigation, and admit we did so under oath, we could be prosecuted," the letter said.

The letter calls on Barr to resign and encourages Congress to formally censure Barr over "his repeated assaults on the rule of law in doing the President’s personal bidding rather than acting in the public interest."

Statement (A)  "didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law".

Statement (B)  I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law".  

Charles, I'm afraid basic grammar and subject-verb comprehension does not support your conclusion.

The rules of the English language are clear here:

Statement (B) does not make a case for anything.   It renders an opinion about future public opinion.   

Statement (B) is not the oppositte of statement (A).

What else can I help with today?

And now Chuck Todd has apologized with the following statement:   

“In the full version of the interview and transcript, he went on to say, ‘But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law.’ Now, we did not edit that out. That was not our edit. We didn’t include it because we only saw the shorter of two clips that CBS did air.

“We should have looked at both and checked for a full transcript. A mistake that I wish we hadn’t made and one I wish I hadn’t made. The second part of the Attorney General’s answer would have put it in the proper context. Had we seen that part of the CBS interview, I would not have framed the conversation the way I did, and I obviously am very sorry for that mistake. We strive to do better going forward.”

Soooo.  I was correct when I stated that 'it's almost like Todd only saw the cut version'.  Todd admits they got it wrong.  That his discussion was framed without the proper context and he is sorry for his mistake. 

So why did PJ go to great lengths to try to spin this the way he did?  Could it be that he hates Trump so much that he can't face the real facts....or maybe he just doesn't care.?  At least Chuck Todd was man enough to apologize for his mistake.

What else can I help with today?