are the dems that doubt barrs summary

[BULLDOG]

William Barr is NOT the federal government. He is a Trump appointed AG. It’s a job requirement that you have no ethics and you’re prepared to lie for Trump.

Really? Is that why he was Bush's Attorney General? If I recall correctly, Trump had never met Barr before nominating him.

Yet he was aware that Barr said the investigation was flawed, and Trump was innocent, long before the investigation was complete.

Everyone except dishonest partisan hacks knew he was innocent

Got it. You don't want the investigation results made public. Trump and Barr agree with you.

That's not what was said. Can you even read, dumbass?

If he intends to redact anything that might tend to embarrass anyone, that's exactly what he said.

 

[BULLDOG]

William Barr is NOT the federal government. He is a Trump appointed AG. It’s a job requirement that you have no ethics and you’re prepared to lie for Trump.

Really? Is that why he was Bush's Attorney General? If I recall correctly, Trump had never met Barr before nominating him.

Yet he was aware that Barr said the investigation was flawed, and Trump was innocent, long before the investigation was complete.

No, what he said there was no legitimate predicate for the investigation, so the investigation itself was illegitimate, and therefore obstruction of justice was impossible since the investigation had no legitimate predicate. Perhaps in Stalin's Russia or in Hitler's Germany it was legitimate to hold investigations that were not based on legitimate grounds, but not the in US.

Got it. He ignored the fact that every investigative agency we have said Russia interfered with the intention of helping Trump. Barr is trying to shield Trump. I don't think he will be successful.

Whatever the Russians may have done, there is no evidence, according to Mueller, that the President or anyone associated with his campaign colluded with Russia and when questioned about why that was ever alleged, top Obama officials, such as John Brennan, have been unable to explain why they may have thought so. Since there was never a legitimate predicate for the investigation, the investigation was illegitimate and therefore there could not have been any obstruction of justice.

Since Brenner wasn't involved in conducting the investigation, I don't see what anything he might have said matters. There was plenty of reason to investigate, no matter what Hannity might have told you.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Really? Is that why he was Bush's Attorney General? If I recall correctly, Trump had never met Barr before nominating him.

Yet he was aware that Barr said the investigation was flawed, and Trump was innocent, long before the investigation was complete.

No, what he said there was no legitimate predicate for the investigation, so the investigation itself was illegitimate, and therefore obstruction of justice was impossible since the investigation had no legitimate predicate. Perhaps in Stalin's Russia or in Hitler's Germany it was legitimate to hold investigations that were not based on legitimate grounds, but not the in US.

Got it. He ignored the fact that every investigative agency we have said Russia interfered with the intention of helping Trump. Barr is trying to shield Trump. I don't think he will be successful.

Whatever the Russians may have done, there is no evidence, according to Mueller, that the President or anyone associated with his campaign colluded with Russia and when questioned about why that was ever alleged, top Obama officials, such as John Brennan, have been unable to explain why they may have thought so. Since there was never a legitimate predicate for the investigation, the investigation was illegitimate and therefore there could not have been any obstruction of justice.

Since Brenner wasn't involved in conducting the investigation, I don't see what anything he might have said matters. There was plenty of reason to investigate, no matter what Hannity might have told you.

Brennan was Obama's CIA director and as such he promoted the idea that there was reasons to believe there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but when he was questioned before the Senate, he couldn't explain why he believed it. The question is had he conspired with the Clinton campaign to promote this rumor to aid the Democrats in 2016?

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet he was aware that Barr said the investigation was flawed, and Trump was innocent, long before the investigation was complete.

No, what he said there was no legitimate predicate for the investigation, so the investigation itself was illegitimate, and therefore obstruction of justice was impossible since the investigation had no legitimate predicate. Perhaps in Stalin's Russia or in Hitler's Germany it was legitimate to hold investigations that were not based on legitimate grounds, but not the in US.

Got it. He ignored the fact that every investigative agency we have said Russia interfered with the intention of helping Trump. Barr is trying to shield Trump. I don't think he will be successful.

Whatever the Russians may have done, there is no evidence, according to Mueller, that the President or anyone associated with his campaign colluded with Russia and when questioned about why that was ever alleged, top Obama officials, such as John Brennan, have been unable to explain why they may have thought so. Since there was never a legitimate predicate for the investigation, the investigation was illegitimate and therefore there could not have been any obstruction of justice.

Since Brenner wasn't involved in conducting the investigation, I don't see what anything he might have said matters. There was plenty of reason to investigate, no matter what Hannity might have told you.

Brennan was Obama's CIA director and as such he promoted the idea that there was reasons to believe there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but when he was questioned before the Senate, he couldn't explain why he believed it. The question is had he conspired with the Clinton campaign to promote this rumor to aid the Democrats in 2016?

Conspiring to promote a rumor? Kinda like all that birth certificate crap? You know that was Trump's main campaign point, right?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Conspiracy theorists?
You know, they say that everytime you doubt the fed gov. Even when actual cables and emails get leaked..
What do you think? It definitely seems consistent logic

are the Repubs that blindly accept the Barr summary big government statist?

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, what he said there was no legitimate predicate for the investigation, so the investigation itself was illegitimate, and therefore obstruction of justice was impossible since the investigation had no legitimate predicate. Perhaps in Stalin's Russia or in Hitler's Germany it was legitimate to hold investigations that were not based on legitimate grounds, but not the in US.

Got it. He ignored the fact that every investigative agency we have said Russia interfered with the intention of helping Trump. Barr is trying to shield Trump. I don't think he will be successful.

Whatever the Russians may have done, there is no evidence, according to Mueller, that the President or anyone associated with his campaign colluded with Russia and when questioned about why that was ever alleged, top Obama officials, such as John Brennan, have been unable to explain why they may have thought so. Since there was never a legitimate predicate for the investigation, the investigation was illegitimate and therefore there could not have been any obstruction of justice.

Since Brenner wasn't involved in conducting the investigation, I don't see what anything he might have said matters. There was plenty of reason to investigate, no matter what Hannity might have told you.

Brennan was Obama's CIA director and as such he promoted the idea that there was reasons to believe there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but when he was questioned before the Senate, he couldn't explain why he believed it. The question is had he conspired with the Clinton campaign to promote this rumor to aid the Democrats in 2016?

Conspiring to promote a rumor? Kinda like all that birth certificate crap? You know that was Trump's main campaign point, right?

In other words you approve of the CIA director conspiring with a political campaign to influence an election through fraud. Then you should have no objection to a special counselor being appointed to investigate these allegations of conspiracy and fraud by the Obama administration.

 

[BULLDOG]

Got it. He ignored the fact that every investigative agency we have said Russia interfered with the intention of helping Trump. Barr is trying to shield Trump. I don't think he will be successful.

Whatever the Russians may have done, there is no evidence, according to Mueller, that the President or anyone associated with his campaign colluded with Russia and when questioned about why that was ever alleged, top Obama officials, such as John Brennan, have been unable to explain why they may have thought so. Since there was never a legitimate predicate for the investigation, the investigation was illegitimate and therefore there could not have been any obstruction of justice.

Since Brenner wasn't involved in conducting the investigation, I don't see what anything he might have said matters. There was plenty of reason to investigate, no matter what Hannity might have told you.

Brennan was Obama's CIA director and as such he promoted the idea that there was reasons to believe there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but when he was questioned before the Senate, he couldn't explain why he believed it. The question is had he conspired with the Clinton campaign to promote this rumor to aid the Democrats in 2016?

Conspiring to promote a rumor? Kinda like all that birth certificate crap? You know that was Trump's main campaign point, right?

In other words you approve of the CIA director conspiring with a political campaign to influence an election through fraud. Then you should have no objection to a special counselor being appointed to investigate these allegations of conspiracy and fraud by the Obama administration.

That's not what happened no matter what Hannity told you.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Whatever the Russians may have done, there is no evidence, according to Mueller, that the President or anyone associated with his campaign colluded with Russia and when questioned about why that was ever alleged, top Obama officials, such as John Brennan, have been unable to explain why they may have thought so. Since there was never a legitimate predicate for the investigation, the investigation was illegitimate and therefore there could not have been any obstruction of justice.

Since Brenner wasn't involved in conducting the investigation, I don't see what anything he might have said matters. There was plenty of reason to investigate, no matter what Hannity might have told you.

Brennan was Obama's CIA director and as such he promoted the idea that there was reasons to believe there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but when he was questioned before the Senate, he couldn't explain why he believed it. The question is had he conspired with the Clinton campaign to promote this rumor to aid the Democrats in 2016?

Conspiring to promote a rumor? Kinda like all that birth certificate crap? You know that was Trump's main campaign point, right?

In other words you approve of the CIA director conspiring with a political campaign to influence an election through fraud. Then you should have no objection to a special counselor being appointed to investigate these allegations of conspiracy and fraud by the Obama administration.

That's not what happened no matter what Hannity told you.

Maybe it did and maybe it didn't and that's why a special counsel should be appointed to find out. If you are so sure it never happened, why would you object?

 

[BULLDOG]

Since Brenner wasn't involved in conducting the investigation, I don't see what anything he might have said matters. There was plenty of reason to investigate, no matter what Hannity might have told you.

Brennan was Obama's CIA director and as such he promoted the idea that there was reasons to believe there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but when he was questioned before the Senate, he couldn't explain why he believed it. The question is had he conspired with the Clinton campaign to promote this rumor to aid the Democrats in 2016?

Conspiring to promote a rumor? Kinda like all that birth certificate crap? You know that was Trump's main campaign point, right?

In other words you approve of the CIA director conspiring with a political campaign to influence an election through fraud. Then you should have no objection to a special counselor being appointed to investigate these allegations of conspiracy and fraud by the Obama administration.

That's not what happened no matter what Hannity told you.

Maybe it did and maybe it didn't and that's why a special counsel should be appointed to find out. If you are so sure it never happened, why would you object?

Because there is no credible reason to believe that happened. The facts about what actually happened are well known. I understand you probably didn't hear about any of that from Fox or Hannity, but that doesn't mean the sane world is unaware of it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What behavior convinced you to believe the collusion delusion?

Try to focus troll. We are talking about the investigation, and what led to its beginning and its focus. And trump's own bizarre behavior had a lot to do with the special counsel being appointed and handed an investigation. And if you have to wonder aloud what behavior is at issue, Then you have been in a coma for 2 years and should not be commenting on this topic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sole qualifications?

No troll, i didnt use the plural word.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Conspiracy theorists?
You know, they say that everytime you doubt the fed gov. Even when actual cables and emails get leaked..
What do you think? It definitely seems consistent logic

Four pages that quote only 1.5 sentences of the report can't possibly convey the information that we need and deserve from that report. It would hardly be adequate for a Jr High book report. Release the report, and then those questions will be answered.

I can't wait to read the REDACTED report with all the PROOF extracted/blacked out.

 

[ranfunck]

Hard to believe there are so many still grasping at straws, aren't y all tired of taking it in the ass

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Really? Is that why he was Bush's Attorney General? If I recall correctly, Trump had never met Barr before nominating him.

Yet he was aware that Barr said the investigation was flawed, and Trump was innocent, long before the investigation was complete.

No, what he said there was no legitimate predicate for the investigation, so the investigation itself was illegitimate, and therefore obstruction of justice was impossible since the investigation had no legitimate predicate. Perhaps in Stalin's Russia or in Hitler's Germany it was legitimate to hold investigations that were not based on legitimate grounds, but not the in US.

Got it. He ignored the fact that every investigative agency we have said Russia interfered with the intention of helping Trump. Barr is trying to shield Trump. I don't think he will be successful.

No, they said Russia interfered with the election. Why would they help Trump? They already had Clinton in their back pocket!

I'm sure Mueller's report covered that. Now, if we could just see that report.

Bullshit! Mueller never really touched on it. If he had, Hillary would be wearing an orange coverall.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When what happens? He has stated the report will be released no later than mid-April. Do you even bother watching or reading the news? Is that why you seem to have a terminal case of dumbass?

I know what he said. I just doubt he will do as he said and release the report in a form that can answer all the questions. He is Trump's Roy Cohn, and he was given the job only after his unsolicited letter claiming Mueller's investigation was flawed. Barr's credibility doesn't allow taking him at his word. After the report is released we'll see.

The only part that will not be released is that which cannot be released by law.

If you wait, why not STFU and stop lying?

Really? Barr said he would exclude anything that might tend to embarrass anybody. What legal restriction prevents the release of that?

The law, dumbass!

Which law?

It is against the law to release grand jury testimony for one. Then, to a much lesser extent, there are libel laws.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet he was aware that Barr said the investigation was flawed, and Trump was innocent, long before the investigation was complete.

No, what he said there was no legitimate predicate for the investigation, so the investigation itself was illegitimate, and therefore obstruction of justice was impossible since the investigation had no legitimate predicate. Perhaps in Stalin's Russia or in Hitler's Germany it was legitimate to hold investigations that were not based on legitimate grounds, but not the in US.

Got it. He ignored the fact that every investigative agency we have said Russia interfered with the intention of helping Trump. Barr is trying to shield Trump. I don't think he will be successful.

No, they said Russia interfered with the election. Why would they help Trump? They already had Clinton in their back pocket!

I'm sure Mueller's report covered that. Now, if we could just see that report.

Bullshit! Mueller never really touched on it. If he had, Hillary would be wearing an orange coverall.

Pure fantasy

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Really? Is that why he was Bush's Attorney General? If I recall correctly, Trump had never met Barr before nominating him.

Yet he was aware that Barr said the investigation was flawed, and Trump was innocent, long before the investigation was complete.

Everyone except dishonest partisan hacks knew he was innocent

Got it. You don't want the investigation results made public. Trump and Barr agree with you.

That's not what was said. Can you even read, dumbass?

If he intends to redact anything that might tend to embarrass anyone, that's exactly what he said.

This is what you quoted:
"Everyone except dishonest partisan hacks knew he was innocent"

This what you claimed:
"Got it. You don't want the investigation results made public. Trump and Barr agree with you"

Now, explain how those are in the same universe, much less the same thing.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Conspiracy theorists?
You know, they say that everytime you doubt the fed gov. Even when actual cables and emails get leaked..
What do you think? It definitely seems consistent logic

Four pages that quote only 1.5 sentences of the report can't possibly convey the information that we need and deserve from that report. It would hardly be adequate for a Jr High book report. Release the report, and then those questions will be answered.

You might be in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toomuchtime_]

Brennan was Obama's CIA director and as such he promoted the idea that there was reasons to believe there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but when he was questioned before the Senate, he couldn't explain why he believed it. The question is had he conspired with the Clinton campaign to promote this rumor to aid the Democrats in 2016?

Conspiring to promote a rumor? Kinda like all that birth certificate crap? You know that was Trump's main campaign point, right?

In other words you approve of the CIA director conspiring with a political campaign to influence an election through fraud. Then you should have no objection to a special counselor being appointed to investigate these allegations of conspiracy and fraud by the Obama administration.

That's not what happened no matter what Hannity told you.

Maybe it did and maybe it didn't and that's why a special counsel should be appointed to find out. If you are so sure it never happened, why would you object?

Because there is no credible reason to believe that happened. The facts about what actually happened are well known. I understand you probably didn't hear about any of that from Fox or Hannity, but that doesn't mean the sane world is unaware of it.

You apparently have no idea what the facts are. The rumors about collusion began when Wikileaks published materials from the DNC server and Obama and Clinton tried to distract voters from the material by falsely claiming that Trump had conspired with the Russians to hack the DNC server in order to boost his campaign and Brennan jumped right in to give credibility to the false claims by Obama and Clinton. Right there is a sufficient basis for investigating if there was any collusion between the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign to smear Trump with false claims in order to influence the campaign.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet he was aware that Barr said the investigation was flawed, and Trump was innocent, long before the investigation was complete.

No, what he said there was no legitimate predicate for the investigation, so the investigation itself was illegitimate, and therefore obstruction of justice was impossible since the investigation had no legitimate predicate. Perhaps in Stalin's Russia or in Hitler's Germany it was legitimate to hold investigations that were not based on legitimate grounds, but not the in US.

Got it. He ignored the fact that every investigative agency we have said Russia interfered with the intention of helping Trump. Barr is trying to shield Trump. I don't think he will be successful.

No, they said Russia interfered with the election. Why would they help Trump? They already had Clinton in their back pocket!

I'm sure Mueller's report covered that. Now, if we could just see that report.

Bullshit! Mueller never really touched on it. If he had, Hillary would be wearing an orange coverall.

If you haven't seen the report, you can't say that. I'm sure he found lots of reasons why they would help Trump.