Barr Tells Congress Rats To Pound Sand

[Billo_Really]

Nobody is in jail ya blithering halfwit.....not Flynn, not Stone, not even Manafort or Cohen. Pop was sentenced to 14 days but only did ten for imaginary perjury.

WTF do you call this?

 

[WillPower]

Nobody is in jail ya blithering halfwit.....not Flynn, not Stone, not even Manafort or Cohen. Pop was sentenced to 14 days but only did ten for imaginary perjury.

WTF do you call this?

I call it a booking photo of Manafort before he was held in solitary confinement during the Mueller HOAX. Nothing he is charged with and convicted of had anything to do with Trump. If he's been finally sent to prison, tell me when that was and where he is incarcerated.....good luck, dummy.

 

[AntonToo]

So you can’t explain why you believe it’s “just words”, you just pathetically try to switch topics.

Good job useful moron, you can now get back to your blind Dear Leader worshiping.

How can you type so well with Hillary's panties stuck in your throat?

This has been another fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trumpster.

How would you know? Seen the report?

Barr also took it upon himself to clear Trump on Obstruction, which is of course not a credible judgement considering he auditioned for the job by assuring Trump he could not possibly commit that.

Let’s see the report, wtf are you Trumplings so concerned about if it really does clear Trump???

Barr did nothing of the sort. Did you ever even bother to read his summary?

"The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public."

"As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. ""

"After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""

It's pretty obvious that all Barr did was summarize what Mueller said, and quote him directly where appropriate.

So why don't you tell us where Barr "took it upon himself to exonerate Trump"?

Yes I did read it DID YOU????

It EXPLICITLY states that Mueller specifically DID NOT clear Trump of Obstruction and it was Barr that took it upon himself to clear him on that.

It’s RIGHT THERE IN YOUR QUOTE, READ THE FUCKING THING

I never said Mueller DID exonerate him. I asked you to show me where BARR exonerated him. So clearly, the problem is that you don't understand English the instant something is said that isn't what you want to hear, kinda like my Chinese mother-in-law.

This has been another not-at-all-fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trump Derangement mental case who's frothing at the mouth while his eyes roll in opposite directions and screaming, "If you don't want Trump dead, you're a TRUMPSTER!!!! Nothing else exists!!!! Aaaaarrrrgghh!!!"

The problem isn't that I'm a "Trumpster", you 1-digit-IQ shitforbrains. I don't like the guy. The problem is that every time you open your drooling cakehole, you make Trump look rational, intelligent, and classy. So congratulations on being a bigger shitstain than the guy you're obsessed with hating.

1. I was replying in the first half to smoke-a-lib, not you.


2. YOU ARE STILL NOT READING. Mueller didn’t clear Trump on Obstruction BUT BARR DID.

Here it is since you can’t find it:

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

That's not clearing him, moron, any more than it was when Mueller said essentially the same thing (and that IS what Mueller said, and Mueller's report IS the reason Barr said it.)

You're still not thinking. Really need to clear that "We MUST get Trump!!!" obsession you have. They have meds for that.

Wow you are a straight up moron unable to admit when you are 100% wrong, in plain black and white words of Barr’s letter.

Nothing to do with anyone’s “thinking” it’s just facts.

 

[busybee01]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

"Oversight" doesn't mean that the House can run roughshod over the Executive.
The USSC will probably need to decide on the interpretation of the "Law vs oversight".
Barr will not provide the unredacted report until the USSC says they have to.

Yes it does in regards to any document that is produced by the Executive Branch.
If the USSC follows the precedents established during Watergate, it will be released to Congress.
Barr will not be allowed to continue his coverup.

I guess you are not aware that the law was changed, by the DEMs, after Bill Clinton was impeached.
There's lots of information about the change in the law available on Google.

Again Congress has oversight powers and are entitled to see the unredacted report. A law cannot override the Constitution. I would suggest you look at information regarding the White House's refusal to turn over documents to Congress during the Watergate investigation.

 

[busybee01]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

"Oversight" doesn't mean that the House can run roughshod over the Executive.
The USSC will probably need to decide on the interpretation of the "Law vs oversight".
Barr will not provide the unredacted report until the USSC says they have to.

Yes it does in regards to any document that is produced by the Executive Branch.
If the USSC follows the precedents established during Watergate, it will be released to Congress.
Barr will not be allowed to continue his coverup.

If you believe the SC is going to rule in favor of the AG releasing the unredacted Muller report to Congress you are fucking delusional.
They KNOW Shit For Brains would leak the report the NYT within 10 minutes of him getting a copy of the report.
So does everyone in Washington!

You are the one who is delusional. The Supreme Court's job is to uphold the Constitution and that is all. Whether it is leaked is none of their concern.

 

[busybee01]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

"Oversight" doesn't mean that the House can run roughshod over the Executive.
The USSC will probably need to decide on the interpretation of the "Law vs oversight".
Barr will not provide the unredacted report until the USSC says they have to.

Yes it does in regards to any document that is produced by the Executive Branch.
If the USSC follows the precedents established during Watergate, it will be released to Congress.
Barr will not be allowed to continue his coverup.

The Law was revised since Watergate. There is no coverup, only what the Law prescribes to be released.
If the dems don't like that, they can tee it up in court.

These laws do not apply to Congress because the Congress is charged with oversight over the Executive branch. Congress cannot give that power away by a law.

 

[busybee01]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

Don't you, lush, and care4none EVER get tired of lying? The lying Dimbos are entitled to NOTHING. Learn the law, then maybe you won't look quite so stupid. By all means, all three of you keep lying and crying as we laugh at you. Poor Dimbos, getting nothing and being told to like it.

You are the lying little weasel. The Congress is entitled to any documents as they have the responsibility of oversight. You need to learn the law and about the Constitution. 77% of Trump supporters want the report publicly released Dumbo.

"You need to learn about the law and the Constitution. I'm not going to cite either to prove my point, however. I'm just going to chant the words and hope you believe me that that means they agree with me."

Without an actual citation of the "law and Constitution" we "need to learn" to see how right you are . . . you aren't. Call us when you can prove you're correct, rather than just telling us that you can prove it.

77% of people want a lot of stupid shit that's not actually viable in real life. Pretty sure adherence to the law is not decided by popular opinion polls in this country.

You are the one who is ignorant in regards to the Constitution. Again you need to learn from Watergate. A President cannot withhold documents from Congress. It clearly proves that there is something in the report that Trump does not want the public to see what is in the report.

 

[busybee01]

Looks like Barr will be served a subpoena today

What will they do when he ignores it? Take it to the courts? The Law says what it says, and Barr is following it.

The laws do not apply to Congress. They have the duty of oversight of the executive branch and being able to subpoena those documents are a part of that oversight. This is not a active investigation anymore so there is no excuse for not allowing Congress to see them. They have the security clearances so that is not a issue.

You might want to check out the law and what IT says about keeping grand jury proceedings confidential before you breezily assert that "there's no reason". And security clearances are not the issue (not to mention that half of those media whores shouldn't have security clearances, because they can't be trusted to keep jack shit to themselves if they think they can score a headline).

You might learn that there are numerous exceptions to this and Congress has access as part of their oversight. Watergate established the rights that Congress has to subpoena documents from the Executive branch.

I might learn it, but not from your posts full of assertion without evidence. Don't even go there with "Watergate established". No one has suggested that Congress can't subpoena things, but if you really knew anything about the laws that you love to claim would support you if we just go do YOUR homework and look up YOUR evidence to back YOUR assertion for you, you would know that Congress has to be able to show reasonable, lawful cause to subpoena when challenged. Right now, I can't think of a single reason why Congress needs to see the items that would require redaction under the law, which means the AG is not only within his rights to challenge their subpoena, he's also in the moral and ethical right to do so.

There are numerous reasons why Congress should have access to the unredacted report.
1. The report could form the basis of a action of impeachment against Donald Trump.
2. It could be the basis for new legislation preventing a future President from doing what Trump did.
3. When the redacted report is released, the Congress has the right to determine whether the redactions were legal or a attempt to coverup facts that are detrimental to Trump.

 

[busybee01]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

"Oversight" doesn't mean that the House can run roughshod over the Executive.
The USSC will probably need to decide on the interpretation of the "Law vs oversight".
Barr will not provide the unredacted report until the USSC says they have to.

Yes it does in regards to any document that is produced by the Executive Branch.
If the USSC follows the precedents established during Watergate, it will be released to Congress.
Barr will not be allowed to continue his coverup.

"We got one decision in our favor 50 years ago, so that means we can have anything we want forever!"

No.

There is an excellent case to be made that this situation is different in multiple respects from that situation, which means that the fate of the overreaching subpoena can and should be decided strictly as a stand-alone case, on its own merits.

The situation is no different. The White House tried to withhold damaging information from a lawful Congressional investigation. Barr may attempt to use redaction to hide damaging information from the Congress. That is why they have a right to see the unredacted report to make that determination.

 

[busybee01]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

Don't you, lush, and care4none EVER get tired of lying? The lying Dimbos are entitled to NOTHING. Learn the law, then maybe you won't look quite so stupid. By all means, all three of you keep lying and crying as we laugh at you. Poor Dimbos, getting nothing and being told to like it.

You are the lying little weasel. The Congress is entitled to any documents as they have the responsibility of oversight. You need to learn the law and about the Constitution. 77% of Trump supporters want the report publicly released Dumbo.

Sorry dummy. YOU would be he liar. Congress has ZERO right to anything. Try learning about what happened after Starr's report went public. The AG will decide what they can or can't see. Doesn't matter what crying liars like you and your leftist pals want. It's called the consequences of passing laws limiting what can be released.

They have a right to see the unredacted report. I supported Starr's report being made public and support Mueller's report being made public. You are the lying weasel. Anyone who disagrees with you is a leftist. That is so much garbage. Over 70% of the public including Trump supporters say the report should be made public. I suppose they are leftists.

 

[busybee01]

My sources say Manafort was convicted of Bank Fraud, not collusion. He worked for 4 administrations as a foreign relations specialist. I would like to see your source because My sources didn't mention any collusion by him. If he did bad things without authorization, then I am not surprised that he received an instant pink slip even if his information was turned down.

Edit I just found your link, thanks. However, this is not showing any collusion:

Paul Manafort: Prosecutors accused Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman, of laundering over $30 million in overseas income, using a network of companies to mask millions he earned as a political consultant and lobbyist for Ukrainian politicians. The charges were not connected to Manafort’s work for Trump. Manafort pleaded guilty and a jury convicted him on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. In March 2019, a federal judge sentenced Manafort to four years in prison and then a separate federal judge sentenced Manafort to 3 1/2 years related to secret foreign lobbying and witness tampering.

Your Politifact source: Here's all of the charges from Mueller's Russia probe​

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared polling data during the 2016 presidential campaign with a business associate accused of having ties to Russian intelligence, and prosecutors say he lied to them about it, according to a court filing Tuesday.

Manafort Gave 2016 Polling Data To Russian Tied to Intel Services

While he was not charged with collusion, he was charged with lying about that fact. If true then that would be strong evidence of collusion.

 

[basquebromance]

President Trump DID NOT CONCLUDE with Russia. deal with it!

 

[basquebromance]

they have a weaker case for obstruction than they did for collusion. it's an Aesop's fable!

 

[Care4all]

they have a weaker case for obstruction than they did for collusion. it's an Aesop's fable!

Firing the Leader of the Russia investigation

asking the FBI director to 'leave Flynn alone' in trump talk,

lying for donny junior and creating a fake story about the Trump tower meeting with the 6 russian operatives offering dirt on hillary obtained by the russian gvt
lying about not knowing about the meeting

lying and hiding the trump tower moscow deal

lying about his ho's that he paid off during the campaign


telling the russians he invited in to the oval office, firing comey took the heat off the russia investigation

trying to fire mueller

firing or forcing out, every fbi agent involved with his initial investigation

gave his approval to Cohen to lie to congress

dangling pardons to witnesses

and that ain't even the half of what he did to obstruct investigators or the investigation...

and you say there is more evidence on collusion than obstruction?

 

[Billo_Really]

I call it a booking photo of Manafort before he was held in solitary confinement during the Mueller HOAX. Nothing he is charged with and convicted of had anything to do with Trump. If he's been finally sent to prison, tell me when that was and where he is incarcerated.....good luck, dummy.

Sharing polling data with a Russian oligarch had nothing to do with Trump?

 

[Lesh]

they have a weaker case for obstruction than they did for collusion. it's an Aesop's fable!

Really? You've seen the report?

 

[basquebromance]

they have a weaker case for obstruction than they did for collusion. it's an Aesop's fable!

Really? You've seen the report?

yes

 

[AntonToo]

they have a weaker case for obstruction than they did for collusion. it's an Aesop's fable!

Really? You've seen the report?

yes

No you haven’t crazy.

 

[basquebromance]

they have a weaker case for obstruction than they did for collusion. it's an Aesop's fable!

Really? You've seen the report?

yes

No you haven’t crazy.

i have. deal with it

 

[basquebromance]

they have a weaker case for obstruction than they did for collusion. it's an Aesop's fable!

Really? You've seen the report?

yes

No you haven’t crazy.

its available on amazon