Fact Checked

[westwall]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

How is he possibly obstructing justice? You are making the extraordinary claim. YOU must back it up. Then tell us why it was OK for the shrilary to demolish 13 blackberries and delete 30,000 emails that were under subpoena.

Ask HRC. Oh yea, the Issa Committee hearings did, and found nothing to support "lock her up"; let only having a prosecutor provide under oath an indictment, followed by a trial and a conviction to so what Trump and you wanted done.

[it seems dirt bags like you, Westwall, and Trump support Kangaroo courts as are done in Moscow, and not American values of jurisprudence]

Get you head out of your ass, and take a peak at the year 2019.

Wrong, we have a really nice transcript from a FBI lawyer that stipulates that lynch prevented the FBI from filing charges. Nice try, but as usual you are flat assed wrong.

 

[whitehall]

Who checks "fact check"?

No one on this thread, it seems all of those on your side of the aisle are either willfully ignorant, mentally retarded or agents of Russia.

Since number two is not likely, you can turn on a computer, which are you?

If you question "fact check" the left labels you "agents of Russia". So much for life under democrat socialism.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you believe AG Barr is obstructing justice?

No

Would you if I offered you a banana?

How is Barr obstructing justice?

'First of all I believe and stated so above that Barr used a policy, not a law, not even a regulation, to decide a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime.

An Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in our country has decided that the POTUS is above the law.

Now, consider this, an Investigation is the process to determine if a) a crime was committed; and b) who committed it.

Mueller's one page assignment,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408/Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.pdf

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS"

is detailed in the link above.

I agree, policy is not law. Which begs the question. Why didn't Mueller prosecute? Does he think POTUS is above the law?

Also detailed in the link;

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

Do you believe AG Barr is obstructing justice?

No

Would you if I offered you a banana?

How is Barr obstructing justice?

'First of all I believe and stated so above that Barr used a policy, not a law, not even a regulation, to decide a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime.

An Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in our country has decided that the POTUS is above the law.

Now, consider this, an Investigation is the process to determine if a) a crime was committed; and b) who committed it.

Mueller's one page assignment,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408/Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.pdf

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS"

is detailed in the link above.

How many times did Trump claim the Mueller Report was a Witch Hunt and a Hoax.

How many times did Trump attack AG sessions for not protecting him (not the AG's job)?

How many times has he demeaned and discredited the FBI, our national security agencies and Mr. Mueller?

How many times has he lied and mislead the public?

How many times did Trump promise to release his taxes?

How many times have Trump supporters been led by him to chant, "lock her up"; without ever an indictment, a trial and a conviction?

How many times has he claimed major daily newspapers print Fake News?

How many times has he contradicted himself?

Face it folks, his attorney was spot on when he told the Court Donald Trump is a conman, his supporters have been conned for 28 months.

Michael Cohen: Trump A "Racist," "Conman" Who Knew About WikiLeaks In Advance

Mueller is not an saint, and he certainly is not above criticism.
He obviously is a progressive deep state operative

Do you believe AG Barr is obstructing justice?

No

Would you if I offered you a banana?

How is Barr obstructing justice?

'First of all I believe and stated so above that Barr used a policy, not a law, not even a regulation, to decide a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime.

An Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in our country has decided that the POTUS is above the law.

Now, consider this, an Investigation is the process to determine if a) a crime was committed; and b) who committed it.

Mueller's one page assignment,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408/Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.pdf

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS"

is detailed in the link above.

I agree, policy is not law. Which begs the question. Why didn't Mueller prosecute? Does he think POTUS is above the law?

Also detailed in the link;

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

I can't answer for Mr. Mueller, my hunch is he wants The Congress to further investigate the Obstruction issue, something which went beyond his mandate.

Barr believes Trump is above the law, that's how he got his appointment. Remember, Mueller's team did indict a number of Trump's inner circle, all of whom had suspicious contacts with Russians.

Two other things to consider:
1. Mueller's investigation concluded the Russian's did support Trump and harmed HRC;
2 Trump has failed to do anything to prevent further cyber attacks on our democracy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

How is he possibly obstructing justice? You are making the extraordinary claim. YOU must back it up. Then tell us why it was OK for the shrilary to demolish 13 blackberries and delete 30,000 emails that were under subpoena.

Ask HRC. Oh yea, the Issa Committee hearings did, and found nothing to support "lock her up"; let only having a prosecutor provide under oath an indictment, followed by a trial and a conviction to so what Trump and you wanted done.

[it seems dirt bags like you, Westwall, and Trump support Kangaroo courts as are done in Moscow, and not American values of jurisprudence]

Get you head out of your ass, and take a peak at the year 2019.

Wrong, we have a really nice transcript from a FBI lawyer that stipulates that lynch prevented the FBI from filing charges. Nice try, but as usual you are flat assed wrong.

You dumb shit, it's a POLICY not a LAW.

 

[JimBowie1958]

He also loves the "poorly educated". Said so himself.

Unlike Dimocrats who exploit them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who checks "fact check"?

No one on this thread, it seems all of those on your side of the aisle are either willfully ignorant, mentally retarded or agents of Russia.

Since number two is not likely, you can turn on a computer, which are you?

If you question "fact check" the left labels you "agents of Russia". So much for life under democrat socialism.

Way over your head, so sad. Willfully ignorant OR a Russian Agent. Of course there are other explanations, being biddable, being confused, being and nothingness, i.e. not reading the link in the OP.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, the AG seems to be acting not as the lawyer for the nation, but as Trump's personal defender. It is clear that Barr's opinion on the matter was formed months before he was nominated, in the "resume" for AG he sent to the White House, telling the President he would be his wing man.

Quote that "resume" you refer to and point out exactly where Barr told the President he would be his "wing man".
Get off your dead horse and produce some actual verifiable proof.

You want me to do you homework?

William Barr’s Unsolicited Memo to Trump About Obstruction of Justice

And the memo is on this link:

READ: Bill Barr's 19-Page Memo Ripping Mueller Probe | National Law Journal

You're welcome.

Nope, 'wing man' is not in there, but AG Holder did literally say that about his defense of Obama.

But liberals were OK with that because they are amoral whores when it comes to politics.

Oh, yeah, and if Muler wanted to see action taken on obstruction charges, he could have recommended consideration of impeachment. Instead he took a strict 'no conclusion' position and released a joint memo with AG Barr to that effect.

PS, you are a myopic partisan retard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you question "fact check" the left labels you "agents of Russia". So much for life under democrat socialism.

Way over your head, so sad. Willfully ignorant OR a Russian Agent. Of course there are other explanations, being biddable, being confused, being and nothingness, i.e. not reading the link in the OP.

No, you Stalinist wannabe's are doing nothing over anyones head.

You are quite plain to read.

 

[westwall]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

How is he possibly obstructing justice? You are making the extraordinary claim. YOU must back it up. Then tell us why it was OK for the shrilary to demolish 13 blackberries and delete 30,000 emails that were under subpoena.

Ask HRC. Oh yea, the Issa Committee hearings did, and found nothing to support "lock her up"; let only having a prosecutor provide under oath an indictment, followed by a trial and a conviction to so what Trump and you wanted done.

[it seems dirt bags like you, Westwall, and Trump support Kangaroo courts as are done in Moscow, and not American values of jurisprudence]

Get you head out of your ass, and take a peak at the year 2019.

Wrong, we have a really nice transcript from a FBI lawyer that stipulates that lynch prevented the FBI from filing charges. Nice try, but as usual you are flat assed wrong.

You dumb shit, it's a POLICY not a LAW.

Wrong silly boy. Lynch ORDERED the FBI to do nothing. That is absolutely obstruction of justice. That's not my opinion, that is called a fact. Several judges who are friends of mine all agree on that.

They also really would like to see mewler testify to Congress....under oath.

 

[Olde Europe]

Nope, 'wing man' is not in there, but AG Holder did literally say that about his defense of Obama.

But liberals were OK with that because they are amoral whores when it comes to politics.

Oh, yeah, and if Muler wanted to see action taken on obstruction charges, he could have recommended consideration of impeachment. Instead he took a strict 'no conclusion' position and released a joint memo with AG Barr to that effect.

PS, you are a myopic partisan retard.

Oh, for pity's sake!

Yeah, Holder literally said "wing man". Cue the rightards' spluttering apoplexy. But then, context matters, for Holder said it when he, Holder, was under assault by a rightarded Congress, answering a question as to whether he was about to call it quits. Nope, he said, I like what I do, and am soldiering on in my role as the United States' Attorney General under President Obama. That's an entirely different animal compared to Barr's role as Trump's Roy Cohn. But then, reading in context never was your strong suit, right?

Moreover, Mueller is well aware of his role in that sordid saga of Trumpish Russian collusion and obstruction of justice, namely, finding and documenting the facts of the matter while memories are still fresh. His role is most unequivocally not to tell Congress what to do, and so he did not. But then, there were several hints at Article I powers put in there by the Founders to remedy corruption in high offices, which you could have found had you read Mueller's report. But you didn't, and so you couldn't.

But then, seeing you, the myopic partisan retard, calling Wry, whose focus is mainly on the rule of law in a Constitutional Republic, a "myopic partisan retard" is funny. Very funny.

 

[westwall]

Nope, 'wing man' is not in there, but AG Holder did literally say that about his defense of Obama.

But liberals were OK with that because they are amoral whores when it comes to politics.

Oh, yeah, and if Muler wanted to see action taken on obstruction charges, he could have recommended consideration of impeachment. Instead he took a strict 'no conclusion' position and released a joint memo with AG Barr to that effect.

PS, you are a myopic partisan retard.

Oh, for pity's sake!

Yeah, Holder literally said "wing man". Cue the rightards' spluttering apoplexy. But then, context matters, for Holder said it when he, Holder, was under assault by a rightarded Congress, answering a question as to whether he was about to call it quits. Nope, he said, I like what I do, and am soldiering on in my role as the United States' Attorney General under President Obama. That's an entirely different animal compared to Barr's role as Trump's Roy Cohn. But then, reading in context never was your strong suit, right?

Moreover, Mueller is well aware of his role in that sordid saga of Trumpish Russian collusion and obstruction of justice, namely, finding and documenting the facts of the matter while memories are still fresh. His role is most unequivocally not to tell Congress what to do, and so he did not. But then, there were several hints at Article I powers put in there by the Founders to remedy corruption in high offices, which you could have found had you read Mueller's report. But you didn't, and so you couldn't.

But then, seeing you, the myopic partisan retard, calling Wry, whose focus is mainly on the rule of law in a Constitutional Republic, a "myopic partisan retard" is funny. Very funny.

Yes, and his actions served to protect obummer far more than anything Barr has done. Best be looking in the mirror next time you spew this sort of nonsense.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

Takes a real sheeple moron to think a Leftard website provides facts just because they use the word fact.
Congrats.

 

[Third Party]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Explain and justify your response.

One man's justice is another man's persecution. Did Jesus commit a crime? Depends on what you believe.

 

[sparky]

Explain and justify your response.

Justice does not apply to corrupt elites

which is all we have had running this country for a generation

with little to no redemption on the horizon

so, we'll be having this conversation repetitively

~S~

 

[Rustic]

Do you believe AG Barr is obstructing justice?

No

Would you if I offered you a banana?

How is Barr obstructing justice?

'First of all I believe and stated so above that Barr used a policy, not a law, not even a regulation, to decide a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime.

An Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in our country has decided that the POTUS is above the law.

Now, consider this, an Investigation is the process to determine if a) a crime was committed; and b) who committed it.

Mueller's one page assignment,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408/Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.pdf

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS"

is detailed in the link above.

I agree, policy is not law. Which begs the question. Why didn't Mueller prosecute? Does he think POTUS is above the law?

Also detailed in the link;

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

Do you believe AG Barr is obstructing justice?

No

Would you if I offered you a banana?

How is Barr obstructing justice?

'First of all I believe and stated so above that Barr used a policy, not a law, not even a regulation, to decide a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime.

An Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in our country has decided that the POTUS is above the law.

Now, consider this, an Investigation is the process to determine if a) a crime was committed; and b) who committed it.

Mueller's one page assignment,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408/Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.pdf

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS"

is detailed in the link above.

How many times did Trump claim the Mueller Report was a Witch Hunt and a Hoax.

How many times did Trump attack AG sessions for not protecting him (not the AG's job)?

How many times has he demeaned and discredited the FBI, our national security agencies and Mr. Mueller?

How many times has he lied and mislead the public?

How many times did Trump promise to release his taxes?

How many times have Trump supporters been led by him to chant, "lock her up"; without ever an indictment, a trial and a conviction?

How many times has he claimed major daily newspapers print Fake News?

How many times has he contradicted himself?

Face it folks, his attorney was spot on when he told the Court Donald Trump is a conman, his supporters have been conned for 28 months.

Michael Cohen: Trump A "Racist," "Conman" Who Knew About WikiLeaks In Advance

Mueller is not an saint, and he certainly is not above criticism.
He obviously is a progressive deep state operative

Do you believe AG Barr is obstructing justice?

No

Would you if I offered you a banana?

How is Barr obstructing justice?

'First of all I believe and stated so above that Barr used a policy, not a law, not even a regulation, to decide a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime.

An Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in our country has decided that the POTUS is above the law.

Now, consider this, an Investigation is the process to determine if a) a crime was committed; and b) who committed it.

Mueller's one page assignment,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408/Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.pdf

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS"

is detailed in the link above.

I agree, policy is not law. Which begs the question. Why didn't Mueller prosecute? Does he think POTUS is above the law?

Also detailed in the link;

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

I can't answer for Mr. Mueller, my hunch is he wants The Congress to further investigate the Obstruction issue, something which went beyond his mandate.

Barr believes Trump is above the law, that's how he got his appointment. Remember, Mueller's team did indict a number of Trump's inner circle, all of whom had suspicious contacts with Russians.

Two other things to consider:
1. Mueller's investigation concluded the Russian's did support Trump and harmed HRC;
2 Trump has failed to do anything to prevent further cyber attacks on our democracy.

Lol
Mueller is not The ultimate authority, Or without fault. The report is his opinion… That does not cut it.
Obama certainly did not do enough on cyber attacks....

...and still no Russian connection

There is no proof that Trump had anything to do with Russians… End of story

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2 years later and obstructing Hillary from the White House is still not a crime

 

[Crixus]

Convincing or not?

What Mueller, Barr Say About Obstruction of Justice - FactCheck.org

Barr is acting shady and definitely covering for the president but I don’t think he is doing anything illegal. It is concerning that the spin was so bad about the report both from Barr and the President that Mueller felt compelled to give a press conference to clear it up. That’s rather pathetic for the Trump team.

All modern presidents have AGs that are in their corner though, that’s not a shocker.

Muller was covering his ass, and bitching that the press was not flattering his arrogant ass enough.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Now you're a LIAR. Twice I posted this:

BarrMemo.pdf

Barr had made the decision to exonerate Trump when he wrote this memo. Well before he read (if he ever did) the Mueller Report.

He lied to the Senate Committee, and he lied by failing to appear before the H. of Rep. Committee.

I didn't ask for AG Barr's twenty page legal memo. I asked for you to show where Barr said he was Trump's "wing man". You claim is in post #3 if you need to refresh your memory.
Stop squirming you coward and put up or shut up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A simple question in this case


[Do you believe AG Barr is obstructing justice?]

has once brought out trump supporters bringing up and attacking HRC, AG Holder, President Obama, and attacking Mr. Mueller, the Entire Justice Dept except for the current AG, all Democrats and the few remaining open minded members on this message board as well as the Main Street Media.

A debate becomes an argument, and even in the safe harbor, the Clean Zone, it devolves into a pissing contest.

The Fact is, trump is a liability, and the ego of those who still support him cannot or will not admit it.

 

[Olde Europe]

A simple question in this case


[Do you believe AG Barr is obstructing justice?]

has once again brought out trump supporters bringing up and attacking HRC, AG Holder, President Obama, and attacking Mr. Mueller, the Entire Justice Dept except for the current AG, all Democrats and the few remaining open minded members on this message board as well as the Main Street [Stream] Media.

A debate becomes an argument, and even in the safe harbor, the Clean Debate Zone, it devolves into a pissing contest.

The Fact is, trump is a liability, and the ego of those who still support him cannot or will not admit it.

Several things here, Wry, and I don't mean to be condescending.

First, you have yet to make a compelling case that Barr is obstructing justice. Your linked article did not do it for you.

Second, your little text is riddled with errors and sloppiness. You could, and I find you should, have taken the time to check your text. That's mandatory since you give yourself the appearance of looking down on other posters for their failings. This thread, BTW, is not in the Clean Debate Zone.

Third, the question as to whether Barr is obstructing justice is by no means a simple one, particularly since there appear to be no lawyers among the posters here. That again shines a light on your failure to make your argument, since had you done so, the debate might have had some structure and substance to work with. So, the pissing contest was very predictable, and pointing to others does not detract from your own contribution to it.

Again, I hope you won't mind. But we're creating our own environment here, and therefore whenever we're pointing at others, we almost inevitably render judgment on our own selves.