In Barr’s Battle With Congress, He’s in the Right!

[Ame®icano]

The dems want to get him in a perjury trap so they can get rid of him before he uncovers their treasonous actions....he knows it and is too smart for them...can you imagine what Brennan and Comey and Clapper and Obama and Hillary are thinking right now?....

Let's roll back a little. The job of the special prosecutor, or any other prosecutor is to complete the investigation and either ask the grand jury to return the indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutor decline to charge, they made that decision because they do not believe that investigated conduct constitute the crime, for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors are not in business of establishing the innocence, or exonerating investigated person. In our justice system innocence is presumed, and there is never need for the prosecutor to determine weather someone is innocent. On the contrary, prosecutors are in business of proving crime, and Mueller failed to prove that crime existed.

The president doesn't have to prove that he's innocent. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Mueller investigation, as his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice. Our criminal justice does not have "exoneration" in its vocabulary, therefore the "exoneration" statements are simply political statements, and being political is not part of prosecutor duties.

About "perjury trap"... Pelosi, and others, called Barr a liar. They filed complaints with Maryland and Virginia bars to try to get AG Barr punished and disbarred, and they're talking about his impeachment. The goal is to discredit him enough to prevent his investigation into Democrats, FBI, and others interfering into our elections.

Democrats are completely out of control and they're trying to remove or impeach anybody who threatens their agenda, pretty much every Republican. At this moment, their biggest problem is AG Barr who openly said that he will investigate everything and everyone connected to spying on Trump campaign, including issuing FISA warrants, etc. Bottom line, Barr did not lie. He poked into hornet nest, and they don't like it at all.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Dems are headhunting Barr, because he will be going after Dems!
Just a reality check in case very few noticed!

He’s not going after anyone. He’s about to be impeached for lying to Congress.

 

[Ame®icano]

The Dems are headhunting Barr, because he will be going after Dems!
Just a reality check in case very few noticed!

He’s not going after anyone. He’s about to be impeached for lying to Congress.

What exactly did he lied about?

Quote it.

 

[Zorro!]

 

[skookerasbil]

The Dems are headhunting Barr, because he will be going after Dems!
Just a reality check in case very few noticed!

He’s not going after anyone. He’s about to be impeached for lying to Congress.

Lol.....whatever you say sweetie!

So let me get this straight.....Barr is about to submit criminal referrals on Obama DOJ officials and folks connected to Aunt Hilda and the DUMS will try to impeach him? Hmmm.....kinda conveys the optics of obstruction sweets! Same thing if Trump had dismissed Mueller.....bad political optics.

Wake up and smell the maple nut crunch!!

 

[DGS49]

Fifty years from now people will look back on this and ask, what the hell was that all about?

There are only two issues in play here, and both are completely resolved. There was no conspiracy with "Russia," and the Mueller team found some "troubling" behavior on the part of the wrongly-accused President. That's it.

There is no specific list of Crimes that constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors," and indeed a President can be impeached for any conduct that Congress deems worthy. It could be insulting the Queen of England. There is no "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," in the impeachment process, it is merely "proof sufficient" to get the votes in Congress.

In short, it's up to the House of Representatives whether to impeach Trump or not. A.G. Barr has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Arguing about whether the President's actions constitute "obstruction of justice" under applicable law is nothing more than idle talk. It is not relevant to the discussion. No one is going to indict President Trump and put him on trial.

Nothing Barr has done or said has been improper, illegal, unethical, or false. This is ALL about trying to de-legitimize Barr for the coming investigations into the actions of leaders of the FBI, Justice Department, Secret Service, and the White House during the last days of Obama's term and the first days of Trump's.

It will be PRICELESS! And Barr really doesn't car what they say now.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Either you guys know congress has oversight authority.

Or you are a bunch of liars.

Which is it?

Go fuck yourself, lunatic! Barr has the authority of law on his side. Either you know that or you are a liar.
Which is it?

 

[Kilroy2]

The dems want to get him in a perjury trap so they can get rid of him before he uncovers their treasonous actions....he knows it and is too smart for them...can you imagine what Brennan and Comey and Clapper and Obama and Hillary are thinking right now?....

Let's roll back a little. The job of the special prosecutor, or any other prosecutor is to complete the investigation and either ask the grand jury to return the indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutor decline to charge, they made that decision because they do not believe that investigated conduct constitute the crime, for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors are not in business of establishing the innocence, or exonerating investigated person. In our justice system innocence is presumed, and there is never need for the prosecutor to determine weather someone is innocent. On the contrary, prosecutors are in business of proving crime, and Mueller failed to prove that crime existed.

The president doesn't have to prove that he's innocent. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Mueller investigation, as his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice. Our criminal justice does not have "exoneration" in its vocabulary, therefore the "exoneration" statements are simply political statements, and being political is not part of prosecutor duties.

About "perjury trap"... Pelosi, and others, called Barr a liar. They filed complaints with Maryland and Virginia bars to try to get AG Barr punished and disbarred, and they're talking about his impeachment. The goal is to discredit him enough to prevent his investigation into Democrats, FBI, and others interfering into our elections.

Democrats are completely out of control and they're trying to remove or impeach anybody who threatens their agenda, pretty much every Republican. At this moment, their biggest problem is AG Barr who openly said that he will investigate everything and everyone connected to spying on Trump campaign, including issuing FISA warrants, etc. Bottom line, Barr did not lie. He poked into hornet nest, and they don't like it at all.

his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice.

Mueller report conclusion "quote" if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , We Would State So

That a pretty clear and self explanatory statement that Mueller and his team believe that Trump committed obstruction of Justice (OOJ) or they would otherwise said so. The report is self states specific instances of OOJ.

Barr by saying that there was no obstruction of Justice misquoted an important part of the conclusion and the report itself

Barr is of no consequences to Congress because he has already shown that he is not up to the task of being the AG for the justice system. Instead he has shown himself to be Trumps boy. IF he cannot recluse himself when he is irrelevant

If he thinks he has something thing bring it on, Nobody is worried about it because he has to prove it not just say it , If he believes he can take down Mueller or the FBI , good luck with that.

Trump is the deep state that repubs fear

If trump is innocent then the process would clear him but since he has to lie, obstruct, and place people beside him who say things that he likes shows how insecure that he is in his decision making processes.

 

[airplanemechanic]

When Mueller says that Trump is NOT exonerated

you can't interpret it as Trump is exonerated

Since when is a prosecutors job to exonerate someone?

 

[skookerasbil]

Let's make sure to keep this thread going Purge so in a few months I can post up some bumpy cucumber Photobucket classics for my progressive pals in here! Like at every turn for the past two years, the bumpy's will be hot and stingy!

And as per usual, our side will be laughing so hard, our sides will hurt!

 

[Kilroy2]

When Mueller says that Trump is NOT exonerated

you can't interpret it as Trump is exonerated

Since when is a prosecutors job to exonerate someone?

A traditional prosecutor - no

Yet Mueller is the Special Counsel and they say he can indict a sitting president

I guess that is why he clearly states they will not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment in his report

Thus exonerate as used by Mueller is not a strictly legal definition but in the broader stoke of the meaning of exonerate

ie - if you tell someone you love them or state you love an object then it has slightly different meaning when apply to your wife, siblings, children, best friend, baseball, car, etc, etc

exonorate - absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.

yet in this case of Obstruction he cannot exonorate - see above meaning

The report has specific events and statements from people indication obstruction of justice

 

[Ame®icano]

The dems want to get him in a perjury trap so they can get rid of him before he uncovers their treasonous actions....he knows it and is too smart for them...can you imagine what Brennan and Comey and Clapper and Obama and Hillary are thinking right now?....

Let's roll back a little. The job of the special prosecutor, or any other prosecutor is to complete the investigation and either ask the grand jury to return the indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutor decline to charge, they made that decision because they do not believe that investigated conduct constitute the crime, for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors are not in business of establishing the innocence, or exonerating investigated person. In our justice system innocence is presumed, and there is never need for the prosecutor to determine weather someone is innocent. On the contrary, prosecutors are in business of proving crime, and Mueller failed to prove that crime existed.

The president doesn't have to prove that he's innocent. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Mueller investigation, as his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice. Our criminal justice does not have "exoneration" in its vocabulary, therefore the "exoneration" statements are simply political statements, and being political is not part of prosecutor duties.

About "perjury trap"... Pelosi, and others, called Barr a liar. They filed complaints with Maryland and Virginia bars to try to get AG Barr punished and disbarred, and they're talking about his impeachment. The goal is to discredit him enough to prevent his investigation into Democrats, FBI, and others interfering into our elections.

Democrats are completely out of control and they're trying to remove or impeach anybody who threatens their agenda, pretty much every Republican. At this moment, their biggest problem is AG Barr who openly said that he will investigate everything and everyone connected to spying on Trump campaign, including issuing FISA warrants, etc. Bottom line, Barr did not lie. He poked into hornet nest, and they don't like it at all.

his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice.

Mueller report conclusion "quote" if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , We Would State So

That a pretty clear and self explanatory statement that Mueller and his team believe that Trump committed obstruction of Justice (OOJ) or they would otherwise said so. The report is self states specific instances of OOJ.

Barr by saying that there was no obstruction of Justice misquoted an important part of the conclusion and the report itself

Barr is of no consequences to Congress because he has already shown that he is not up to the task of being the AG for the justice system. Instead he has shown himself to be Trumps boy. IF he cannot recluse himself when he is irrelevant

If he thinks he has something thing bring it on, Nobody is worried about it because he has to prove it not just say it , If he believes he can take down Mueller or the FBI , good luck with that.

Trump is the deep state that repubs fear

If trump is innocent then the process would clear him but since he has to lie, obstruct, and place people beside him who say things that he likes shows how insecure that he is in his decision making processes.

What specific instances of "obstruction of justice" are in report? Page number, please.

You don't like conclusions that AG reached. Who cares if you don't like it, or Democrats don't like it. Left claims that AG Barr misled American people, and that's another bogus claim. He did not, and why that even matters, since report is available for anyone to read.

The only thing that Mueller is objecting about seems to be that he wasn't getting the spin and narrative that he wanted. Well, that's not the role of the prosecutor, to write letter to AG because he's not happy the way media is treating his 4 page summary.

Back to AG Barr and hearing he refused to attend. What exactly is the point of that hearing?

The report has been released, with classified information being redacted, despite the fact that the regulations (laws) doesn't require it, despite the fact that AG is one who has final say, and despite the fact that Mueller didn't seek to indict the president, and he himself told AG and Deputy AG, and others in DOJ on more than one occasion that has nothing to do with DOJ position that they can't indict the sitting president.

Could Mueller objected to those DOJ opinions? Of course he could have, and could have made big issue if he had something to back it up. He could've said in his report "I wanted to indict the president, but because rules say I can't, DOJ opinion say I can't, AG say's I can't, so I didn't." Did he write anything like that?

No.

He didn't, because he couldn't find anything to indict the president, he had no basis for that. If president broke the law, that would be in report.Since he didn't, he wrote crap that insinuate to something, and left it to media and retards in Congress to try to make something out of it.

AG Barr did nothing wrong, quite opposite, he did everything by the law and that is what scares Democrats. He's coming after law breakers and this conspiracy to unseat the president goes quite high. This will be fun to watch.

 

[Kilroy2]

The dems want to get him in a perjury trap so they can get rid of him before he uncovers their treasonous actions....he knows it and is too smart for them...can you imagine what Brennan and Comey and Clapper and Obama and Hillary are thinking right now?....

Let's roll back a little. The job of the special prosecutor, or any other prosecutor is to complete the investigation and either ask the grand jury to return the indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutor decline to charge, they made that decision because they do not believe that investigated conduct constitute the crime, for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors are not in business of establishing the innocence, or exonerating investigated person. In our justice system innocence is presumed, and there is never need for the prosecutor to determine weather someone is innocent. On the contrary, prosecutors are in business of proving crime, and Mueller failed to prove that crime existed.

The president doesn't have to prove that he's innocent. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Mueller investigation, as his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice. Our criminal justice does not have "exoneration" in its vocabulary, therefore the "exoneration" statements are simply political statements, and being political is not part of prosecutor duties.

About "perjury trap"... Pelosi, and others, called Barr a liar. They filed complaints with Maryland and Virginia bars to try to get AG Barr punished and disbarred, and they're talking about his impeachment. The goal is to discredit him enough to prevent his investigation into Democrats, FBI, and others interfering into our elections.

Democrats are completely out of control and they're trying to remove or impeach anybody who threatens their agenda, pretty much every Republican. At this moment, their biggest problem is AG Barr who openly said that he will investigate everything and everyone connected to spying on Trump campaign, including issuing FISA warrants, etc. Bottom line, Barr did not lie. He poked into hornet nest, and they don't like it at all.

his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice.

Mueller report conclusion "quote" if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , We Would State So

That a pretty clear and self explanatory statement that Mueller and his team believe that Trump committed obstruction of Justice (OOJ) or they would otherwise said so. The report is self states specific instances of OOJ.

Barr by saying that there was no obstruction of Justice misquoted an important part of the conclusion and the report itself

Barr is of no consequences to Congress because he has already shown that he is not up to the task of being the AG for the justice system. Instead he has shown himself to be Trumps boy. IF he cannot recluse himself when he is irrelevant

If he thinks he has something thing bring it on, Nobody is worried about it because he has to prove it not just say it , If he believes he can take down Mueller or the FBI , good luck with that.

Trump is the deep state that repubs fear

If trump is innocent then the process would clear him but since he has to lie, obstruct, and place people beside him who say things that he likes shows how insecure that he is in his decision making processes.

What specific instances of "obstruction of justice" are in report? Page number, please.

You don't like conclusions that AG reached. Who cares if you don't like it, or Democrats don't like it. Left claims that AG Barr misled American people, and that's another bogus claim. He did not, and why that even matters, since report is available for anyone to read.

The only thing that Mueller is objecting about seems to be that he wasn't getting the spin and narrative that he wanted. Well, that's not the role of the prosecutor, to write letter to AG because he's not happy the way media is treating his 4 page summary.

Back to AG Barr and hearing he refused to attend. What exactly is the point of that hearing?

The report has been released, with classified information being redacted, despite the fact that the regulations (laws) doesn't require it, despite the fact that AG is one who has final say, and despite the fact that Mueller didn't seek to indict the president, and he himself told AG and Deputy AG, and others in DOJ on more than one occasion that has nothing to do with DOJ position that they can't indict the sitting president.

Could Mueller objected to those DOJ opinions? Of course he could have, and could have made big issue if he had something to back it up. He could've said in his report "I wanted to indict the president, but because rules say I can't, DOJ opinion say I can't, AG say's I can't, so I didn't." Did he write anything like that?

No.

He didn't, because he couldn't find anything to indict the president, he had no basis for that. If president broke the law, that would be in report.Since he didn't, he wrote crap that insinuate to something, and left it to media and retards in Congress to try to make something out of it.

AG Barr did nothing wrong, quite opposite, he did everything by the law and that is what scares Democrats. He's coming after law breakers and this conspiracy to unseat the president goes quite high. This will be fun to watch.

Page 394 the conclusion is your first stop
yet the whole report is available for you to read

if your able to find the conclusion but it probably won't make a deference because you will just interpret what you want to much like Barr

if you can't understand why they can't indict the sitting president, then you will never understand why Mueller did what he did

 

[Ame®icano]

The dems want to get him in a perjury trap so they can get rid of him before he uncovers their treasonous actions....he knows it and is too smart for them...can you imagine what Brennan and Comey and Clapper and Obama and Hillary are thinking right now?....

Let's roll back a little. The job of the special prosecutor, or any other prosecutor is to complete the investigation and either ask the grand jury to return the indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutor decline to charge, they made that decision because they do not believe that investigated conduct constitute the crime, for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors are not in business of establishing the innocence, or exonerating investigated person. In our justice system innocence is presumed, and there is never need for the prosecutor to determine weather someone is innocent. On the contrary, prosecutors are in business of proving crime, and Mueller failed to prove that crime existed.

The president doesn't have to prove that he's innocent. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Mueller investigation, as his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice. Our criminal justice does not have "exoneration" in its vocabulary, therefore the "exoneration" statements are simply political statements, and being political is not part of prosecutor duties.

About "perjury trap"... Pelosi, and others, called Barr a liar. They filed complaints with Maryland and Virginia bars to try to get AG Barr punished and disbarred, and they're talking about his impeachment. The goal is to discredit him enough to prevent his investigation into Democrats, FBI, and others interfering into our elections.

Democrats are completely out of control and they're trying to remove or impeach anybody who threatens their agenda, pretty much every Republican. At this moment, their biggest problem is AG Barr who openly said that he will investigate everything and everyone connected to spying on Trump campaign, including issuing FISA warrants, etc. Bottom line, Barr did not lie. He poked into hornet nest, and they don't like it at all.

his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice.

Mueller report conclusion "quote" if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , We Would State So

That a pretty clear and self explanatory statement that Mueller and his team believe that Trump committed obstruction of Justice (OOJ) or they would otherwise said so. The report is self states specific instances of OOJ.

Barr by saying that there was no obstruction of Justice misquoted an important part of the conclusion and the report itself

Barr is of no consequences to Congress because he has already shown that he is not up to the task of being the AG for the justice system. Instead he has shown himself to be Trumps boy. IF he cannot recluse himself when he is irrelevant

If he thinks he has something thing bring it on, Nobody is worried about it because he has to prove it not just say it , If he believes he can take down Mueller or the FBI , good luck with that.

Trump is the deep state that repubs fear

If trump is innocent then the process would clear him but since he has to lie, obstruct, and place people beside him who say things that he likes shows how insecure that he is in his decision making processes.

What specific instances of "obstruction of justice" are in report? Page number, please.

You don't like conclusions that AG reached. Who cares if you don't like it, or Democrats don't like it. Left claims that AG Barr misled American people, and that's another bogus claim. He did not, and why that even matters, since report is available for anyone to read.

The only thing that Mueller is objecting about seems to be that he wasn't getting the spin and narrative that he wanted. Well, that's not the role of the prosecutor, to write letter to AG because he's not happy the way media is treating his 4 page summary.

Back to AG Barr and hearing he refused to attend. What exactly is the point of that hearing?

The report has been released, with classified information being redacted, despite the fact that the regulations (laws) doesn't require it, despite the fact that AG is one who has final say, and despite the fact that Mueller didn't seek to indict the president, and he himself told AG and Deputy AG, and others in DOJ on more than one occasion that has nothing to do with DOJ position that they can't indict the sitting president.

Could Mueller objected to those DOJ opinions? Of course he could have, and could have made big issue if he had something to back it up. He could've said in his report "I wanted to indict the president, but because rules say I can't, DOJ opinion say I can't, AG say's I can't, so I didn't." Did he write anything like that?

No.

He didn't, because he couldn't find anything to indict the president, he had no basis for that. If president broke the law, that would be in report.Since he didn't, he wrote crap that insinuate to something, and left it to media and retards in Congress to try to make something out of it.

AG Barr did nothing wrong, quite opposite, he did everything by the law and that is what scares Democrats. He's coming after law breakers and this conspiracy to unseat the president goes quite high. This will be fun to watch.

Page 394 the conclusion is your first stop
yet the whole report is available for you to read

if your able to find the conclusion but it probably won't make a deference because you will just interpret what you want to much like Barr

if you can't understand why they can't indict the sitting president, then you will never understand why Mueller did what he did

Let's start from the beginning.

You said that report states specific instances of obstruction of justice.

I asked you to provide page where those specific instances are shown.

You pointed again to the "conclusion" that you mentioned earlier.

That's Mueller's opinion. On the contrary, if they had confidence that president did commit obstruction of justice, would they state so? If he obstructed the justice, why didn't they?

Because there wan't any. Otherwise it would be in the report.

And that's why you are full of shit.

Edit. Read the last sentence in that conclusion. "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." The job of the prosecutor is not to exonerate, but to prove the crime. Since there is no proof, his opinion means nothing, it's just bullshit, equal to yours.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What Mueller seems to be trying to say is that Trump was not exonerated because there was no evidence of a crime to charge him with.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The dems want to get him in a perjury trap so they can get rid of him before he uncovers their treasonous actions....he knows it and is too smart for them...can you imagine what Brennan and Comey and Clapper and Obama and Hillary are thinking right now?....

Let's roll back a little. The job of the special prosecutor, or any other prosecutor is to complete the investigation and either ask the grand jury to return the indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutor decline to charge, they made that decision because they do not believe that investigated conduct constitute the crime, for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors are not in business of establishing the innocence, or exonerating investigated person. In our justice system innocence is presumed, and there is never need for the prosecutor to determine weather someone is innocent. On the contrary, prosecutors are in business of proving crime, and Mueller failed to prove that crime existed.

The president doesn't have to prove that he's innocent. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Mueller investigation, as his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice. Our criminal justice does not have "exoneration" in its vocabulary, therefore the "exoneration" statements are simply political statements, and being political is not part of prosecutor duties.

About "perjury trap"... Pelosi, and others, called Barr a liar. They filed complaints with Maryland and Virginia bars to try to get AG Barr punished and disbarred, and they're talking about his impeachment. The goal is to discredit him enough to prevent his investigation into Democrats, FBI, and others interfering into our elections.

Democrats are completely out of control and they're trying to remove or impeach anybody who threatens their agenda, pretty much every Republican. At this moment, their biggest problem is AG Barr who openly said that he will investigate everything and everyone connected to spying on Trump campaign, including issuing FISA warrants, etc. Bottom line, Barr did not lie. He poked into hornet nest, and they don't like it at all.

his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice.

Mueller report conclusion "quote" if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , We Would State So

That a pretty clear and self explanatory statement that Mueller and his team believe that Trump committed obstruction of Justice (OOJ) or they would otherwise said so. The report is self states specific instances of OOJ.

Barr by saying that there was no obstruction of Justice misquoted an important part of the conclusion and the report itself

Barr is of no consequences to Congress because he has already shown that he is not up to the task of being the AG for the justice system. Instead he has shown himself to be Trumps boy. IF he cannot recluse himself when he is irrelevant

If he thinks he has something thing bring it on, Nobody is worried about it because he has to prove it not just say it , If he believes he can take down Mueller or the FBI , good luck with that.

Trump is the deep state that repubs fear

If trump is innocent then the process would clear him but since he has to lie, obstruct, and place people beside him who say things that he likes shows how insecure that he is in his decision making processes.

What specific instances of "obstruction of justice" are in report? Page number, please.

You don't like conclusions that AG reached. Who cares if you don't like it, or Democrats don't like it. Left claims that AG Barr misled American people, and that's another bogus claim. He did not, and why that even matters, since report is available for anyone to read.

The only thing that Mueller is objecting about seems to be that he wasn't getting the spin and narrative that he wanted. Well, that's not the role of the prosecutor, to write letter to AG because he's not happy the way media is treating his 4 page summary.

Back to AG Barr and hearing he refused to attend. What exactly is the point of that hearing?

The report has been released, with classified information being redacted, despite the fact that the regulations (laws) doesn't require it, despite the fact that AG is one who has final say, and despite the fact that Mueller didn't seek to indict the president, and he himself told AG and Deputy AG, and others in DOJ on more than one occasion that has nothing to do with DOJ position that they can't indict the sitting president.

Could Mueller objected to those DOJ opinions? Of course he could have, and could have made big issue if he had something to back it up. He could've said in his report "I wanted to indict the president, but because rules say I can't, DOJ opinion say I can't, AG say's I can't, so I didn't." Did he write anything like that?

No.

He didn't, because he couldn't find anything to indict the president, he had no basis for that. If president broke the law, that would be in report.Since he didn't, he wrote crap that insinuate to something, and left it to media and retards in Congress to try to make something out of it.

AG Barr did nothing wrong, quite opposite, he did everything by the law and that is what scares Democrats. He's coming after law breakers and this conspiracy to unseat the president goes quite high. This will be fun to watch.

Page 394 the conclusion is your first stop
yet the whole report is available for you to read

if your able to find the conclusion but it probably won't make a deference because you will just interpret what you want to much like Barr

if you can't understand why they can't indict the sitting president, then you will never understand why Mueller did what he did

Let's start from the beginning.

You said that report states specific instances of obstruction of justice.

I asked you to provide page where those specific instances are shown.

You pointed again to the "conclusion" that you mentioned earlier.

View attachment 259446

That's Mueller's opinion. On the contrary, if they had confidence that president did commit obstruction of justice, would they state so? If he obstructed the justice, why didn't they?

Because there wan't any. Otherwise it would be in the report.

And that's why you are full of shit.

Edit. Read the last sentence in that conclusion. "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." The job of the prosecutor is not to exonerate, but to prove the crime. Since there is no proof, his opinion means nothing, it's just bullshit, equal to yours.

We did not draw conclusions about the president's conduct went right by you.

Mueller was deliberately vague and ambiguous. He knew what the democrats wanted and he knew he couldn't give it to them. He also knew that the democrats would be screaming for his head and demanding his impeachment if he didn't produce.

 

[Kilroy2]

Let's roll back a little. The job of the special prosecutor, or any other prosecutor is to complete the investigation and either ask the grand jury to return the indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutor decline to charge, they made that decision because they do not believe that investigated conduct constitute the crime, for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors are not in business of establishing the innocence, or exonerating investigated person. In our justice system innocence is presumed, and there is never need for the prosecutor to determine weather someone is innocent. On the contrary, prosecutors are in business of proving crime, and Mueller failed to prove that crime existed.

The president doesn't have to prove that he's innocent. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Mueller investigation, as his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice. Our criminal justice does not have "exoneration" in its vocabulary, therefore the "exoneration" statements are simply political statements, and being political is not part of prosecutor duties.

About "perjury trap"... Pelosi, and others, called Barr a liar. They filed complaints with Maryland and Virginia bars to try to get AG Barr punished and disbarred, and they're talking about his impeachment. The goal is to discredit him enough to prevent his investigation into Democrats, FBI, and others interfering into our elections.

Democrats are completely out of control and they're trying to remove or impeach anybody who threatens their agenda, pretty much every Republican. At this moment, their biggest problem is AG Barr who openly said that he will investigate everything and everyone connected to spying on Trump campaign, including issuing FISA warrants, etc. Bottom line, Barr did not lie. He poked into hornet nest, and they don't like it at all.

his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice.

Mueller report conclusion "quote" if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , We Would State So

That a pretty clear and self explanatory statement that Mueller and his team believe that Trump committed obstruction of Justice (OOJ) or they would otherwise said so. The report is self states specific instances of OOJ.

Barr by saying that there was no obstruction of Justice misquoted an important part of the conclusion and the report itself

Barr is of no consequences to Congress because he has already shown that he is not up to the task of being the AG for the justice system. Instead he has shown himself to be Trumps boy. IF he cannot recluse himself when he is irrelevant

If he thinks he has something thing bring it on, Nobody is worried about it because he has to prove it not just say it , If he believes he can take down Mueller or the FBI , good luck with that.

Trump is the deep state that repubs fear

If trump is innocent then the process would clear him but since he has to lie, obstruct, and place people beside him who say things that he likes shows how insecure that he is in his decision making processes.

What specific instances of "obstruction of justice" are in report? Page number, please.

You don't like conclusions that AG reached. Who cares if you don't like it, or Democrats don't like it. Left claims that AG Barr misled American people, and that's another bogus claim. He did not, and why that even matters, since report is available for anyone to read.

The only thing that Mueller is objecting about seems to be that he wasn't getting the spin and narrative that he wanted. Well, that's not the role of the prosecutor, to write letter to AG because he's not happy the way media is treating his 4 page summary.

Back to AG Barr and hearing he refused to attend. What exactly is the point of that hearing?

The report has been released, with classified information being redacted, despite the fact that the regulations (laws) doesn't require it, despite the fact that AG is one who has final say, and despite the fact that Mueller didn't seek to indict the president, and he himself told AG and Deputy AG, and others in DOJ on more than one occasion that has nothing to do with DOJ position that they can't indict the sitting president.

Could Mueller objected to those DOJ opinions? Of course he could have, and could have made big issue if he had something to back it up. He could've said in his report "I wanted to indict the president, but because rules say I can't, DOJ opinion say I can't, AG say's I can't, so I didn't." Did he write anything like that?

No.

He didn't, because he couldn't find anything to indict the president, he had no basis for that. If president broke the law, that would be in report.Since he didn't, he wrote crap that insinuate to something, and left it to media and retards in Congress to try to make something out of it.

AG Barr did nothing wrong, quite opposite, he did everything by the law and that is what scares Democrats. He's coming after law breakers and this conspiracy to unseat the president goes quite high. This will be fun to watch.

Page 394 the conclusion is your first stop
yet the whole report is available for you to read

if your able to find the conclusion but it probably won't make a deference because you will just interpret what you want to much like Barr

if you can't understand why they can't indict the sitting president, then you will never understand why Mueller did what he did

Let's start from the beginning.

You said that report states specific instances of obstruction of justice.

I asked you to provide page where those specific instances are shown.

You pointed again to the "conclusion" that you mentioned earlier.

View attachment 259446

That's Mueller's opinion. On the contrary, if they had confidence that president did commit obstruction of justice, would they state so? If he obstructed the justice, why didn't they?

Because there wan't any. Otherwise it would be in the report.

And that's why you are full of shit.

Edit. Read the last sentence in that conclusion. "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." The job of the prosecutor is not to exonerate, but to prove the crime. Since there is no proof, his opinion means nothing, it's just bullshit, equal to yours.

We did not draw conclusions about the president's conduct went right by you.

Mueller was deliberately vague and ambiguous. He knew what the democrats wanted and he knew he couldn't give it to them. He also knew that the democrats would be screaming for his head and demanding his impeachment if he didn't produce.

We did not draw conclusions about the president's conduct went right by you.

Did you just ignore the rest of the conclusions

At the same time, if we HAD CONFIDENCE after a THOROUGHT INVESTIGATION of the facts that the president DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WE WOULD STATE SO.

clearly he is stating that they have NO confidence that that the president did not commit obstruction of justice OTHERWISE he would say "There was no obstruction of justice"

based on the facts and applicable legal standards, we are UNABLE to reach that judgement. Accordingly , while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime., it also DOES NOT exonerate him.

Again HE says that this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime BUT IT (the report) DOES NOT EXONORATE HIM

because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President conclusion

The ultimate conclusions would be guilt or not guilty which would lead to a pushing forward a prosecution or no further actions

Since this was not a traditional prosecutorial judgement since they cannot prosecute Trump as a sitting president

October 16, 2000 M e m o r a n d u m O p in io n f o r t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would IMPREMISSIBLY undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.

1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.

The OLC memorandum concluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process.

IT is black and white Mueller cannot prosecute Trump and thus this is why the first sentence was used "not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement" and later NOT EXONERATED

He used the word in a unique way. If you believe that he can't well he did

This can only mean that it is up to the Senate to determine if he should be impeached and removed from office.

Then they can probably prosecute him once he is removed

It is clear that those who are Trump supporters will hang their hats on anything that makes it easy for them to continue this support

The question of whether a prosecutor can exonerate is not the issue because he is saying that he is doing a NONTRADITIONAL move that says he will not exonorate Trump because the evidence he collected indicates guilt.

BUT he can't prosecute it thus it is up to Congress to use this report and do what they are authorized to do (Oversight)

TO impeach or NOT to impeach

 

[Zorro!]

GREAT MOMENTS IN PROJECTION: Democrats Accuse AG Barr of Doing Exactly What Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch Did for Obama.

As absurd as the claims are that Barr is acting like Trump’s personal lawyer to protect him, it’s difficult not to see that Democrats are making it their business to accuse William Barr of being everything Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch were for Barack Obama.

Neither Holder nor Lynch should have been confirmed as U.S. attorney general in the first place given their radical pasts. In 1970, Eric Holder was the leader of a black separatist group at Columbia University called the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS). As part of the group, Holder participated in a five-day armed takeover of an abandoned ROTC office on the Columbia University campus. He was also a hardcore left-wing partisan who disparaged conservatives and, as deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, played a major role in the pardoning of Weather Underground terrorists.

Holder’s radical past set the tone for his tenure at the Justice Department, which was defined by politics, not blind justice. One of the earliest scandals of the Obama presidency was Holder’s decision not to prosecute New Black Panther Party members over voter intimidation during the 2008 election. Holder was also behind the stonewalling of many investigations, which prompted 47 (out of 73) inspectors general to write a letter to Congress informing them of the systemic obstruction. Holder clearly saw his job as Obama’s protector and refused to cooperate with congressional investigations, resulting in his being held in contempt of Congress. Holder also funneled billions of dollars to left-wing groups in a huge slush fund scheme. Holder’s politicization of the Department of Justice is undeniable. During a 2013 interview on the Tom Joyner radio show, he dismissed a question about him possibly leaving the administration. “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the president’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.” Holder was clearly proud of his unwavering allegiance to Obama, not the rule of law—and wasn’t afraid to say so.

 

[busybee01]

The dems want to get him in a perjury trap so they can get rid of him before he uncovers their treasonous actions....he knows it and is too smart for them...can you imagine what Brennan and Comey and Clapper and Obama and Hillary are thinking right now?....ASSANGE

Let's roll back a little. The job of the special prosecutor, or any other prosecutor is to complete the investigation and either ask the grand jury to return the indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutor decline to charge, they made that decision because they do not believe that investigated conduct constitute the crime, for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors are not in business of establishing the innocence, or exonerating investigated person. In our justice system innocence is presumed, and there is never need for the prosecutor to determine weather someone is innocent. On the contrary, prosecutors are in business of proving crime, and Mueller failed to prove that crime existed.

The president doesn't have to prove that he's innocent. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and Mueller investigation, as his report states, does not provide proof of collusion, or obstruction of justice. Our criminal justice does not have "exoneration" in its vocabulary, therefore the "exoneration" statements are simply political statements, and being political is not part of prosecutor duties.

About "perjury trap"... Pelosi, and others, called Barr a liar. They filed complaints with Maryland and Virginia bars to try to get AG Barr punished and disbarred, and they're talking about his impeachment. The goal is to discredit him enough to prevent his investigation into Democrats, FBI, and others interfering into our elections.

Democrats are completely out of control and they're trying to remove or impeach anybody who threatens their agenda, pretty much every Republican. At this moment, their biggest problem is AG Barr who openly said that he will investigate everything and everyone connected to spying on Trump campaign, including issuing FISA warrants, etc. Bottom line, Barr did not lie. He poked into hornet nest, and they don't like it at all.

A special prosecutor is under the DOJ. That means he is bound by Justice Department policy. One of those policies is the fact that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

The fact is that Mueller proved several things. That Manafort gave a Russian business associate with ties to Russian Intelligence the campaign's strategy and polling data. That gave the Russians a roadmap once it was passed on. We still don't know how Roger Stone fits into this. He knew about Podesta's e-mails being placed on WikiLeaks BEFORE they were placed there. That means his connections were either to the Russians who hacked the e-mails or Julian Assange who received the stolen e-mails. Several members of the campaign tried to get dirt on Clinton from the Russians.

He also provided areas that Trump obstructed justice. He urged the Congress to investigate further. Mueller's report reads like a referral for a impeachment process. He clearly did not clear Trump.

Barr very clearly has sold his soul and his allegiance is to Trump not the United States of America. Barr used the word spying even though he admitted he did not read the referral made by the Australian government. He claimed Trump was cleared of obstruction and later admitted he did not read the underlying facts in the Mueller report. He is the one who has discredited himself. Now he wants to initiate a retaliatory prosecution of Trump's enemies.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yada......yada.....yada......yada.....

You st00pid progressives.....obstruction is immaterial if there has been no crime!

@www.whosnotwinning.com