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

[Ame®icano]

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

WTF are you talking about?

Did you at least read what I said in previous two posts?

Once again, Mueller job was not to prove innocence, or to state that president did not obstruct the justice. His job is to prove if he did. In our justice system, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Has Mueller proved it?

No.

It stops there. It's completely irrelevant that he said he couldn't prove that Trump did not obstruct the justice. He didn't have to, because failing to prove that he did, means that president did not obstructed the justice. Period.

At first, I though we could have an argument about this, but you proven me wrong by posting the same unfunded shit over and over. Let me try this different way...

Back in 1974 DB Cooper hijacked the plane and parachuted out of it with $200,000 (around $1M today). Neither D.B. Cooper or the money were ever heard from or seen again. Let's say Mueller starts investigation based on dossier financed by Hillary what suspect Trump is D.B Cooper and that he is the one who hijacked the plane. After two year investigation, Mueller writes report where he said he can't prove Trump is D.B Cooper, but in conclusion he writes, "if we confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president did not hijacked the plane, we would state so."

Would that automatically mean that Trump is D.B Cooper?

It's simple answer, yes or no.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Congressional Dimocrats could not care less about the law, the two concerns they have is to win the 2020 elections and staying out of jail.

That is all, nothing more.

 

[otto105]

In the battle unfolding in Congress between the Democrats and Attorney General William Barr, I’m on the side of the United States Constitution. That means defending not only Mr. Barr but also President Trump. The two men stand on America’s legal bedrock.

Which is why Mr. Barr was able to make short work of his Democratic questioners at Wednesday’s hearing in the Senate. His calm, straightforward testimony made it clear that he isn’t the caricature the Democrats have been drawing of him.

And events aren’t the conspiracy the Democrats are still trying to validate, even after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s finding that there was no collusion, actual or attempted, between Trump’s camarilla and the Kremlin. Nor any prosecutable obstruction case.

Yet no sooner did Barr, under pressure for an early summary, send a sketch of Mueller’s report to Congress than the Democrats started suggesting he had spun the story in favor of the President. That was the guts of the hearing in the Senate.

The nastiest of the Democrats — Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont — went so far as to suggest that Mr. Barr had misled Congress in his reporting of the investigation. He tweeted that Mr. Barr “knew that Mueller had serious concerns” about Mr. Barr’s summary report.

So what? Mr. Mueller didn’t accuse Mr. Barr of misrepresenting him. He complained that Mr. Barr’s letter sketching the key elements of Mr. Mueller’s report didn’t “fully capture” the report’s “context, nature and substance.” What four-page sketch can fully capture a 448-page report?

It turns out that Mr. Mueller wanted the report released piecemeal. Mr. Barr overruled him. It looks similar to, say, a hapless middle-ranking editor (Mr. Mueller) caught between an activist staff (Mr. Mueller’s Clintonite investigators) and a hard-headed boss (Mr. Barr).

(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ..

Hmmm...It turns out that Mr. Mueller wanted the report released piecemeal. Mr. Barr overruled him.

That's an interesting NEW detail.

Not really surprising, Mueller had little to smear the President with, so by slowly releasing his report - with accompanying Media howling at every release - he obviously hoped to maximize the political damage inflicted on Trump.

Big Media was probably on board the whole way, helping to coordinate what they thought would be Watergate Hearings v.2019 ...

instead, Bill Barr cut them off at the kneecaps ... no wonder THEY'RE - i.e., Democrats and their Big Media pals - so ticked off

History in the making here!!

BBBBBWWWWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Your chum for dinner is ready.

 

[Zorro!]

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....

His strategy was to take FL, PA, WI and MI. It wasn't a big secret, in fact, the Fake News Media and the Left ridiculed him over it.

Donald Trump is losing every single swing state
By Andrew Prokop[email protected] Aug 15, 2016, 1:50pm EDT

....Several members of the campaign tried to get dirt on Clinton from the Russians....

Hillary, Obama and the DNC paid Steele, a foreign spy, to get dirt on Trump from the Russians, are you claiming this is a crime?

...He also provided areas that Trump obstructed justice. He urged the Congress to investigate further.

No he didn't. He merely added some boilerplate that everyone was already aware of:
“Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

And then stated the very clear conclusion that Mueller had not found that the President had committed any crimes: “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime...”

And he added some other crap about not "exonerating Trump" but it's not the Prosecutors job to exonerate, it's their job to either bring indictment or shut up.

... Barr used the word spying ...

It's the right word. And when it came to the Bush Administration the Left was very comfortable using it. Their sudden bashfulness and a breaking out of the thesaurus to avoid using the term is a bit obvious, don't you think?

... he wants to initiate a retaliatory prosecution of Trump's enemies.

He wants to get to the bottom of why the Obama Administration illegally spied on a rival campaign. We need to make sure that no future campaigns are similarly interfered with. Do you want Trump to spy on Biden or Kamala?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Either you guys know congress has oversight authority.

Or you are a bunch of liars.

Which is it?

Barr is showing the whole world that the Dems are just playing crass political games and abusing their subpoena power. That is not "oversight".

 

[JimBowie1958]

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Ame®icano]

As usual, leftist cucks run away from providing answers.

 

[busybee01]

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

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

@www.whosnotwinning.com

Go tell that to Martha Stewart. She was prosecuted for obstruction even though there was no underlying crime.

 

[busybee01]

Either you guys know congress has oversight authority.

Or you are a bunch of liars.

Which is it?

Barr is showing the whole world that the Dems are just playing crass political games and abusing their subpoena power. That is not "oversight".

Barr is showing the whole world what a coverup looks like.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

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

@www.whosnotwinning.com

Go tell that to Martha Stewart. She was prosecuted for obstruction even though there was no underlying crime.

Obstruction only?

No felony charges for insider trading and making false statements to federal investigators?

 

[Ame®icano]

Either you guys know congress has oversight authority.

Or you are a bunch of liars.

Which is it?

Barr is showing the whole world that the Dems are just playing crass political games and abusing their subpoena power. That is not "oversight".

Barr is showing the whole world what a coverup looks like.

What exactly is he covering up?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Either you guys know congress has oversight authority.

Or you are a bunch of liars.

Which is it?

You mean the HOUSE has oversight authority, where they try to FORCE AG. Barr to beak the law on the last 2% of the Mueller Report. Here is a thread I just started where a long time Liberal Lawyer Jonathan Turley says Nadler and his cronies are the ones on contempt, Barr didn't do anything wrong, didn't lie or misrepresent the Mueller report. The real fight is over the 2% where the, law says it is to be redacted.

Democrats are in for a SMACKDOWN in Federal Court, then what will dumb ass Nadler do then after that big easy to see coming loss?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Mueller had no confidence that there was obstruction either. He was trying to avoid democrat fury by being non committal. That didn't work.