Kamala Harris Draws Blood At Senate Hearing

[toobfreak]

Kamala Harris ruined William Barr yesterday.

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck
It took just eight minutes for Harris to destroy the attorney general’s “no obstruction” story.

Imagine: you’re the Attorney General of the United States and have a big decision to make, in this case whether or not to charge the president with obstructing justice. The special counsel has written an exhaustive report citing numerous situations that sure sound like obstruction attempts—asking the White House counsel to lie to investigators, for instance—and it appears the only reason they weren’t successful is because staffers refused to do the Big Guy’s bidding, apparently unaware of how the mafia is supposed to operate. No, you’ve decided, you’re not going to charge the POTUS with a crime—a conclusion that, deep down inside, you know you made months prior. Instead, you’re going to tell the American public that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Should be an open-and-shut case but, on the off chance anyone asks, it would probably be a good idea to actually read the underlying evidence you claimed wasn’t robust enough to charge the president, right? Actually, in the case of one William Barr, the answer is somehow wrong-o!

Noting that the special counsel’s report contained “a great deal of evidence,” including witnesses’ notes and memos, congressional testimony, interviews, and former F.B.I. director James Comey’s memos, Senator Kamala Harris asked Barr during his congressional hearing on Wednesday, “In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?” Again, one would have expected the answer to be Of course, I did! What kind of cockamamie question is that? but, somehow, it wasn’t! “No,” Barr told the former prosecutor. “We accepted the statements in the report as factual record, we did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate.” What about departed Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, Harris wondered. How ‘bout that guy? Did he “review the underlying evidence . . . that supports the conclusions in the report?” Again, the answer was no.

“Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report,” Harris asked, as Cory Booker struggled to conceal his smile watching the senator from California nail Barr to the wall. “No,” Barr answered. “Yet you represented to the America public that the evidence was not ‘sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense?’” Harris pressed.

Backed into a corner, Barr attempted to A.G.-splain to Harris—who, incidentally, served as the Attorney General of California for six years—how all this works and why it’s completely absurd to expect him to have looked at all the evidence before deciding there wasn’t enough of it to charge Donald Trump. “This is not a mysterious process,” Barr said. “In the Department of Justice we have [prosecution] memos every day coming and we don’t go and look at the underlying evidence.” To which Harris responded, effectively, you’re fucking kidding me, right?

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck

Fantasy Life Much?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Kamala Harris ruined William Barr yesterday.

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck
It took just eight minutes for Harris to destroy the attorney general’s “no obstruction” story.

Imagine: you’re the Attorney General of the United States and have a big decision to make, in this case whether or not to charge the president with obstructing justice. The special counsel has written an exhaustive report citing numerous situations that sure sound like obstruction attempts—asking the White House counsel to lie to investigators, for instance—and it appears the only reason they weren’t successful is because staffers refused to do the Big Guy’s bidding, apparently unaware of how the mafia is supposed to operate. No, you’ve decided, you’re not going to charge the POTUS with a crime—a conclusion that, deep down inside, you know you made months prior. Instead, you’re going to tell the American public that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Should be an open-and-shut case but, on the off chance anyone asks, it would probably be a good idea to actually read the underlying evidence you claimed wasn’t robust enough to charge the president, right? Actually, in the case of one William Barr, the answer is somehow wrong-o!

Noting that the special counsel’s report contained “a great deal of evidence,” including witnesses’ notes and memos, congressional testimony, interviews, and former F.B.I. director James Comey’s memos, Senator Kamala Harris asked Barr during his congressional hearing on Wednesday, “In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?” Again, one would have expected the answer to be Of course, I did! What kind of cockamamie question is that? but, somehow, it wasn’t! “No,” Barr told the former prosecutor. “We accepted the statements in the report as factual record, we did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate.” What about departed Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, Harris wondered. How ‘bout that guy? Did he “review the underlying evidence . . . that supports the conclusions in the report?” Again, the answer was no.

“Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report,” Harris asked, as Cory Booker struggled to conceal his smile watching the senator from California nail Barr to the wall. “No,” Barr answered. “Yet you represented to the America public that the evidence was not ‘sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense?’” Harris pressed.

Backed into a corner, Barr attempted to A.G.-splain to Harris—who, incidentally, served as the Attorney General of California for six years—how all this works and why it’s completely absurd to expect him to have looked at all the evidence before deciding there wasn’t enough of it to charge Donald Trump. “This is not a mysterious process,” Barr said. “In the Department of Justice we have [prosecution] memos every day coming and we don’t go and look at the underlying evidence.” To which Harris responded, effectively, you’re fucking kidding me, right?

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck

She's cute when she gets all angry...…..

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Are you people stupid or something?
So Barr, himself, was supposed to verify the entire investigation before issuing a summary??
Really??

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.
Barr read what Mueller said about the evidence, since that was Mueller's job. To look at the evidence and report on it. I did not need oxygen when Barr said he hadn't read the underlying evidence himself, because Mueller already did and he put it all in the report. Harris wanted to make it sound as if Barr had done some extraordinarily godawful thing, but I wonder if he actually did anything at all out of the ordinary. A thorough investigative report is supposed to provide what you need to know. Barr trusted Mueller to do that. Apparently, Kamala doesn't.

Harris is just working off the talking points, complain bitterly about everything the administration does, whether it's a good thing or not. Then tomorrow, complain about those actions, even if they are what you demanded yesterday.

Harris wasn’t working off talking points. She was asking very pointed questions, the kind that the former Attorney General might ask a witness to elicit information about how he came to his decisions regarding obstruction.

Harris got Barr to admit that he made his decision without reading the evidence. She then asked follow up questions based on Barr’s responses. Her questions made Barr squirm in his chair as he desperately tried to come up with non-answers to her questions without perjuring himself. Define suggestion indeed.

What kind of prosecutor decides whether or not to file charges without reviewing the evidence? What kind of prosecution lawyer makes excuses for the criminal behaviour of the accused?

The setup is obvious. Complain that he's trying to hide the report when he doesn't release it right away, then complain he didn't keep it for months and read all the supporting evidence when he releases it. He read Mueller's summary and believed him. Should he have ignored the summary?

That's my point. Why have the investigation at all, if the next guy has to verify the validity of it which can only be done by another giant $30 mil investigation.
We all knew no matter what that Barr was going to be hated on by the left. Inevitable.
He is the new target.

 

[bripat9643]

If anyone ever hires Harris to defend them in court...they have a fool for an attorney....

You are right , she was not a defense attorney but was a prosecutor , unlike Barr who acted like a defense attorney today - defending tramp.

No one is swallowing that load of horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.
Barr read what Mueller said about the evidence, since that was Mueller's job. To look at the evidence and report on it. I did not need oxygen when Barr said he hadn't read the underlying evidence himself, because Mueller already did and he put it all in the report. Harris wanted to make it sound as if Barr had done some extraordinarily godawful thing, but I wonder if he actually did anything at all out of the ordinary. A thorough investigative report is supposed to provide what you need to know. Barr trusted Mueller to do that. Apparently, Kamala doesn't.

Harris is just working off the talking points, complain bitterly about everything the administration does, whether it's a good thing or not. Then tomorrow, complain about those actions, even if they are what you demanded yesterday.

Harris wasn’t working off talking points. She was asking very pointed questions, the kind that the former Attorney General might ask a witness to elicit information about how he came to his decisions regarding obstruction.

Harris got Barr to admit that he made his decision without reading the evidence. She then asked follow up questions based on Barr’s responses. Her questions made Barr squirm in his chair as he desperately tried to come up with non-answers to her questions without perjuring himself. Define suggestion indeed.

What kind of prosecutor decides whether or not to file charges without reviewing the evidence? What kind of prosecution lawyer makes excuses for the criminal behaviour of the accused?

The setup is obvious. Complain that he's trying to hide the report when he doesn't release it right away, then complain he didn't keep it for months and read all the supporting evidence when he releases it. He read Mueller's summary and believed him. Should he have ignored the summary?

That's my point. Why have the investigation at all, if the next guy has to verify the validity of it which can only be done by another giant $30 mil investigation.
We all knew no matter what that Barr was going to be hated on by the left. Inevitable.
He is the new target.

Without the Mueller with hunt, they have no source of fake news, lies and innuendo to use against the president. This source of propaganda is dead.

 

[bripat9643]

Snooze! You mean Barr hasn't bothered to read the thousands of pages of evidence that formed the basis of the Mueller report? He's read the report, but that's not good enough? Humm, how many of those Senators whining about this non-issue read all the evidence that Comey examined (and dismissed)? How many of them read the thousands of pages of evidence behind the Benghazi Select Committee's report? What a bunch of hogwash. But, oh, it's "shocking" that Barr has not read the thousands of pages of evidence that Mueller's team developed--never mind that Mueller said no collusion and no conclusion on obstruction, right?

It's a bogus issue, or course. Barr accepted all the evidence Mueller presented as valid. What more do they want? Are they claiming some of it is invalid?

 

[Ringel05]

Kamala Harris ruined William Barr yesterday.

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck
It took just eight minutes for Harris to destroy the attorney general’s “no obstruction” story.

Imagine: you’re the Attorney General of the United States and have a big decision to make, in this case whether or not to charge the president with obstructing justice. The special counsel has written an exhaustive report citing numerous situations that sure sound like obstruction attempts—asking the White House counsel to lie to investigators, for instance—and it appears the only reason they weren’t successful is because staffers refused to do the Big Guy’s bidding, apparently unaware of how the mafia is supposed to operate. No, you’ve decided, you’re not going to charge the POTUS with a crime—a conclusion that, deep down inside, you know you made months prior. Instead, you’re going to tell the American public that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Should be an open-and-shut case but, on the off chance anyone asks, it would probably be a good idea to actually read the underlying evidence you claimed wasn’t robust enough to charge the president, right? Actually, in the case of one William Barr, the answer is somehow wrong-o!

Noting that the special counsel’s report contained “a great deal of evidence,” including witnesses’ notes and memos, congressional testimony, interviews, and former F.B.I. director James Comey’s memos, Senator Kamala Harris asked Barr during his congressional hearing on Wednesday, “In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?” Again, one would have expected the answer to be Of course, I did! What kind of cockamamie question is that? but, somehow, it wasn’t! “No,” Barr told the former prosecutor. “We accepted the statements in the report as factual record, we did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate.” What about departed Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, Harris wondered. How ‘bout that guy? Did he “review the underlying evidence . . . that supports the conclusions in the report?” Again, the answer was no.

“Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report,” Harris asked, as Cory Booker struggled to conceal his smile watching the senator from California nail Barr to the wall. “No,” Barr answered. “Yet you represented to the America public that the evidence was not ‘sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense?’” Harris pressed.

Backed into a corner, Barr attempted to A.G.-splain to Harris—who, incidentally, served as the Attorney General of California for six years—how all this works and why it’s completely absurd to expect him to have looked at all the evidence before deciding there wasn’t enough of it to charge Donald Trump. “This is not a mysterious process,” Barr said. “In the Department of Justice we have [prosecution] memos every day coming and we don’t go and look at the underlying evidence.” To which Harris responded, effectively, you’re fucking kidding me, right?

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck

You guys are as bad as the anti-Obama right wing nut jobs were......

Now I'll sit back and wait for the self defensive, rationalized excuses to roll in.......

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

“Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report,” Harris asked, as Cory Booker struggled to conceal his smile watching the senator from California nail Barr to the wall. “No,” Barr answered. “Yet you represented to the America public that the evidence was not ‘sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense?’” Harris pressed.

That's the "cross-examination" portion of his testimony. Now let's have the direct examination.

Mr. Barr, why did you not review the alleged evidence supporting the report?



Harris is a half wit.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I thought one had to post something other than linking an article? OP has no thoughts of his own.

Kamala Harris wanted Barr to NOT trust Mueller’s conclusions and do his own investigation.

She is a disingenuous lying shitbird.

She didn’t ask for Comeys recommendation on HIllary to be questioned by Lynch and for Lynch to do her own investigation.

Barr read the Mueller report and concluded there was no conspiracy nor obstruction.

Period.

 

[Lakhota]

I thought one had to post something other than linking an article? OP has no thoughts of his own.

Kamala Harris wanted Barr to NOT trust Mueller’s conclusions and do his own investigation.

She is a disingenuous lying shitbird.

She didn’t ask for Comeys recommendation on HIllary to be questioned by Lynch and for Lynch to do her own investigation.

Barr read the Mueller report and concluded there was no conspiracy nor obstruction.

Period.

Is that why Mueller said he could NOT exonerate Trump on obstruction?

 

[B. Kidd]

This is like the 4th or 5th thread parroting fake news about this dimwit.

 

[Jitss617]

Lol what news are you watching ?? She didn’t know rod was the acting attorney general lol embarrassing

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL you people are insane, why in hell would the AG redo the investigation, which by the way took 2 YEARS, to verify what Mueller said he found?

 

[BluesLegend]

Barr's career accomplishments make Kamala look like the rank amateur that she is.

 

[Jitss617]

Crime sky rocketed in California under her watch.. what do democrats do? Promote lol

 

[Olde Europe]

To recap the OP:

Barr tells "the American public that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” [...]

Senator Kamala Harris asked Barr [...], “In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?” [...]

“No,” Barr told the former prosecutor.​

Barr blabs about "evidence" he hasn't seen, and reaches conclusions based upon not having seen any.

Just like our Trumpletons blabbing about what is, and is not, in the Mueller report, without ever having taken a look at it.

Any wonder the goofs are just fine with Barr?

 

[miketx]

Kamala Harris ruined William Barr yesterday.

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck
It took just eight minutes for Harris to destroy the attorney general’s “no obstruction” story.

Imagine: you’re the Attorney General of the United States and have a big decision to make, in this case whether or not to charge the president with obstructing justice. The special counsel has written an exhaustive report citing numerous situations that sure sound like obstruction attempts—asking the White House counsel to lie to investigators, for instance—and it appears the only reason they weren’t successful is because staffers refused to do the Big Guy’s bidding, apparently unaware of how the mafia is supposed to operate. No, you’ve decided, you’re not going to charge the POTUS with a crime—a conclusion that, deep down inside, you know you made months prior. Instead, you’re going to tell the American public that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Should be an open-and-shut case but, on the off chance anyone asks, it would probably be a good idea to actually read the underlying evidence you claimed wasn’t robust enough to charge the president, right? Actually, in the case of one William Barr, the answer is somehow wrong-o!

Noting that the special counsel’s report contained “a great deal of evidence,” including witnesses’ notes and memos, congressional testimony, interviews, and former F.B.I. director James Comey’s memos, Senator Kamala Harris asked Barr during his congressional hearing on Wednesday, “In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?” Again, one would have expected the answer to be Of course, I did! What kind of cockamamie question is that? but, somehow, it wasn’t! “No,” Barr told the former prosecutor. “We accepted the statements in the report as factual record, we did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate.” What about departed Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, Harris wondered. How ‘bout that guy? Did he “review the underlying evidence . . . that supports the conclusions in the report?” Again, the answer was no.

“Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report,” Harris asked, as Cory Booker struggled to conceal his smile watching the senator from California nail Barr to the wall. “No,” Barr answered. “Yet you represented to the America public that the evidence was not ‘sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense?’” Harris pressed.

Backed into a corner, Barr attempted to A.G.-splain to Harris—who, incidentally, served as the Attorney General of California for six years—how all this works and why it’s completely absurd to expect him to have looked at all the evidence before deciding there wasn’t enough of it to charge Donald Trump. “This is not a mysterious process,” Barr said. “In the Department of Justice we have [prosecution] memos every day coming and we don’t go and look at the underlying evidence.” To which Harris responded, effectively, you’re fucking kidding me, right?

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck

The miracle of modern medicine! Gutted and flopping yesterday, and today back to work exposing the crime party!

 

[BluesLegend]

Crime sky rocketed in California under her watch.. what do democrats do? Promote lol

Dem's never accept responsibility for their colossal failures.

 

[Meathead]

Kamala Harris ruined William Barr yesterday.

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck
It took just eight minutes for Harris to destroy the attorney general’s “no obstruction” story.

Imagine: you’re the Attorney General of the United States and have a big decision to make, in this case whether or not to charge the president with obstructing justice. The special counsel has written an exhaustive report citing numerous situations that sure sound like obstruction attempts—asking the White House counsel to lie to investigators, for instance—and it appears the only reason they weren’t successful is because staffers refused to do the Big Guy’s bidding, apparently unaware of how the mafia is supposed to operate. No, you’ve decided, you’re not going to charge the POTUS with a crime—a conclusion that, deep down inside, you know you made months prior. Instead, you’re going to tell the American public that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Should be an open-and-shut case but, on the off chance anyone asks, it would probably be a good idea to actually read the underlying evidence you claimed wasn’t robust enough to charge the president, right? Actually, in the case of one William Barr, the answer is somehow wrong-o!

Noting that the special counsel’s report contained “a great deal of evidence,” including witnesses’ notes and memos, congressional testimony, interviews, and former F.B.I. director James Comey’s memos, Senator Kamala Harris asked Barr during his congressional hearing on Wednesday, “In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?” Again, one would have expected the answer to be Of course, I did! What kind of cockamamie question is that? but, somehow, it wasn’t! “No,” Barr told the former prosecutor. “We accepted the statements in the report as factual record, we did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate.” What about departed Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, Harris wondered. How ‘bout that guy? Did he “review the underlying evidence . . . that supports the conclusions in the report?” Again, the answer was no.

“Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report,” Harris asked, as Cory Booker struggled to conceal his smile watching the senator from California nail Barr to the wall. “No,” Barr answered. “Yet you represented to the America public that the evidence was not ‘sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense?’” Harris pressed.

Backed into a corner, Barr attempted to A.G.-splain to Harris—who, incidentally, served as the Attorney General of California for six years—how all this works and why it’s completely absurd to expect him to have looked at all the evidence before deciding there wasn’t enough of it to charge Donald Trump. “This is not a mysterious process,” Barr said. “In the Department of Justice we have [prosecution] memos every day coming and we don’t go and look at the underlying evidence.” To which Harris responded, effectively, you’re fucking kidding me, right?

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck

That fishy smell didn't come from Barr. You get my drift. Kamala's been around the block.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Barr blabs about "evidence" he hasn't seen, and reaches conclusions based upon not having seen any.

Somebody tell that to Mueller, who reached the same conclusions based on his actual review of the evidence.