Kamala Harris Draws Blood At Senate Hearing

[BluesLegend]

Another cut and paste OP mods will delete.

 

[Hellokitty]

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

Barr had already agreed under oath he would accept Mueller's conclusion of the report, and he did. Barr made his decision along with Rosenstein who had been uncharge of the SC from the start and Barr has stated he had spent the first 3 weeks being brought up to speed on the SC from both Mueller and Rosenstein.

Barr reviewed the materials he needed and made his decision.

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

Another world-class moron who can't but advertise his idiocy and ignorance, but wisely chose to laugh at it.

Glorious.

 

[Clipper]

And just to be clear Kamala Harris is a full blown WHORE who also happens to be a Democrat hack.

She's never posed bare ass in a skin mag, Trumptard.

 

[Clipper]

Another Trumptard speaks

I didn't vote for Trump. In fact I posted HEAVILY against him before the election.

Not throwing a tempertantrum about him winning anyhow =/= Trumptard.

Having said that using the word Trumptard does in fact = YOU being an immature loser.

Now go scream at the sky while you wait for the hostess to seat you at your nearest safe space.

Dumbass

What you need is someone using flash cards with pictures, short words & sentences & diagrams drawn in crayon explaining to you why exposing Trump for the criminal hack that he is does not make someone a loser, you fucking asswipe.

 

[theHawk]

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

Did you bother reading your own cut ‘n paste job?

Barr destroyed Kamala.

 

[Geaux4it]

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 did nothing but prove she is a woman out of her league. Other that that, the bitch can FO

-Geaux

 

[Dick Foster]

“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.

I'd add to that. She's a half witted ho. Let's not forget she puts out for political favors. Slick Willy should dial her up.

 

[Dekster]

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?

He didn't say he hadn't seen any of it. She asked if he looked at ALL of it and he said no.

 

[Clipper]

Another Trumptard speaks

I didn't vote for Trump. In fact I posted HEAVILY against him before the election.

Not throwing a tempertantrum about him winning anyhow =/= Trumptard.

Having said that using the word Trumptard does in fact = YOU being an immature loser.

Now go scream at the sky while you wait for the hostess to seat you at your nearest safe space.

Dumbass

Oh btw, now I know that you didn't vote for Trump. Thanks for telling me! Now ask me if I give a rat's ass who you voted for.

 

[candycorn]

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

I sort of felt bad for Blob Jr. yesterday watching that.

Her stock went up a couple of points

 

[lantern2814]

Just a few weeks ago, Mueller's word was beyond reproach for you moonbats.

The same Mueller complaining that Barr is misleading Americans?

that Mueller?

Learn how to read before making a fool of yourself again. Mueller was complaining that the MEDIA was misleading the American people, not Barr. Swing and a miss again.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Another world-class moron who can't but advertise his idiocy and ignorance, but wisely chose to laugh at it.

Glorious.

What the fuck is this shit supposed to mean?

Did Barr not reach the same conclusions as Mueller? How are they different?

Be specific, you miserable ****. Don't just throw out generalities. Otherwise, go fuck yourself.

.

 

[lantern2814]

And just to be clear Kamala Harris is a full blown WHORE who also happens to be a Democrat hack.

She's never posed bare ass in a skin mag, Trumptard.

No she didn't. But libtards like you forget that Kamala SLEPT her way to the top. Ask Willie Brown. That makes her the definition of WHORE.

 

[Clipper]

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...…..

One Harris got done cleaning Barr's clock, who supplied a new pair of shorts for Barr & Lindsey? My vote is on Lyin' Ted, that's all he's good for other then going down on Trump.

 

[Deno]

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 are one ignorant Tard...

kh is dumber than a sack of bricks..

You have no idea how the Freak Show you Tards have

put on looks to the average INFORMED SANE American.

You will realize your mistake when Trump Tromps your ass in 20.

Yours is all an effort to get in front of the indictments that we

all know are coming your way for spying on and trying to frame

President Trump with your FAKE dossier and your FAKED FISA WARRANT..

All of your dirty players are going to be exposed for all to see.....

Tic Toc TARDS....

 

[Mike473]

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

I sort of felt bad for Blob Jr. yesterday watching that.

Her stock went up a couple of points

I think it went down. The Dems were trying to prove Barr was undermining Mueller's report. Yet, her line of questioning revealed Barr accepted Mueller's report at face value with no objection. Which, is not the behavior of someone acting as a defense attorney. I am puzzled at why she went with that line of questioning.

Barr did make an error when it came to Mueller though. When he received the letter from Mueller, he should have replied to the letter with his own, asking the same questions from the phone conversation to memorialize it the same way.

 

[william the wie]

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?

Given the idiotic way Europe has acted since Napoleon over the past 200 years with three genocidal wars your wisdom is worth its weight in gold as shown by the way everyone with a brain has been leaving Europe for that entire period

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Another cut and paste OP mods will delete.

No they won't they only remove those that are NOT critical of Trump.

 

[B. Kidd]

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

Barr had already agreed under oath he would accept Mueller's conclusion of the report, and he did. Barr made his decision along with Rosenstein who had been uncharge of the SC from the start and Barr has stated he had spent the first 3 weeks being brought up to speed on the SC from both Mueller and Rosenstein.

Barr reviewed the materials he needed and made his decision.

You can't get Democrats to grasp reality.
They have 2 brain cells left, and only one is firing