Kamala Harris Draws Blood At Senate Hearing

[deanrd]

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

Actually, what she really got Barr on was when she asked if anyone in the White House asked the DOJ to open an investigation into "someone". The someone being "someone Democrat". And he couldn't say know.

This would be an abuse of power. And that is illegal.

Republicans say that Trump is being investigated. Why now?

Let me explain.

When Michael Cohen stood on the house floor and said Trump lied about his wealth when getting loans (bank fraud) and paying taxes (tax evasion) and provided documents, that gave the Attorney General of New York and other states the reason to look into Trump's finances.

I hope everyone understands how that works?

 

[Clipper]

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

Yea, imagine a man of Barr's caliber kissing the ass of a sleazy, two bit hack like Trump for a job. Some people will do anything for a title. That's what Sessions did & look where he ended up. A nobody in the scrap heap of history. Which is where Barr will end up.

 

[kyzr]

Kamala tried to make an issue out of Barr not looking at the "evidence". Barr said he accepted the Mueller report as written. If Barr went thru all of the evidence himself it would take years. Barr won the day, the dems made no points, Lindsay Graham said "case closed, its over". The senate is done with the Mueller witch hunt, and now wants to investigate the investigators.

 

[deanrd]

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.

au contraire mon amour,
Kamala drew blood. And Barr managed to only look pissed and not squeal like a stuck pig.

Especially when asked about an abuse of power.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Barr spanked her and made her gag like she was back under Willie Browns desk.

I'll bet she NEVER EVER NOT ONCE reviewed the footnote on the drafts and reviews she signed off on.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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

Didn't happen you should watch the video.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Collusion clearly visible in the penumbra of the Mueller No Collusion Report, amiright Progs?

 

[deanrd]

Kamala tried to make an issue out of Barr not looking at the "evidence". Barr said he accepted the Mueller report as written. If Barr went thru all of the evidence himself it would take years. Barr won the day, the dems made no points, Lindsay Graham said "case closed, its over". The senate is done with the Mueller witch hunt, and now wants to investigate the investigators.

He didn't need to go through all the evidence. Mueller said he couldn't find ENOUGH evidence of conspiracy, but wouldn't make a determination on obstruction.

And asking about starting illegal investigations into political enemies of Trump wasn't in the report. That was a separate question.

But we do know what was in the report. There is a link in my signature line. You can read it yourself.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I'd laugh at the bitch.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He didn't need to go through all the evidence. Mueller said he couldn't find ENOUGH evidence of conspiracy, but wouldn't make a determination on obstruction.

So, what is Barr supposed to do with that?

FIND evidence?

And asking about starting illegal investigations into political enemies of Trump wasn't in the report. That was a separate question.

Isn't that what this whole thing is about?

But we do know what was in the Republicans. There is a link in my signature line. You can read it yourself.

Why don't you summarize what you think is relevant?

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Kamala tried to make an issue out of Barr not looking at the "evidence". Barr said he accepted the Mueller report as written. If Barr went thru all of the evidence himself it would take years. Barr won the day, the dems made no points, Lindsay Graham said "case closed, its over". The senate is done with the Mueller witch hunt, and now wants to investigate the investigators.

He didn't need to go through all the evidence. Mueller said he couldn't find ENOUGH evidence of conspiracy, but wouldn't make a determination on obstruction.

And asking about starting illegal investigations into political enemies of Trump wasn't in the report. That was a separate question.

But we do know what was in the report. There is a link in my signature line. You can read it yourself.

Collusion in the penumbra of the Mueller report

 

[Clipper]

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.

Bullshit. You think Mueller is going to whine to Barr about the media? Mueller has never even responded to idiot Trump's rants & he's going to whine to Barr? HAHAHAHAHA! You go right on thinkin that, Ace.

 

[deanrd]

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

Didn't happen you should watch the video.

I just watched it on TV again. They have been playing the exchange all day on TV.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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

Didn't happen you should watch the video.

I just watched it on TV again. They have been playing the exchange all day on TV.

She never cornered him. She kept trying to trap him with word games. LOL, the first time she would have instructed me to answer yes or no I would have just laughed.

 

[Oddball]

Bullshit. You think Mueller is going to whine to Barr about the media? Mueller has never even responded to idiot Trump's rants & he's going to whine to Barr? HAHAHAHAHA! You go right on thinkin that, Ace.

Mule couldn't find a hot mic fast enough when the fake Buzzfeed story came out...But now Barr is going to lie about him and he's just going to remain silent....Riiiiiight.

 

[mikegriffith1]

In other words, because you like what Harris said, you conclude that she "gutted" Barr, when in fact she did no such thing. Indeed, some of her arguments were downright silly.

 

[deanrd]

He didn't need to go through all the evidence. Mueller said he couldn't find ENOUGH evidence of conspiracy, but wouldn't make a determination on obstruction.

So, what is Barr supposed to do with that?

FIND evidence?

And asking about starting illegal investigations into political enemies of Trump wasn't in the report. That was a separate question.

Isn't that what this whole thing is about?

But we do know what was in the Republicans. There is a link in my signature line. You can read it yourself.

Why don't you summarize what you think is relevant?

.

Republicans are calling me the crazy liar who makes stuff up. Why not read it yourself and be informed?

But,

Since you did bring it up.

Here are a few pages I really liked:

It was because of Cohen's charges against Trump that Attorney Generals are having a field day.

Clearly, Mueller doesn't NOT exonerate

Donald Trump:

While they couldn't prove an actual conspiracy, there is so much in the Russia segment, I bet they could squeeze out a few more felonies:

I can't post all four hundred plus pages. Why don't you read it and "KNOW" what it says.

You could say that about the Bible too. Read it and you don't have to rely on what others told you. Nothing like operating from a position of "Knowing". Don't you agree?

 

[Justin Richardson]

Democrats accused Barr of downplaying evidence that Mueller gathered showing Trump attempted to obstruct the Mueller probe. Barr defended his handling of the report. He received the report from Mueller on March 22, and released a four-page letter laying out its main conclusions two days later. He released a partially redacted version of the report just over three weeks later, on April 18.​

Barr offered his summary of the origins of the Russia probe after a particularly pointed exchange in which Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono accused him of lying to Congress about his handling of the Mueller report.​

Democratic lawmakers and liberal pundits have long accused Trump of being a Russian stooge and of conspiring with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election. One major source for the unfounded allegations was a dossier authored by a former British spy who worked in 2016 for the Clinton campaign and DNC.​

Christopher Steele, the dossier author, provided his reports about Trump’s alleged Russian ties to the FBI as well as to the media. The FBI relied heavily on Steele’s work to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Barr said, “The job of the Justice Department is now over… the report is now in the hands of the American people. Everyone can decide for themselves. There’s an election in 18 months – that’s a very democratic process. But we’re out of it.”

Now the dems are calling for Barr to resign.

LMAO!
​

 

[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...…..

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.

One Harris got done cleaning Barr's clock,

As a prosecutor, she gives one hell of a hummer.

 

[deanrd]

He didn't need to go through all the evidence. Mueller said he couldn't find ENOUGH evidence of conspiracy, but wouldn't make a determination on obstruction.

So, what is Barr supposed to do with that?

FIND evidence?

And asking about starting illegal investigations into political enemies of Trump wasn't in the report. That was a separate question.

Isn't that what this whole thing is about?

But we do know what was in the Republicans. There is a link in my signature line. You can read it yourself.

Why don't you summarize what you think is relevant?

.

What was Barr supposed to do? Nothing. He should have passed it on to congress. He said the report was "his baby". Only it wasn't.