Kamala Harris Draws Blood At Senate Hearing

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

Mueller didn't conclude there was no obstruction. Barr did. How did he do that without even a glimpse at the evidence?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Mueller did not reach that conclusion, dope.
He explained very clearly that they could not reach that conclusion.

How did Barr?

 

[hadit]

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.

Why would he take a lot of extra time to analyze all the evidence when Mueller summarized it all? I do believe the narrative was set long ago. In the circumstance that the report does not immediately remove Trump from office, complain bitterly about every step the administration takes. If they hold it for a few weeks, insist they're trying to hide it. If they release it in a decent amount of time, insist they didn't even look at it. If they redact portions, complain that they're trying to hide stuff. If they don't, insist they're being careless with national security.

It really shouldn't be this easy to predict how people are going to act.

Mueller didn't conclude there was no obstruction committed by the president.

Barr did. He did so without reviewing a single piece of evidence. How did Barr then reach his decision?

Okay, now you're flailing. He didn't say he didn't review ANY of the evidence, he said he didn't review ALL of the evidence. Big difference. You're exaggerating without knowledge.

Now, which way did you want it?

1. He holds it back for months, going over all the evidence in detail with a team of lawyers, in the end doing nothing about it because he can't indict a sitting president, all the while the haters are screeching that he's trying to hide the report because it's damaging to the president and he's trying to figure out how to get around that. Keep in mind, that's exactly what they were screeching right up until he released it.

2. He goes over the report for a few weeks with Mueller's team to redact sensitive and personal information and takes Mueller's conclusions at face value, passing it on to Congress.

Face reality, the only reason you're even complaining that he didn't take months to go over all the evidence is the narrative that's trying to discredit any counter investigations he may launch into the way this whole thing came about.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

??? I didn’t opine in the post I just posted it. This is why Leftists like you are a joke. Now just because of you, I will take an opposing stance. Barr is the AG and can do as he wishes.

Great.

So can Congress.

Indeed. What exactly can Congress do? The House is Democrat controlled and the Senate Republican?

You're still an idiot for accusing me of something that never happened. Typical, uneducated Leftist. So I posted a link and you replied with a barb. Care to explain why? Coward.

I didn't accuse you of anything. I said you should follow your own advice.
Congress is doing what they should. What Congress did during Watergate and the Clinton investigations. Investigating. Conducting oversight. The better question is, why shouldn't they do as their predecessors did?

Because the predecessors did it for political gain and not for the good of the country. Time to evolve.

Sorry...... no.

So Watergate was just partisan theater?

What a stupid premise.

I was not alive then but it was done for political gain from everything I have read. You’re pretty stupid. Your posts give that away.

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

Nice attempt to spin Barr's dishonesty and lies.

The setup was obvious. Sit on the report for as long as possible, and put out a false narrative about its conclusions. Mueller provided summaries to be released to the public, and Barr chose NOT to release Mueller's Summaries, and instead wrote his own using the President's words, and putting a Trump-positive spin on the Report, knowing that few people will actually read the full report. Barr and Trump then tried to sell the "no collusion, no obstruction" narrative to the American people for as long as possible, and then say it's time to "move on".

The problem for Trump is that the people are not as stupid or as gullible as the Liar in Chief believes. And they didn't buy it. Trump tried to pull a "bait and switch" and it didn't work. Barr promised transparency in his confirmation hearings and failed utter to deliver it. Barr should have released the Mueller summaries. He should have given the unredacted Report to the House Judicial Committee. He should NOT have lied to Congress about Mueller's concerns with his rollout about the Report.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Barr wasn't supposed to release a summary. Pe

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?

Barr should have received the report, applied to the Judge for release of the Grand Jury materials, released MUELLER'S SUMMARIES, and sent the unredacted report with the underlying Grand Jury materials to the House Judiciary Committee, JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE KEN STARR REPORT.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why would he take a lot of extra time to analyze all the evidence when Mueller summarized it all? I do believe the narrative was set long ago. In the circumstance that the report does not immediately remove Trump from office, complain bitterly about every step the administration takes. If they hold it for a few weeks, insist they're trying to hide it. If they release it in a decent amount of time, insist they didn't even look at it. If they redact portions, complain that they're trying to hide stuff. If they don't, insist they're being careless with national security.

It really shouldn't be this easy to predict how people are going to act.

Mueller didn't conclude there was no obstruction committed by the president.

Barr did. He did so without reviewing a single piece of evidence. How did Barr then reach his decision?

Mueller's report contained no evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr simply added 2 + 2 and drew the correct conclusion.

 

[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?

Mueller didn't conclude there was no obstruction. Barr did. How did he do that without even a glimpse at the evidence?

Mueller laid out all the evidence in his report. There was none. Are you saying Mueller lied?

 

[hadit]

Barr wasn't supposed to release a summary. Pe

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?

Barr should have received the report, applied to the Judge for release of the Grand Jury materials, released MUELLER'S SUMMARIES, and sent the unredacted report with the underlying Grand Jury materials to the House Judiciary Committee, JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE KEN STARR REPORT.

The law has changed since Starr's day, specifically because the democrats were outraged that the details of Bubba's transgressions were released. They changed the rules as a result to prevent exactly that.

 

[BS Filter]

We have no idea what Barr did or did not do. "

Uh, put down the crack pipe and pay attention:

HARRIS: In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?

BARR: No, we took ...

HARRIS: Did Mr. Rosenstein?

BARR: No. We accepted the statements in the report as factual record. We did not go underneath it to see if it was accurate, we accepted it as accurate.

HARRIS: So, you accepted the report as the evidence.

BARR: Yes.

HARRIS: You did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report?

BARR: No.

It was a "gotcha" question. If he answered that he did not accept the report and looked for underlying evidence, he would have been accused of not trusting Mueller. She's slick, not slick enough to fool a street wise person, but obviously slick enough to fool you.

 

[OldLady]

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.

It is quite important. The AG is misrepresenting the reprts findings.
Barr said there was no crime of obstruction indicated in the report. That is simply not true. Mueller never made such a determination and explained why.

Like Comey before him, Barr decided that the evidence did not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction. Didn't he?
Being the AG, isn't that his job?

 

[OldLady]

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.

Well said.
And I for one appreciate your willingness to set aside opinion in favor of fact. Too rare indeed on both sides.
In my opinion she was grandstanding. It was a question for the spectators and not the witness.

She was playing "gotcha." And she won.

 

[OldLady]

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.

You deserve a year of not getting any for that.

 

[Olde Europe]

Barr decided that the evidence did not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction. Didn't he?

It would have been good had he actually taken a look at the evidence, no? He even claimed, "We concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

That's almost comical, considering he hadn't seen any of the evidence Mueller developed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No he didn't.
Read his letter to congress.

You might want to take your own advice:

"I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation."

Damn dude, you didn't even read your own link....

 

[hadit]

We have no idea what Barr did or did not do. "

Uh, put down the crack pipe and pay attention:

HARRIS: In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?

BARR: No, we took ...

HARRIS: Did Mr. Rosenstein?

BARR: No. We accepted the statements in the report as factual record. We did not go underneath it to see if it was accurate, we accepted it as accurate.

HARRIS: So, you accepted the report as the evidence.

BARR: Yes.

HARRIS: You did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report?

BARR: No.

It was a "gotcha" question. If he answered that he did not accept the report and looked for underlying evidence, he would have been accused of not trusting Mueller. She's slick, not slick enough to fool a street wise person, but obviously slick enough to fool you.

That is the correct motorcycle. It is very easy to predict the reactions of the haters to whatever the administration does.

 

[hadit]

Barr decided that the evidence did not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction. Didn't he?

It would have been good had he actually taken a look at the evidence, no? He even claimed, "We concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

That's almost comical, considering he hadn't seen any of the evidence Mueller developed.

Be precise. Did he say he saw NONE of the evidence or did he say he didn't see ALL of the evidence? There's a big difference.

Here's the alternative rant from the haters. Keep in mind that they were practically chanting in unison that Barr was trying to hide the report when he held it for a few weeks in order to react sensitive information. Had he held it until he reviewed every piece of evidence, the screeching would be that he was lying and just trying to hide it. So no, no one is taking this particular screech seriously.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Barr really fucked up by taking the day off. He will get called back to the carpet under subpoena, and, next time, Harris wont be limited to 7 minutes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did he say he saw NONE of the evidence or did he say he didn't see ALL of the evidence? There's a big difference.

When asked if he or rosenstein reviewed the evidence, he said, no, he took mueller's word as fact. So its "ALL". Pretty simple .

 

[hadit]

Barr really fucked up by taking the day off. He will get called back to the carpet under subpoena, and, next time, Harris wont be limited to 7 minutes.

Just wait till next time! We got him for sure!