Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mueller's report contained no evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr simply added 2 + 2 and drew the correct conclusion.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?
There was no "obstructive behavior," you lying douchebag. None.I thought I remembered something about obstruction of justice needing to involve purposely obstructing an investigation. Which means the investigator would need to know the person's mind at the time. I thought the final determination was that they didn't know if Trump was doing this to obstruct justice or just running his mouth per usual.
Yes, and so Mueller went to great detail outlining a dozen cases of possibly obstructive behavior, including the three elements of the crime present (or not), which includes evidence of the crook's state of mind, including a terse explanation that a pattern of obstructive behavior in itself also adds to the overall evidence for corrupt intent. Did you miss these pages?
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.
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.Uh, put down the crack pipe and pay attention:We have no idea what Barr did or did not do. "
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.
Okay. Tell us what Trump did that is considered obstruction of justice. Go ahead.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.Uh, put down the crack pipe and pay attention:We have no idea what Barr did or did not do. "
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.
Well if it was a "gotcha question", Barr should have countered with an answer. Instead he fell right into her trap and admitted he had no intention of accusing the President of Obstruction of Justice, and that he didn't even bother to read his $40 million dollar report. Instead he insulted and disparraged Robert Mueller, as simply a "prosecutor", and tried to pretend that the Mueller's report was "my baby".
Then SHIT OR GET OFF THE FUCKING POT!!!And that Barr had no authority to decide on the evidence at all. That authority lies solely with Congress.
That's what Bob Barr told me, and he's the authority on the subject.Mueller's report contained no evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr simply added 2 + 2 and drew the correct conclusion.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?
Is that what FOX News told you.
Try READING Mueller’s Report, FingerChild. He provided color coded charts and graphs and used everyday English, so that even a partisan hack such as yourself could clearly see his recommendation for impeachment.
And that Barr had no authority to decide on the evidence at all. That authority lies solely with Congress.
You already know where that alleged content is located. Why don't you post it?You didn't read the report you simply fool. The Mueller Report laid out 10 instances where Trump's behaviour crossed the line into legal "obstruction", and then provided a colour coded chart of each instance and they met all or some of the three criteria needed for charges to be filed. Four of Trump's 10 pieces of obstructive behaviour met ALL of the criteria for charges to be filed. Others met 2 of the three and all 10 showed a pattern of criminal obstruction by the President.
Mueller provided the criteria and carefully laid out the evidence for impeachment. If you had bothered to READ THE FUCKING REPORT, which you are too stupid and too lazy to do, you would know that.
Surely, the Democrats can show where Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction, right?Well if it was a "gotcha question", Barr should have countered with an answer. Instead he fell right into her trap and admitted he had no intention of accusing the President of Obstruction of Justice, and that he didn't even bother to read his $40 million dollar report. Instead he insulted and disparraged Robert Mueller, as simply a "prosecutor", and tried to pretend that the Mueller's report was "my baby".
No, he didn't say he didn't read the Mueller report. You claimed you have, but you don't know this fact? Barr said he didn't read the million plus pages of "evidence" that Mueller collected. Only partisan idiots believe he should have done that.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.Uh, put down the crack pipe and pay attention:We have no idea what Barr did or did not do. "
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.
Well if it was a "gotcha question", Barr should have countered with an answer. Instead he fell right into her trap and admitted he had no intention of accusing the President of Obstruction of Justice, and that he didn't even bother to read his $40 million dollar report. Instead he insulted and disparraged Robert Mueller, as simply a "prosecutor", and tried to pretend that the Mueller's report was "my baby".
Mueller never said Trump obstructed justice.Like Comey before him, Barr decided that the evidence did not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction. Didn't he?It is quite important. The AG is misrepresenting the reprts findings.I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?
Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.
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.
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.
Being the AG, isn't that his job?
No. Mueller did not say that at all.
Mueller never said Trump obstructed justice.Like Comey before him, Barr decided that the evidence did not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction. Didn't he?It is quite important. The AG is misrepresenting the reprts findings.I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?
Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.
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.
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.
Being the AG, isn't that his job?
No. Mueller did not say that at all.
Yeah, I get it, you don't. You either charge someone with a crime or you don't. That's how it works. Mueller charged others with crimes and got convictions in court. He didn't with Trump because there was nothing. He left it open so democrats could play this game that's going on now. I get it just fine.Mueller never said Trump obstructed justice.Like Comey before him, Barr decided that the evidence did not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction. Didn't he?It is quite important. The AG is misrepresenting the reprts findings.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.
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.
Being the AG, isn't that his job?
No. Mueller did not say that at all.
He did not say he didn't either. Barr did.
Get it?
Why don't you provide the specifics from the report where Mueller recommended prosecuting Trump for obstruction?What a dope.
Of course they're different. WTF do you think Mueller reached out to Barr four seperate times to correct the record?
Read the report!
I'll wait.
.
Why don't you provide the specifics from the report where Mueller recommended prosecuting Trump for obstruction?
I'll wait.
LOL...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.
Nixon directed a break in of the DNC headquarters, dope.
For political reasons you fat old loser.
LOL...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.
Nixon directed a break in of the DNC headquarters, dope.
For political reasons you fat old loser.
No........For a crime, dope.
Nixon didn't resign and was later pardoned due to "political reasons".
Fantasies are not evidence. The author or the report, Weisenstein, doesn't know what obstruction of justice is. The President can fire anyone he wants to. That's his constitutional authority. He can't be guilty of obstruction by exercising his powers under the Constitution.Mueller's report contained no evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr simply added 2 + 2 and drew the correct conclusion.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
Not true in any way.
Read the report, dope.
Sure.Fantasies are not evidence.
Wow.... you mofos are just dumb as shit.Yeah, I get it, you don't. You either charge someone with a crime or you don't. That's how it works. Mueller charged others with crimes and got convictions in court. He didn't with Trump because there was nothing. He left it open so democrats could play this game that's going on now. I get it just fine.Mueller never said Trump obstructed justice.Like Comey before him, Barr decided that the evidence did not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction. Didn't he?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.
Being the AG, isn't that his job?
No. Mueller did not say that at all.
He did not say he didn't either. Barr did.
Get it?
If there was something in the report that would support your claims, then you would have quoted it. The fact that you don't tells us all we need to know.Fantasies are not evidence. The author or the report, Weisenstein, doesn't know what obstruction of justice is. The President can fire anyone he wants to. That's his constitutional authority. He can't be guilty of obstruction by exercising his powers under the Constitution.Mueller's report contained no evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr simply added 2 + 2 and drew the correct conclusion.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
Not true in any way.
Read the report, dope.
Sure.Fantasies are not evidence.
Take your own advice then read the report, dope.
