Kamala Harris Draws Blood At Senate Hearing

[McRocket]

She did a great job (imo)...made him look pretty silly.

She should have pushed harder though...she backed off a bit there towards the end.

She could have had a flat out KO...instead of a TKO.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

As a retired legal professional, I strongly disagree with that assessment. Every single time I gave my report to my superior, he/she reviewed every single piece of evidence that underpinned it. Lawyers notoriously NEVER take anyone’s word for anything because it’s THEIR reputation and THEIR license to practice that’s on the line if I’ve missed something or worse, if I’ve cut any corners in my due diligence.

Lawyers are the worst people in the world to work for because they don’t trust anyone, even the worst hacks among them.

Barr didn’t bother to read the evidence because he had every intention of clearing Trump if obstruction. Barr doesn’t believe ANY President can be guilty of obstruction, and further, he wrongly fully believes that if there is no underlying crime, the can’t possibly be obstruction.

If Paul Manafort wasn’t counting on that promised pardon, would he have cooperated more fully? Would Jerome Corsi?

Dragon Lady, Trump was not able to obstruct justice. We have the report from Mueller to prove it. He never did anything but grumble and flap his gums about it. Firing Comey was mostly due to bad juju since Comey wouldn't kiss his ass, I think. He may have presented it as solving a big problem when he talked to the RUSSIANS (duh) but all Trump said in that interview on tv was that firing Comey wasn't going to affect anything since the Russia investigation was all garbage, anyway. I don't see why everyone immediately jumped to the conclusion that Trump was saying he fired Comey to end the investigation--that isn't what he said.

Pelosi isn't calling for impeachment based on the report, is she? Then we need to let it go. Every single American who realizes what an unethical scumbucket Trump is already knows it and every single American who loves him is going to continue to ignore his behavior. Our legislature needs to get back to work and our Democrats need to focus on a strong campaign to replace him.

You really should read the report.
READ: The Mueller Report, With Redactions

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You really should read the report.
READ: The Mueller Report, With Redactions

I'll wait until dems grow some balls and actually move to impeach.

Don't really give a fuck otherwise.



.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

See.....This is why I called you a dope. You argue over what Mueller said when you obviously haven't read the report.

You make the claim that Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction. I asked you to show me. You have the burden. Show it or shut the fuck up.

Mueller explained that per OLC policy Trump could not be indicted and therefore could not be accused of a crime either. He also explained that he would have exonerated him if he could have. He could not.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

So.....The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mueller felt he did in fact commit crimes and that it was up to congress to do with that information as they will since the DOJ cannot.

So, Barr cannot do anything with the information, right?

Barr said there was no evidence of obstruction. That was not Mueller's finding.

When? I didn't see or hear that. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall Barr making that statement.

.

I made no such claim, liar.

This is what Barr said regarding obstruction nearly a month before the report was released:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have 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 was not Mueller's finding and Barr testified this week that he had not reviewed any underlying evidence before making his determination.

 

[toomuchtime_]

See.....This is why I called you a dope. You argue over what Mueller said when you obviously haven't read the report.

You make the claim that Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction. I asked you to show me. You have the burden. Show it or shut the fuck up.

Mueller explained that per OLC policy Trump could not be indicted and therefore could not be accused of a crime either. He also explained that he would have exonerated him if he could have. He could not.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

So.....The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mueller felt he did in fact commit crimes and that it was up to congress to do with that information as they will since the DOJ cannot.

So, Barr cannot do anything with the information, right?

Barr said there was no evidence of obstruction. That was not Mueller's finding.

When? I didn't see or hear that. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall Barr making that statement.

.

I made no such claim, liar.

This is what Barr said regarding obstruction nearly a month before the report was released:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have 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 was not Mueller's finding and Barr testified this week that he had not reviewed any underlying evidence before making his determination.

Mueller reached no finding on obstruction of justice, and after reveing the evidence Mueller laid out in his report, Barr quite appropriately concluded there was no actionable evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...
Untwist your panties, shirley
In due time.
After Americans have heard the truth.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Bok Bok Booooook. Chichen Shit.

Impeach or fuck off.

.

LOL....
Buck up, buttercup.
You've got a long time to go yet.
Pace yourself.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL...
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".

I am Saying he committed the crime for political reasons.

Great.... but you said congress acted for political reasons in the earlier post.

They did in the case of Trump and Barr. Few questions mostly statements.

Derp...

Except the discussion was about congress acting in the same way as their predecessors.

Neither of the Independent Counsels in Watergate or Clinton charged the president either. The report went to congress and hearings began.

This is how it is done.

 

[IM2]

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.

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.

The examples shown in volume 2 of the Mueller report shows Trump was attempting to purposely obstruct an investigation.

 

[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.

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.

As a retired legal professional, I strongly disagree with that assessment. Every single time I gave my report to my superior, he/she reviewed every single piece of evidence that underpinned it. Lawyers notoriously NEVER take anyone’s word for anything because it’s THEIR reputation and THEIR license to practice that’s on the line if I’ve missed something or worse, if I’ve cut any corners in my due diligence.

Lawyers are the worst people in the world to work for because they don’t trust anyone, even the worst hacks among them.

Barr didn’t bother to read the evidence because he had every intention of clearing Trump if obstruction. Barr doesn’t believe ANY President can be guilty of obstruction, and further, he wrongly fully believes that if there is no underlying crime, the can’t possibly be obstruction.

If Paul Manafort wasn’t counting on that promised pardon, would he have cooperated more fully? Would Jerome Corsi?

Dragon Lady, Trump was not able to obstruct justice. We have the report from Mueller to prove it. He never did anything but grumble and flap his gums about it. Firing Comey was mostly due to bad juju since Comey wouldn't kiss his ass, I think. He may have presented it as solving a big problem when he talked to the RUSSIANS (duh) but all Trump said in that interview on tv was that firing Comey wasn't going to affect anything since the Russia investigation was all garbage, anyway. I don't see why everyone immediately jumped to the conclusion that Trump was saying he fired Comey to end the investigation--that isn't what he said.

Pelosi isn't calling for impeachment based on the report, is she? Then we need to let it go. Every single American who realizes what an unethical scumbucket Trump is already knows it and every single American who loves him is going to continue to ignore his behavior. Our legislature needs to get back to work and our Democrats need to focus on a strong campaign to replace him.

The Mueller Report PROVES obstruction. In spades. It leaves no doubt. This is why Mueller complained that Barr was "mischaractizing" his findings. That Barr's Summary would lead to "confusion" once the actual Report was released.

Furthermore, Mueller wrote his own Summaries of each section of the Report, Summaries that he intended for Barr to release prior to the release of the Redacted Report. Barr is refusing to release Mueller's Summaries. Why?

Why didn't Barr obtain an Order from the Grand Jury Judge to release the Grand Jury materials to the House Judicial Committee, along with an unredacted copy of the Mueller Report?

Why did Barr lie to Congress when asked whether any member of Mueller's Team objected to Barr's Summary or its conclusions? Mueller wrote to him TWICE voicing his objections, and also in his telephone call, and yet Barr said he was "not aware" of any objections to his Summary by Mueller's Team. Is Mueller not a member of his Team? Is this the legal hair Barr wants to split on perjury?

As someone who has read portions of the Mueller Report (I read slowly and deliberately and I have a very busy life, so this is taking time), everything I have read is very damning of the President. Page 156 of Part 2 of the Report, deals with why Mueller believes that Trump legally obstructed the investigation, even when there was no prosecutable underlying crime.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

For political reasons you fat old loser.

No........For a crime, dope.
Nixon didn't resign and was later pardoned due to "political reasons".

I am Saying he committed the crime for political reasons.

Great.... but you said congress acted for political reasons in the earlier post.

They did in the case of Trump and Barr. Few questions mostly statements.

Derp...

Except the discussion was about congress acting in the same way as their predecessors.

Neither of the Independent Counsels in Watergate or Clinton charged the president either. The report went to congress and hearings began.

This is how it is done.

And my point was that it was time for us to evolve.

 

[Dragonlady]

Let me add the next part:

It goes on and on like that.


That's what the MUELLER REPORT says about Obstruction of Justice.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

See.....This is why I called you a dope. You argue over what Mueller said when you obviously haven't read the report.

You make the claim that Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction. I asked you to show me. You have the burden. Show it or shut the fuck up.

Mueller explained that per OLC policy Trump could not be indicted and therefore could not be accused of a crime either. He also explained that he would have exonerated him if he could have. He could not.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

So.....The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mueller felt he did in fact commit crimes and that it was up to congress to do with that information as they will since the DOJ cannot.

So, Barr cannot do anything with the information, right?

Barr said there was no evidence of obstruction. That was not Mueller's finding.

When? I didn't see or hear that. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall Barr making that statement.

.

I made no such claim, liar.

This is what Barr said regarding obstruction nearly a month before the report was released:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have 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 was not Mueller's finding and Barr testified this week that he had not reviewed any underlying evidence before making his determination.

Mueller reached no finding on obstruction of justice, and after reveing the evidence Mueller laid out in his report, Barr quite appropriately concluded there was no actionable evidence of obstruction of justice.

Except Mueller's decision was not based on a lack of evidence. He, under DOJ policy, could not make a determination and Barr, as the AG could not have taken prosecutorial action either. He opted instead to cover the president.

Therefore the correct course was to pass it along to the only body who could take action. The congress.

Just because the AG felt there was no evidence for prosecution, does not mean there isnt ample evidence for impeachment.

The congress should have the full, unredacted report with all of the underlying evidence.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

^That is ironic AF.

Methinks you don't understand irony.

No. I get it.

He's been splooging this thread tirelessly. Not unlike yourself.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You really should read the report.
READ: The Mueller Report, With Redactions

I'll wait until dems grow some balls and actually move to impeach.

Don't really give a fuck otherwise.



.

Don't really give a fuck otherwise.

That's apparent.

 

[IM2]

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.

As a retired legal professional, I strongly disagree with that assessment. Every single time I gave my report to my superior, he/she reviewed every single piece of evidence that underpinned it. Lawyers notoriously NEVER take anyone’s word for anything because it’s THEIR reputation and THEIR license to practice that’s on the line if I’ve missed something or worse, if I’ve cut any corners in my due diligence.

Lawyers are the worst people in the world to work for because they don’t trust anyone, even the worst hacks among them.

Barr didn’t bother to read the evidence because he had every intention of clearing Trump if obstruction. Barr doesn’t believe ANY President can be guilty of obstruction, and further, he wrongly fully believes that if there is no underlying crime, the can’t possibly be obstruction.

If Paul Manafort wasn’t counting on that promised pardon, would he have cooperated more fully? Would Jerome Corsi?

There were 1.2 million pages of Mueller's findings, madam. It would take two years to validate every single word on each of those pages.

The Democrats aren't playing with all their cards on top of the table.

And Nancy Pelosi isn't playing with a full deck, either.

President Trump learned his lesson. From now on those Creepy Congressional Democrats have to play nice or they won't get any more chances to get freebie shots and information. Because Trump doesn't need to learn the same lesson twice. His decisions are gold.

And Hillary is going to have Hell to pay for colluding with the Russians. This time, she doesn't get to go home after the trial.

Hillary is not going to have to do anything. Show us meetings between members of her campaign and Russians. Then show an agreement between the Clinton campaign and the Russian government to stop Trump. Just remember this; Putin hated Hillary Clinton.

Why Putin Has an Electoral Bone to Pick With Hillary Clinton

 

[IM2]

California Sen. Kamala Harris used her time in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General William Barr to ask a few key questions about his handling of the Mueller report. Utilizing great precision, she peppered Barr with questions and was able to get him to admit something absolutely incredible: the sitting attorney general has not personally reviewed the underlying evidence laid out in the Mueller Report.


Sen. Harris gets AG Barr to admit he never even reviewed the underlying evidence in Mueller Report

Looks like Trumps Roy Cohn doesn't read anything either.

The Democrats were jumping up and down about seeing the Report before anyone else could. To chill their fury a little, the good man that Attorney General William Barr is simply put aside the 1.2 million pieces of paperwork created by Mueller's team in order to appease DNC screaming demands with HIS OWN findings. Every stinking Democrat on this planet is so crazy-mad-wild right now they're grabbing at every little straw and parading it as a big win. Which one of you speedreaders can read upward of two million pieces of paper (there was more), make a decision which is the more important, reread it for presentation that will merely gall the Democrats more and lead to more squealing and crazy-mad-wild false narratives that go nowhere and achieve nothing.

President Trump made a very wise move to take his staff out of the evil eye of Nancy Pelosi from San Fecesicko who needs to be shoveling some serious shit at home rather than heaping it on President Trump and his advisers as part of the DNC Plan to grab power like the Grinch Who Stole Christmas TM from the American people.

65 million American people voted for Clinton and 62 million voted for Trump. So it's time you republicans shut up about how people are trying to end the presidency of a man who really should not be president.

So you don't respect the Constitution. Nothing new there.

The constitution says we vote for our leaders.

 

[IM2]

So you don't respect the Constitution.

Says the guy cheering for Barr to defy a congressional subpoena, the constitutional power of which has been reaffirmed constently throughout history...ya fraud

I don't respect the Democrats in the House of Representatives. They are using our government institutions for political purposes. You're corrupt and so is your party. Nothing but a bunch of gangsters.

That's what republicans are doing. You don't give a damn about the constitution.

 

[toomuchtime_]

See.....This is why I called you a dope. You argue over what Mueller said when you obviously haven't read the report.

You make the claim that Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction. I asked you to show me. You have the burden. Show it or shut the fuck up.

Mueller explained that per OLC policy Trump could not be indicted and therefore could not be accused of a crime either. He also explained that he would have exonerated him if he could have. He could not.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

So.....The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mueller felt he did in fact commit crimes and that it was up to congress to do with that information as they will since the DOJ cannot.

So, Barr cannot do anything with the information, right?

Barr said there was no evidence of obstruction. That was not Mueller's finding.

When? I didn't see or hear that. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall Barr making that statement.

.

I made no such claim, liar.

This is what Barr said regarding obstruction nearly a month before the report was released:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have 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 was not Mueller's finding and Barr testified this week that he had not reviewed any underlying evidence before making his determination.

Mueller reached no finding on obstruction of justice, and after reveing the evidence Mueller laid out in his report, Barr quite appropriately concluded there was no actionable evidence of obstruction of justice.

Except Mueller's decision was not based on a lack of evidence. He, under DOJ policy, could not make a determination and Barr, as the AG could not have taken prosecutorial action either. He opted instead to cover the president.

Therefore the correct course was to pass it along to the only body who could take action. The congress.

Just because the AG felt there was no evidence for prosecution, does not mean there isnt ample evidence for impeachment.

The congress should have the full, unredacted report with all of the underlying evidence.

Bullshit. Nothing stopped Mueller from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice if he believed the evidence was sufficient. It is not clear he could have indicted the President while he was still in office, but nothing stopped him from charging him. The fact that Mueller didn't conclude the President was guilty of obstruction of justice is clear evidence he didn't think there as actionable evidence pointing to guilt.

It was highly improper of Mueller to suggest the issue be taken up by Congress and if you had noticed, Mueller did not disagree with Barr's conclusion that there was not actionable evidence of obstruction of justice. As for impeachment, the Democrats will impeach Trump regardless of the evidence if they think it will help them in the election and they will not impeach him regardless of the evidence if they think it will hurt them in the election. Again, while Mueller complained that Barr's method of releasing the report gave it less impact on public opinion than Mueller would have liked, Mueller did not contradict Barr on any of his findings.

 

[IM2]

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?

Mueller sent people to jail. He didn't even specify that Trump committed a crime.

The DOJ cannot indict a sitting president.

 

[IM2]

See.....This is why I called you a dope. You argue over what Mueller said when you obviously haven't read the report.

You make the claim that Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction. I asked you to show me. You have the burden. Show it or shut the fuck up.

Mueller explained that per OLC policy Trump could not be indicted and therefore could not be accused of a crime either. He also explained that he would have exonerated him if he could have. He could not.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

So.....The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mueller felt he did in fact commit crimes and that it was up to congress to do with that information as they will since the DOJ cannot.

So, Barr cannot do anything with the information, right?

Barr said there was no evidence of obstruction. That was not Mueller's finding.

When? I didn't see or hear that. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall Barr making that statement.

.

I made no such claim, liar.

This is what Barr said regarding obstruction nearly a month before the report was released:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

"Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have 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 was not Mueller's finding and Barr testified this week that he had not reviewed any underlying evidence before making his determination.

Mueller reached no finding on obstruction of justice, and after reveing the evidence Mueller laid out in his report, Barr quite appropriately concluded there was no actionable evidence of obstruction of justice.

Except Mueller's decision was not based on a lack of evidence. He, under DOJ policy, could not make a determination and Barr, as the AG could not have taken prosecutorial action either. He opted instead to cover the president.

Therefore the correct course was to pass it along to the only body who could take action. The congress.

Just because the AG felt there was no evidence for prosecution, does not mean there isnt ample evidence for impeachment.

The congress should have the full, unredacted report with all of the underlying evidence.

Bullshit. Nothing stopped Mueller from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice if he believed the evidence was sufficient. It is not clear he could have indicted the President while he was still in office, but nothing stopped him from charging him. The fact that Mueller didn't conclude the President was guilty of obstruction of justice is clear evidence he didn't think there as actionable evidence pointing to guilt.

It was highly improper of Mueller to suggest the issue be taken up by Congress and if you had noticed, Mueller did not disagree with Barr's conclusion that there was not actionable evidence of obstruction of justice. As for impeachment, the Democrats will impeach Trump regardless of the evidence if they think it will help them in the election and they will not impeach him regardless of the evidence if they think it will hurt them in the election. Again, while Mueller complained that Barr's method of releasing the report gave it less impact on public opinion than Mueller would have liked, Mueller did not contradict Barr on any of his findings.

BS.