Kamala Harris Draws Blood At Senate Hearing

[basquebromance]

the Democrats are upset that treason was not committed. that's the brain trust we're dealing with, folks!

 

[IM2]

the Democrats are upset that treason was not committed. that's the brain trust we're dealing with, folks!

That's what you wack jobs make up. Let's begin dealing with reality conservatives.

 

[the other mike]

She treated him like what she was. His boss.

I don't care who she is. She's not only obnoxious but extremely stupid to make an enemy of the DOJ chief.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

That is not at all how it is done. The report goes to the Justice Department and then the Justice Department decides if and how much of the report goes to Congress.

Nonsense. There is nothing preventing Barr from giving the judiciary committee the full report.

Of course he can, but he can also decide not to give it to Congress or the public.

 

[hadit]

HIS OWN findings.

Which were decided before he read the report and without any review of the evidence.

That was unethical, dishonest, and an error.

I don't recall seeing you in the meeting. Were you hiding under the table again?

Haha, that is so stupid. So, something would have been different if i had been there, instead of watching the live feed or reading the transcript? Somebody's deeeesperate.....

Your mind reading equipment needs servicing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This disrespectful bitch treated him as if he were one of her previous
criminals who she prosecuted and should apologize to him along with her mentor Lady Pelosi.
Then she should take some time off....maybe go home and practice plucking her eyebrows .

She treated him like what she was. His boss.

She treated him like what she was. His boss.

Thankfully, not the reverse. No one needs the mental image that would conjure.

 

[Lakhota]

Kamala Harris will be on Rachel Maddow in a few minutes.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

That is not at all how it is done. The report goes to the Justice Department and then the Justice Department decides if and how much of the report goes to Congress.

Nonsense. There is nothing preventing Barr from giving the judiciary committee the full report.

You're stupid.

 

[the other mike]

Lindsey Graham can shut them all up by subpoenaing Clinton again.

 

[Ambivalent1]

This disrespectful bitch treated him as if he were one of her previous
criminals who she prosecuted and should apologize to him along with her mentor Lady Pelosi.
Then she should take some time off....maybe go home and practice plucking her eyebrows .

She treated him like what she was. His boss.

I treat you like you're my bitch. It works.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

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

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.

It is not clear he could have indicted the President while he was still in office, but nothing stopped him from charging him.

Yeah....you're not worth my time. Too freaking dumb.
Indicting and charging are the same thing, dope.

There was absolutely nothing preventing Mueller from concluding Trump obstructed justice if he believed the the evidence supported that conclusion, so obviously Mueller did not believe the evidence supported that conclusion, and when you consider Mueller has not contradicted Barr's conclusion, it is obvious that whatever Mueller's political biases are, he did not believe the evidence supported a charge of obstruction. If Mueller did not believe he could indict Trump while he was in office, if the evidence supported a charge of obstruction, Trump could certainly be indicted once he left office, and a hard argument for obstruction would certainly have allowed an impeachment to sail through the House and possibly lead to a conviction. Clearly, Mueller did not believe the evidence supported a charge of obstruction.

 

[Ambivalent1]

The senate confirms the AG. And the congress can impeach the AG. So like I said, Harris is Barrs boss.

So...….you think the Senate will vote to impeach Barr? Kamala is a low rent ****.

 

[the other mike]

Kamala Harris will be on Rachel Maddow in a few minutes.

I'll wait for the PPV reruns.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

It is not clear he could have indicted the President while he was still in office, but nothing stopped him from charging him.

Yeah....you're not worth my time. Too freaking dumb.
Indicting and charging are the same thing, dope.

There was absolutely nothing preventing Mueller from concluding Trump obstructed justice if he believed the the evidence supported that conclusion, so obviously Mueller did not believe the evidence supported that conclusion, and when you consider Mueller has not contradicted Barr's conclusion, it is obvious that whatever Mueller's political biases are, he did not believe the evidence supported a charge of obstruction. If Mueller did not believe he could indict Trump while he was in office, if the evidence supported a charge of obstruction, Trump could certainly be indicted once he left office, and a hard argument for obstruction would certainly have allowed an impeachment to sail through the House and possibly lead to a conviction. Clearly, Mueller did not believe the evidence supported a charge of obstruction.

There was absolutely nothing preventing Mueller from concluding Trump obstructed justice if he believed the the evidence supported that conclusion

Exactly! How difficult would it be for him to say, "I believe Trump obstructed, but he can't be indicted at this point"?

 

[Fueri]

Kamala Harris will be on Rachel Maddow in a few minutes.

Of course she will, because nobody vomits bullshit better than good old Rachel, who invested 100% of her credibilty in Russian Collusion and lost it all.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

That is not at all how it is done. The report goes to the Justice Department and then the Justice Department decides if and how much of the report goes to Congress.

Nonsense. There is nothing preventing Barr from giving the judiciary committee the full report.

Except there is. There are innocents names there that should be confidential.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That is not at all how it is done. The report goes to the Justice Department and then the Justice Department decides if and how much of the report goes to Congress.

Nonsense. There is nothing preventing Barr from giving the judiciary committee the full report.

Nothing aside from the law, shit for brains.

 

[bripat9643]

The senate confirms the AG. And the congress can impeach the AG. So like I said, Harris is Barrs boss.

Wrong. Trump is his boss.

 

[bripat9643]

The senate confirms the AG. And the congress can impeach the AG. So like I said, Harris is Barrs boss.

Wrong, idiot. The DOJ is part of the executive branch. That's the part of government that Trump controls, not any sleazy lying Dim Congress critters.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It is not clear he could have indicted the President while he was still in office, but nothing stopped him from charging him.

Yeah....you're not worth my time. Too freaking dumb.
Indicting and charging are the same thing, dope.

There was absolutely nothing preventing Mueller from concluding Trump obstructed justice if he believed the the evidence supported that conclusion, so obviously Mueller did not believe the evidence supported that conclusion, and when you consider Mueller has not contradicted Barr's conclusion, it is obvious that whatever Mueller's political biases are, he did not believe the evidence supported a charge of obstruction. If Mueller did not believe he could indict Trump while he was in office, if the evidence supported a charge of obstruction, Trump could certainly be indicted once he left office, and a hard argument for obstruction would certainly have allowed an impeachment to sail through the House and possibly lead to a conviction. Clearly, Mueller did not believe the evidence supported a charge of obstruction.

Mueller knew he would get laughed out of court if he tried to indict Trump for obstruction.