Trump told McGhan to do crazy .... about the Mueller investigation

[BWK]

You trump cultists are in for a rude awakening when all this is over. You all live in an alternate reality;
You Trump cultists live in an alternate reality. There was an opinion on obstruction that was blocked out by Barr;
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”


World Press Freedom Day
See why an independent press is vital to democracy That is the letter from Mueller.


Later in April, just before he released the redacted version of the report, Barr held a news conference where he spun its conclusions even further, echoing the president’s cries of “no collusion” and bizarrely praising Trump for his cooperation with investigators.

Barr has done nothing but run interference for Trump, indifferent to his established pattern of lawbreaking and criminality. And it has left his former colleagues bewildered and searching for answers. “How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like ‘no collusion’ and F.B.I. ‘spying’?” James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked in a Times Op-Ed. Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, echoed this dismay on Twitter: “I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people.” Even Mueller’s even-keeled letter can’t help betraying his expectation that Barr would behave very differently.

But the better question is why anyone expected otherwise. You don’t have to dive deep into Barr’s history to see that he is an apparatchik, less committed to the rule of law than he is to his political party and its leadership.

Opinion | Bill Barr’s Perverse Theory of Justice

Kyle Griffin on Twitter This testimony by Barr is stupidity in overdrive. Barr is telling the committee that he can terminate an investigation because he's done nothing wrong. HOW THE FUCK DOES HE KNOW? Barr himself is corrupting the process by drawing a conclusion about something he knows nothing about. It's absolutely insane what Barr and Republicans are trying to do.

Bottom line is that you were wrong in stating Barr had said no sitting president could obstruct justice and all the propaganda you base your opinions on is wrong. You should notice that all the opinion pieces you seem to treasure avoid dealing directly with the legal argument Barr set forth in his memo, and that should tell these "experts" couldn't find a flaw in his reasoning. Barr is sticking strictly to the law and his critics are all making political arguments and not legal arguments.

I was not wrong. Barr's video testimony tells exactly that. If Trump doesn't like the investigation looking into him, he can fire the investigators. That's telling the world that Trump is above the law. There is no other way to interpret that.

Still more bullshit. Try reading the memo and then you won't have base all your posts on ignorance.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is nothing to argue about. You got nothing on Trump.

You're right, I don't . But the law does.

Yes, liberals are like this.
View attachment 259602
Even though I took eight years of your guy. I didn't like it, but I took it. Get over it, Trump is YOUR PRESIDENT!

Trump is a con artist who used a foreign government and payoffs to porn stars to get elected. He's a criminal who runs a RICO operation, who is trying to dismantle this Republic for his own authoritarian means, and his dumb as fuck supporters are his enablers.

"Trump is a con artist ..."

Hard to believe you can say that without giggling, after the incompetent ingrate you saddled us with for eight years.

All the way through this post laughing at the fact that Obama has no legal liability. Trump does.

Hussein Obama was behind the lies about Trump and Russia…


"...the media can be equally accused of ignoring the implications of the known facts. It should be a serious concern that the Obama administration used secret counterintelligence powers to target officials in the campaign of the opposing party. That is a practice we have widely criticized in other countries from Turkey to Russia to Iran."
After year of investigation, Trump can rightly claim some vindication


Remember this revelation about the lying sack of offal????




Here is the interview with Hussein swearing….lying about….the investigation:

WALLACE: Mr. President, when you say what you’ve just said, when Josh Earnest said, as he did -- your spokesman -- in January, the information from the Justice Department is she’s not a target, some people I think are worried whether or not -- the decision whether or not, how to handle the case, will be made on political grounds, not legal grounds.

Can you guarantee to the American people, can you direct the Justice Department to say, "Hillary Clinton will be treated -- as the evidence goes, she will not be in any way protected."

OBAMA: I can guarantee that. And I can guarantee that, not because I give Attorney General Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated.

I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line, and always have maintained it, previous president.

WALLACE: So, just to button this up --

OBAMA: I guarantee it.

WALLACE: You --

OBAMA: I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case.

WALLACE: And she will be --

OBAMA: Full stop. Period.

WALLACE: And she will be treated no different --

OBAMA: Guaranteed. Full stop. Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department,because nobody is above the law.

WALLACE: Even if she ends up as the Democratic nominee?

OBAMA: How many times do I have to say it, Chris? Guaranteed.

Exclusive: President Barack Obama on 'Fox News Sunday'

Lying scum....defended to this day by others of the same character.

And remember, if you like your doctor......





Now this comes to light:

"Uh Oh: New Texts Suggest Obama WH, CIA, FBI, And Harry Reid Colluded At Outset Of Russia Probe
There are new texts allegedly showing that the Obama White House, the CIA, the FBI, and top Democrats colluded at the outset of the Russia probe.

...coordination between former President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, and CIA Director John Brennan —which they say would “contradict” the Obama administration’s public stance about its hand in the process."
Uh Oh: New Texts Suggest Obama WH, CIA, FBI, And Harry Reid Colluded At Outset Of Russia Probe




"Clapper: Obama Ordered The Intelligence Assessment That Resulted In Mueller Investigation"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/24/clapper_obama_ordered_the_intelligence_assessment_that_resulted_in_mueller_investigation.html




You may recall the email that Susan Rice wrote….to herself…..to cover Obama’s rear end.

“The email — which apparently memorializes a meeting with former President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates — was revealed earlier this month by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The meeting touched on whether the Obama administration should withhold certain information about the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election from the Trump administration

Grassley and Graham have raised questions about why Rice would send herself "such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation." Susan Rice attorney denies message she sent herself on Trump's inauguration was 'unusual'

The email, by a documented liar for Obama, is an attempt to soften what Obama knew would become public knowledge: that he got his troops together to produce the Russia Spygate Fiasco.





“Collusion bombshell: DNC lawyers met with FBI on Russia allegations before surveillance warrant

Congressional investigators have confirmed that a top FBI official met with Democratic Party lawyers to talk about allegations of Donald Trump-Russia collusion weeks before the 2016 election, and before the bureau secured a search warrant targeting Trump’s campaign.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker met during the 2016 season with at least one attorney from Perkins Coie, the Democratic National Committee’s private law firm.

That’s the firm used by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to secretly pay research firmFusion GPS and Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence operative, to compile a dossier of uncorroborated raw intelligence alleging Trump and Moscow were colluding to hijack the presidential election.”
Collusion bombshell: DNC lawyers met with FBI on Russia allegations before surveillance warrant





Soooo.....who's the guilty one?

 

[BWK]

You presented no legal arguments

Isn't that the job of the never ending relentlessly complaining snowflakes?...
my legal argument is the exonerating Mueller report....

If it was an exoneration you would have read and quoted it to me. You didn't. That makes you a Trump cultist and a liar. Which is what we already knew.

If it were guilt you would be able to quote it to all.

Gads, you're a dunce.


This will not be concluded until all of your heroes are in orange jumpsuits.


Wanna come to the party?

Lol! You're posts are so juvenile.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mueller found no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia; nor did he find evidence to charge him with obstruction.

He found evidence of trump campaigm members colluding with russians. And he found evidence of obstruction, amd enough that many feel he would have been charged, of not for his current office.

And that's why mueller needs to testify... Gotta clarify the lies by the trump stooge....

 

[toomuchtime_]

Bottom line is that you were wrong in stating Barr had said no sitting president could obstruct justice and all the propaganda you base your opinions on is wrong. You should notice that all the opinion pieces you seem to treasure avoid dealing directly with the legal argument Barr set forth in his memo, and that should tell these "experts" couldn't find a flaw in his reasoning. Barr is sticking strictly to the law and his critics are all making political arguments and not legal arguments.

I was not wrong. Barr's video testimony tells exactly that. If Trump doesn't like the investigation looking into him, he can fire the investigators. That's telling the world that Trump is above the law. There is no other way to interpret that.

Still more bullshit. Try reading the memo and then you won't have base all your posts on ignorance.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

 

[BWK]

You're right, I don't . But the law does.

Yes, liberals are like this.
View attachment 259602
Even though I took eight years of your guy. I didn't like it, but I took it. Get over it, Trump is YOUR PRESIDENT!

Trump is a con artist who used a foreign government and payoffs to porn stars to get elected. He's a criminal who runs a RICO operation, who is trying to dismantle this Republic for his own authoritarian means, and his dumb as fuck supporters are his enablers.

"Trump is a con artist ..."

Hard to believe you can say that without giggling, after the incompetent ingrate you saddled us with for eight years.

All the way through this post laughing at the fact that Obama has no legal liability. Trump does.

Hussein Obama was behind the lies about Trump and Russia…


"...the media can be equally accused of ignoring the implications of the known facts. It should be a serious concern that the Obama administration used secret counterintelligence powers to target officials in the campaign of the opposing party. That is a practice we have widely criticized in other countries from Turkey to Russia to Iran."
After year of investigation, Trump can rightly claim some vindication


Remember this revelation about the lying sack of offal????




Here is the interview with Hussein swearing….lying about….the investigation:

WALLACE: Mr. President, when you say what you’ve just said, when Josh Earnest said, as he did -- your spokesman -- in January, the information from the Justice Department is she’s not a target, some people I think are worried whether or not -- the decision whether or not, how to handle the case, will be made on political grounds, not legal grounds.

Can you guarantee to the American people, can you direct the Justice Department to say, "Hillary Clinton will be treated -- as the evidence goes, she will not be in any way protected."

OBAMA: I can guarantee that. And I can guarantee that, not because I give Attorney General Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated.

I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line, and always have maintained it, previous president.

WALLACE: So, just to button this up --

OBAMA: I guarantee it.

WALLACE: You --

OBAMA: I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case.

WALLACE: And she will be --

OBAMA: Full stop. Period.

WALLACE: And she will be treated no different --

OBAMA: Guaranteed. Full stop. Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department,because nobody is above the law.

WALLACE: Even if she ends up as the Democratic nominee?

OBAMA: How many times do I have to say it, Chris? Guaranteed.

Exclusive: President Barack Obama on 'Fox News Sunday'

Lying scum....defended to this day by others of the same character.

And remember, if you like your doctor......





Now this comes to light:

"Uh Oh: New Texts Suggest Obama WH, CIA, FBI, And Harry Reid Colluded At Outset Of Russia Probe
There are new texts allegedly showing that the Obama White House, the CIA, the FBI, and top Democrats colluded at the outset of the Russia probe.

...coordination between former President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, and CIA Director John Brennan —which they say would “contradict” the Obama administration’s public stance about its hand in the process."
Uh Oh: New Texts Suggest Obama WH, CIA, FBI, And Harry Reid Colluded At Outset Of Russia Probe




"Clapper: Obama Ordered The Intelligence Assessment That Resulted In Mueller Investigation"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/24/clapper_obama_ordered_the_intelligence_assessment_that_resulted_in_mueller_investigation.html




You may recall the email that Susan Rice wrote….to herself…..to cover Obama’s rear end.

“The email — which apparently memorializes a meeting with former President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates — was revealed earlier this month by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The meeting touched on whether the Obama administration should withhold certain information about the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election from the Trump administration

Grassley and Graham have raised questions about why Rice would send herself "such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation." Susan Rice attorney denies message she sent herself on Trump's inauguration was 'unusual'

The email, by a documented liar for Obama, is an attempt to soften what Obama knew would become public knowledge: that he got his troops together to produce the Russia Spygate Fiasco.





“Collusion bombshell: DNC lawyers met with FBI on Russia allegations before surveillance warrant

Congressional investigators have confirmed that a top FBI official met with Democratic Party lawyers to talk about allegations of Donald Trump-Russia collusion weeks before the 2016 election, and before the bureau secured a search warrant targeting Trump’s campaign.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker met during the 2016 season with at least one attorney from Perkins Coie, the Democratic National Committee’s private law firm.

That’s the firm used by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to secretly pay research firmFusion GPS and Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence operative, to compile a dossier of uncorroborated raw intelligence alleging Trump and Moscow were colluding to hijack the presidential election.”
Collusion bombshell: DNC lawyers met with FBI on Russia allegations before surveillance warrant





Soooo.....who's the guil

LOl! You Trump cultists always living in the Obama/Clinton past and ended up with a bucket of shit as the consolation prize.

 

[BWK]

I was not wrong. Barr's video testimony tells exactly that. If Trump doesn't like the investigation looking into him, he can fire the investigators. That's telling the world that Trump is above the law. There is no other way to interpret that.

Still more bullshit. Try reading the memo and then you won't have base all your posts on ignorance.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

They are holding Barr in contempt to see the full report. What are you smoking? Seriously? So, you are saying Barr gets to decide? That is so laughable. On live TV he said that the president doesn't have to go through this investigation. Really? Why? Because Barr said he's done nothing wrong. ReaLLY? How do you know? Exactly, you don't. Which is why Barr just turned this into a shit show and he needs to resign. Anyone with a functioning brain knows this guy is corrupt. You don't even need a law degree to see straight through Barr's unbelievably ridiculous bs.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Still more bullshit. Try reading the memo and then you won't have base all your posts on ignorance.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

They are holding Barr in contempt to see the full report. What are you smoking?

The Democrats may issue a contempt citation, but it will mean nothing, just more political theater. If they do cite him for contempt, the issue will go to the courts to determine if Congress had legitimate grounds for demanding the unredacted version, and we won't know the decision for three or four years. The question is if the Democrats are really interested in seeing the unredacted report, why have any of them Barr invited to view it come to see it. Clearly, the Democrats are just putting on a show.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

They are holding Barr in contempt to see the full report. What are you smoking?

The Democrats may issue a contempt citation, but it will mean nothing, just more political theater. If they do cite him for contempt, the issue will go to the courts to determine if Congress had legitimate grounds for demanding the unredacted version, and we won't know the decision for three or four years. The question is if the Democrats are really interested in seeing the unredacted report, why have any of them Barr invited to view it come to see it. Clearly, the Democrats are just putting on a show.

Well,for one, the report made available is NOT "unredacted", just less redacted. That is not what they are demanding.

 

[BWK]

I was not wrong. Barr's video testimony tells exactly that. If Trump doesn't like the investigation looking into him, he can fire the investigators. That's telling the world that Trump is above the law. There is no other way to interpret that.

Still more bullshit. Try reading the memo and then you won't have base all your posts on ignorance.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

They are holding Barr in contempt to see the full report. What are you smoking?

The Democrats may issue a contempt citation, but it will mean nothing, just more political theater. If they do cite him for contempt, the issue will go to the courts to determine if Congress had legitimate grounds for demanding the unredacted version, and we won't know the decision for three or four years. The question is if the Democrats are really interested in seeing the unredacted report, why have any of them Barr invited to view it come to see it. Clearly, the Democrats are just putting on a show.

Lol! The redacted report is enough to charge Trump with obstruction. And the SDNY is getting a big resume ready for Trump as well on multiple criminal fronts. In the mean time, Trumps cultists are trashing the rule of law, the Constitution, and are exposing themselves as true traitors to this country. What a bunch of sick fucks.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

They are holding Barr in contempt to see the full report. What are you smoking?

The Democrats may issue a contempt citation, but it will mean nothing, just more political theater. If they do cite him for contempt, the issue will go to the courts to determine if Congress had legitimate grounds for demanding the unredacted version, and we won't know the decision for three or four years. The question is if the Democrats are really interested in seeing the unredacted report, why have any of them Barr invited to view it come to see it. Clearly, the Democrats are just putting on a show.

Well,for one, the report made available is NOT "unredacted", just less redacted. That is not what they are demanding.

Fine, then the courts will decide what they are entitled to in a few years. Until then they are not getting the unredacted report.

 

[BWK]

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

They are holding Barr in contempt to see the full report. What are you smoking?

The Democrats may issue a contempt citation, but it will mean nothing, just more political theater. If they do cite him for contempt, the issue will go to the courts to determine if Congress had legitimate grounds for demanding the unredacted version, and we won't know the decision for three or four years. The question is if the Democrats are really interested in seeing the unredacted report, why have any of them Barr invited to view it come to see it. Clearly, the Democrats are just putting on a show.

A contempt citation is a legally binding document. Again, what are these cultists smoking? Are you suggesting team Trump is above the law? Are you in favor of trashing the Constitution and the rule of law? if not, then the citation means a lot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fine, then the courts will decide what they are entitled to in a few years.

Hmm, no,I doubt it takes that long. The house judiciary committee is in the right, so they will fast track it to the SCOTUS, if needed. And the SCOTUS will take it up quickly.

 

[BWK]

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

They are holding Barr in contempt to see the full report. What are you smoking?

The Democrats may issue a contempt citation, but it will mean nothing, just more political theater. If they do cite him for contempt, the issue will go to the courts to determine if Congress had legitimate grounds for demanding the unredacted version, and we won't know the decision for three or four years. The question is if the Democrats are really interested in seeing the unredacted report, why have any of them Barr invited to view it come to see it. Clearly, the Democrats are just putting on a show.

Well,for one, the report made available is NOT "unredacted", just less redacted. That is not what they are demanding.

Fine, then the courts will decide what they are entitled to in a few years. Until then they are not getting the unredacted report.

You are complicit for criminals. What are you afraid of? Exactly, you are afraid of the truth. So is Trump.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Still more bullshit. Try reading the memo and then you won't have base all your posts on ignorance.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

They are holding Barr in contempt to see the full report. What are you smoking?

The Democrats may issue a contempt citation, but it will mean nothing, just more political theater. If they do cite him for contempt, the issue will go to the courts to determine if Congress had legitimate grounds for demanding the unredacted version, and we won't know the decision for three or four years. The question is if the Democrats are really interested in seeing the unredacted report, why have any of them Barr invited to view it come to see it. Clearly, the Democrats are just putting on a show.

Lol! The redacted report is enough to charge Trump with obstruction. And the SDNY is getting a big resume ready for Trump as well on multiple criminal fronts. In the mean time, Trumps cultists are trashing the rule of law, the Constitution, and are exposing themselves as true traitors to this country. What a bunch of sick fucks.

lol I hope you have the good sense to feel foolish about that post.

 

[BWK]

Fine, then the courts will decide what they are entitled to in a few years.

Hmm, no,I doubt it takes that long. The house judiciary committee is in the right, so they will fast track it to the SCOTUS, if needed. And the SCOTUS will take it up quickly.

The House has all the right to get all documents, including tax returns from the IRS. Why are they trying to hide everything? And why do Trump cultists support hiding evidence? Lol! They're as bad and corrupt as he is. The whole party sucks balls and they're all a bunch of deplorable traitors to this country.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And why do Trump cultists support hiding evidence?

Because their cult leader does. Why do cultists do anything?

 

[toomuchtime_]

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

They are holding Barr in contempt to see the full report. What are you smoking?

The Democrats may issue a contempt citation, but it will mean nothing, just more political theater. If they do cite him for contempt, the issue will go to the courts to determine if Congress had legitimate grounds for demanding the unredacted version, and we won't know the decision for three or four years. The question is if the Democrats are really interested in seeing the unredacted report, why have any of them Barr invited to view it come to see it. Clearly, the Democrats are just putting on a show.

A contempt citation is a legally binding document. Again, what are these cultists smoking? Are you suggesting team Trump is above the law? Are you in favor of trashing the Constitution and the rule of law? if not, then the citation means a lot.

Are you too stupid to understand that any kind of contempt citation issue will go to federal court and after the three or four years it will take for the SC to decide the case, the citation will just disappear, just like the contempt citation issued to Holder in the fast and furious case.

 

[BWK]

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

Oh, he can offer it. He just didn't know it would be hijacked by Barr. The report clearly states that the decision was to go to Congress.

Mueller clearly did say the the report and the decision on obstruction should go to Congress, but he had no authority or jurisdiction to decide these issues,so it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to do so, nonetheless the report has gone to Congress and Barr has even allowed several of the top Democrats and Republicans to view the classified sections of it that have been redacted, but so far no Democrats have shown any interest in seeing it and only two Republicans,so clearly all fuss the Democrats are making over seeing the unredacted report is just political theater.

They are holding Barr in contempt to see the full report. What are you smoking?

The Democrats may issue a contempt citation, but it will mean nothing, just more political theater. If they do cite him for contempt, the issue will go to the courts to determine if Congress had legitimate grounds for demanding the unredacted version, and we won't know the decision for three or four years. The question is if the Democrats are really interested in seeing the unredacted report, why have any of them Barr invited to view it come to see it. Clearly, the Democrats are just putting on a show.

Lol! The redacted report is enough to charge Trump with obstruction. And the SDNY is getting a big resume ready for Trump as well on multiple criminal fronts. In the mean time, Trumps cultists are trashing the rule of law, the Constitution, and are exposing themselves as true traitors to this country. What a bunch of sick fucks.

lol I hope you have the good sense to feel foolish about that post.

The truth has already spoken boss. And you are on the receiving end of trying to hide it with your complicity. Why do you all cover for criminals? What do you get out of it. Trump wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

 

[caddo kid]

If that isn't obstruction, I don't know what is. //www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/melber-report-details-potential-hanging-of-a-thread-of-the-trump-presidency-1498708547541 Everything we knew about Trump has come true. Trump and his team picked oranges over apples, when the report is filled with apples.

There are plenty of attorneys on Mueller's investigative team that have come out & stated that if Trump were not POTUS, he would have already been indicted for obstruction.

I have no doubt Mueller will state the same in his coming testimony before the Nadler committee.

Hundreds of former Justice officials assert Trump would be facing felony charges if he were not President - CNNPolitics

Hundreds of former Justice Department officials said in an open letter released Monday that President Donald Trump would be facing multiple felony charges stemming from the Russia investigation if he were not President.

Trump will says this is 'fake nuwz' LOFL .........