Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hmm, no, I don't feel compelled to spoonfeed you basic information on the topic. Not all info requires a link. And, as i said, you are free to stay ignorant and wrong about it. Those are both your choices.You make a claim, onus is on you to support it.
The Constitution gives "sole Power of Impeachment" to the House, and the House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over impeachments. They must receive the full report, which is in part an investigation into potential wrongdoings by the president, in order to be able to do their job.
Agreed.........
The MOST revealing sentence in Barr's SUBJECTIVE summary is the fact (which even Barr could not bury) that Trump was NOT exonerated of obstruction........we all well know that "collusion" is not in itself a crime....sure its slimy, unethical and even unpatriotic....so it is not a crime........
But, Mueller basically handed over to CONGRESS (not just the DOJ) an important step toward reviewing the investigation and if indeed obstruction of justice is validated by the congressional committee, then impeachment....which is really an open trial......is warranted.
He said he was going to release it, so why say if?LOLNot at all. You should learn the meaning of the word "if."If he doesn't release it, the Congress will simply start up their own investigations into the matter and drag it on for another 2 years.
But since there's no reason to think he won't release it, your "if" is nothing more than an attempt to find something to be butt-chapped about pre-emptively.
I didn't misstate the meaning of "if" in any way. You just don't like that I nailed your motives for dwelling on it.
You nailed nothing since I never said Barr wouldn’t release Mueller’s report.
The primary obstacle being federal law.Part of the thinking of congress is that,the lomger they wait,the more obstacles can form between them and the unredacted report.
HahahaWell that's what summaries are......Uh huh. So you figure Mueller went on and on about what a criminal Trump is, and then included two sentences stating that he was cleared for Barr to "cherrypick" out? Is that what you're telling yourself happened to avoid admitting that you've wasted 2 years and tons of money?
And that's leaving alone the fact that Barr's summary included far more than two sentences, and the fact that there's no way Mueller would remain silent if Barr were lying about his report.
It quoted two sentences from the report of nearly 400 pages.
That is indeed cherrypicking. What is your definition?
I never said he was lying, liar.
the definition of summary
un, plural sum·ma·ries.
a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.
adjective
brief and comprehensive; concise.
direct and prompt; unceremoniously fast: to treat someone with summary dispatch.
(of legal proceedings, jurisdiction, etc.) conducted without, or exempt from, the various steps and delays of a formal trial.
Goddamn, dude.
Two sentences out of 400 pages can in no way be considered "comprehensive" as your definition requires.
You just proved why it is not a summary.
Damn, dude. 4 pages is not "2 sentences". Maybe you should have read the actual summary, instead of just the leftist blog headlines.
For the nth time.......Barr's report, " quoted" just two sentences of the actual Mueller report.
The rest is his own musings.
Get it yet?
The obstruction refers to the investigation before mueller was appointed, I'm guessing.Tell me again how Mueller was obstructed?
You apparently don't know what a summary is. It was a 4 page summary.......I've seen those before.......maybe if you dealt with documents and no flipping burgers you'd know it as well.
Barr said he'd release the report when he is able to do so.He's dragging his feet. He'll release a report so redacted that it will no doubt be subpoenaed. At which time it will be months before congress gets it. Just as planned.
You have to wait, and no amount of whining will change this.
Sure. Check back with me when the subpoena goes out.
The intel committee has clearances as well.
There's no reason they can't see the full unredacted report.
Do you know what is in the report? If not, you can't say either way with any certainty. Just more crying from the extreme nuts.
I know it was not a problem to do so in the past. In all fairness though, this administration is the most corrupt and inept in history so.......
The Grand Jury evidence is not allowed to be released. Also if the Special Counsel does not find anything illegal, he is not allowed to say anything about the report. Under the previous rules, investigations and reports could be sent to Congress without any delay. Under the current rules, the report needs to go to the Attorney General and then he can make decisions. The other issue is the President's privacy as no crime was found to be committed, so part of the investigation into Trump could be considered private and irrelevant.
There are those with the clearance levels that could be allowed to see it, in its entirety and Congress could subpoena the document however many times the courts will ask Congress and the Executive Branch to work it out.
Your last sentence is just an opinion that is not relevant to the discussion.
The Grand Jury evidence is not allowed to be released.
So courts order Grand Jury testimony unsealed. We could do that however I think it would go faster if we just are patient for a few weeks and see what happens, we waited how long for the report, a few weeks really doesn't matter.
I actually AGREE..................So, please tell you right wing friends that their little "victory lap" (including the one that the orange clown has taken) may be a bit PREMATURE.
I actually AGREE..................So, please tell you right wing friends that their little "victory lap" (including the one that the orange clown has taken) may be a bit PREMATURE.
The primary obstacle being federal law.Part of the thinking of congress is that,the lomger they wait,the more obstacles can form between them and the unredacted report.
HahahaWell that's what summaries are......It quoted two sentences from the report of nearly 400 pages.
That is indeed cherrypicking. What is your definition?
I never said he was lying, liar.
the definition of summary
un, plural sum·ma·ries.
a comprehensive and usually brief abstract, recapitulation, or compendium of previously stated facts or statements.
adjective
brief and comprehensive; concise.
direct and prompt; unceremoniously fast: to treat someone with summary dispatch.
(of legal proceedings, jurisdiction, etc.) conducted without, or exempt from, the various steps and delays of a formal trial.
Goddamn, dude.
Two sentences out of 400 pages can in no way be considered "comprehensive" as your definition requires.
You just proved why it is not a summary.
Damn, dude. 4 pages is not "2 sentences". Maybe you should have read the actual summary, instead of just the leftist blog headlines.
For the nth time.......Barr's report, " quoted" just two sentences of the actual Mueller report.
The rest is his own musings.
Get it yet?
"Musings"
Libtards dug this hole for themselves when they refused to accept the election at all costs.
Fascist tactics don't always work.
Grow up and deal with it.
Yes, musings. If not directly quoted, that is exactly all they are is his opinion.
Barr said he'd release the report when he is able to do so.
You have to wait, and no amount of whining will change this.
Sure. Check back with me when the subpoena goes out.
The intel committee has clearances as well.
There's no reason they can't see the full unredacted report.
Do you know what is in the report? If not, you can't say either way with any certainty. Just more crying from the extreme nuts.
I know it was not a problem to do so in the past. In all fairness though, this administration is the most corrupt and inept in history so.......
The Grand Jury evidence is not allowed to be released. Also if the Special Counsel does not find anything illegal, he is not allowed to say anything about the report. Under the previous rules, investigations and reports could be sent to Congress without any delay. Under the current rules, the report needs to go to the Attorney General and then he can make decisions. The other issue is the President's privacy as no crime was found to be committed, so part of the investigation into Trump could be considered private and irrelevant.
There are those with the clearance levels that could be allowed to see it, in its entirety and Congress could subpoena the document however many times the courts will ask Congress and the Executive Branch to work it out.
Your last sentence is just an opinion that is not relevant to the discussion.
The Grand Jury evidence is not allowed to be released.
Really?
Hmm.......
Text of Sirica Order and Opinion in Decision That Watergate Data Go to House
But we already covered that. A judge ordered the release of the grand jury info in the Clinton investigation. So this is the "comeuppance", if you will.Whatever the courts decide I am good with, just follow the law, because if the situation comes up again, and it doesn't favor you, then you will have lost your legal ground.
Sure. Check back with me when the subpoena goes out.
The intel committee has clearances as well.
There's no reason they can't see the full unredacted report.
Do you know what is in the report? If not, you can't say either way with any certainty. Just more crying from the extreme nuts.
I know it was not a problem to do so in the past. In all fairness though, this administration is the most corrupt and inept in history so.......
The Grand Jury evidence is not allowed to be released. Also if the Special Counsel does not find anything illegal, he is not allowed to say anything about the report. Under the previous rules, investigations and reports could be sent to Congress without any delay. Under the current rules, the report needs to go to the Attorney General and then he can make decisions. The other issue is the President's privacy as no crime was found to be committed, so part of the investigation into Trump could be considered private and irrelevant.
There are those with the clearance levels that could be allowed to see it, in its entirety and Congress could subpoena the document however many times the courts will ask Congress and the Executive Branch to work it out.
Your last sentence is just an opinion that is not relevant to the discussion.
The Grand Jury evidence is not allowed to be released.
Really?
Hmm.......
Text of Sirica Order and Opinion in Decision That Watergate Data Go to House
Get the court order, that is the legal end around, however, he is not allowed to release Grand Jury information. They are also bound by an innocent persons right to privacy, so there are areas that should be redacted.
Whatever the courts decide I am good with, just follow the law, because if the situation comes up again, and it doesn't favor you, then you will have lost your legal ground. This is my big issue with partisans, they will sacrifice a position because it suits them now, then when it goes against them, they cry.
Look at Congress, they are constantly screwing themselves over by playing these games.
Interesting. You complain about ethics and morality while expressly hoping the president has committed crimes that harm the country. Is your mirror broken?Was NOT ALL opinion. The FACT that your peeps changed the rules because of Starr and Clinton is proven fact, and 100% accurate.
Good boy.........You're following the cult standard procedure........ALWAYS bring up one of the Clintons whenever you have to "defend" your [orangy] cult leader.......LOL
Am I wrong, yes or no NAT?!?!?!?!?!
Did not YOUR SIDE change the rules-)
We used to have an office of an INDEPENDENT counsel (meaning that such an investigation's findings, were directly turned over to Congress)......That law expired in 1999.
We now have an office of a SPECIAL counsel....consider Trump fortunate since such an office has to go through a Trump's appointee to divulge what such an office has found about him.
Either way, since the current House is NOT led by a bunch of Trump acolytes, the truth will come out either way.
This is ........at the very least.......a question of questionable Trump administration's ETHICS........and at worst....well, we can only hope.
I know that your side NO LONGER gives a crap about either ethics or morality.......
It's not hard to predict the ways the goal posts will be moved. First, the report, then the entire report, complete with classified information and innocent people's names. Then, finally, Mueller becomes a Trump acolyte, which they will claim to have known the whole time. They'll NEVER be satisfied. They can literally get every single thing they demand, but if it doesn't give them Trump in chains, they'll demand something else.When it IS released, and is far smaller than its full 300+ pages, Democrats will complain that Barr is covering something up. Actually, the report is likely to be chock full of classified information, that CANNOT be released, so the full report CANNOT be released and never will be.With the appropriate caveat to members of Congress that names and methods of classified investigations NOT be revealed to the general public, what is the legal standing for Barr to not release the report? (of course, with the exception that Barr IS a Trump stooge appointed SPECIFICALLY to protect his cult leader.)
So, I ask again.....since Mueller's report was authorized by republicans and fully funded by all of us tax payers, what is the LEGAL PRECEDENT for the report to not be FULLY disclosed?
Democrats, who make a habit of making themselves look stupid, will ignore this reality, and blabber about a coverup. Never before have so few insulted the intelligence of so many.
