WTF? Democrat House Judiciary Committee Takes First Step to Hold Bill Barr in Contempt of Congress

[LeftofLeft]

Let's see if the courts want to maintain our democracy......or if the courts are also into Trump ass kissing......

The LAWS are CLEAR and SPECIFIC.

Yes.... immigration Laws are clear and specific too. Since when has your side been so concerned about Laws? HINT: You are not consistent.

 

[Camp]

laws do not apply to Trump or anyone in his cartel -

Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion so that I may rip it to shreds and shove it up your ass?

Trump Obstructed Justice and there is only one reason he is not getting into the orange jumpsuit right now - he is the President.

what obstruction did he do? please, name a crime he obstructed.

His personal lawyer began a prison sentence today. He named a bunch of them.

And of course you are simply lying.

Lying about what? Cohen began his prison sentence today and he testified before Congress on numerous crimes committed by Trump. Hundreds of former prosecutors released a letter today claiming Trump would have been charged with obstruction if not for the DOJ policy and opinion that a President cannot be indicted while in office. So, what is the lie?

 

[nat4900]

Yes.... immigration Laws are clear and specific too. Since when has your side been so concerned about Laws? HINT: You are not consistent.

YES......Immigration law is indeed clear and specific........Try reading something besides the back of your cereal box.......

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal ...

 

[AntonToo]

Lol - should we rely on president-can't-possibly-obstruct Barr? Who should we look to???

Who has the credibility and means to hold POTUS accountable if not Congress?

You clearly are not familiar with the Barr memo you are laughing about. If you were, you wouldn't post such nonsense. Here is a link to the memo and he clearly says a president can be guilty of obstruction and cites the relevant laws and federal court decisions. He makes two important points, that the definition of obstruction Mueller seems to be using has no precedent and there is no case law to support it, and that if Mueller was never investigating a crime, then there can be no obstruction. Read it - you don't have to look up every law or court decision Barr cites to understand his argument - and then maybe you will be able to post an intelligent comment on this subject. Here's the link.

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

STOP

1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.

According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.

2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.

If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.

Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.

3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.

In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.

As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.

this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.

NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.

You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.

Nice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr.

BULLFUCKINGSHIT. Did you READ THE LETTER? Nothing about any media in it.

And hey I've got a very simple way for us, and the rest of America to fully settle this one - HAVE MUELLER TESTIFY.

The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.

 

[nat4900]

The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.

Trump is SCARED shitless of what Mueller's testimony may reveal.....NO other reason for Trump to "refuse" Mueller from testifying......Besides, Trump is NOT yet a dictator and Mueller....as a private citizen no longer employed by the DOJ ...can do whatever he wants.

I don't predict that Mueller will reveal major bombshells....BUT, it is up to questioners to simply ask him to CLARIFY all that his report entailed.

Since Trump ass kissers REFUSE to read......maybe Mueller's OWN summary would finally wake some of these dolts up.

 

[BluesLegend]

The House is ruled by bat shit crazy Dem's.

Meet the new boss, same as the old...

The dance continues. Americans get screwed by their faux-republic. Party over country.

Republicans don't care if scump is scum ,,It's ok just as long as he's their scum

Sounds like you have sour grapes over losing the election to Trump. Admit it you people were complaining about Trump before the guy was even sworn into office.

 

[nat4900]

Sounds like you have sour grapes over losing the election to Trump. Admit it you people were complaining about Trump before the guy was even sworn into office.

Trump is NOT fit to be president.......but I've long accepted that....like a curable disease...his tenure will pass......

Besides, do ignorant morons like you remember this???

Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President ...

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump is NOT fit to be president

LMAO okay why? You know, so we can mock your answer and laugh.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Yes.... immigration Laws are clear and specific too. Since when has your side been so concerned about Laws? HINT: You are not consistent.

YES......Immigration law is indeed clear and specific........Try reading something besides the back of your cereal box.......

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal ...

You are not consistent on that part of the code. Not sure your reasoning for posting it as a retort.

 

[edward37]

The House is ruled by bat shit crazy Dem's.

Meet the new boss, same as the old...

The dance continues. Americans get screwed by their faux-republic. Party over country.

Republicans don't care if scump is scum ,,It's ok just as long as he's their scum

Sounds like you have sour grapes over losing the election to Trump. Admit it you people were complaining about Trump before the guy was even sworn into office.

You dope He had a stinkin reputation What else should we have hated him for?

 

[toomuchtime_]

If that were true than you wouldn't be looking to House committees for answers.

Lol - should we rely on president-can't-possibly-obstruct Barr? Who should we look to???

Who has the credibility and means to hold POTUS accountable if not Congress?

You clearly are not familiar with the Barr memo you are laughing about. If you were, you wouldn't post such nonsense. Here is a link to the memo and he clearly says a president can be guilty of obstruction and cites the relevant laws and federal court decisions. He makes two important points, that the definition of obstruction Mueller seems to be using has no precedent and there is no case law to support it, and that if Mueller was never investigating a crime, then there can be no obstruction. Read it - you don't have to look up every law or court decision Barr cites to understand his argument - and then maybe you will be able to post an intelligent comment on this subject. Here's the link.

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

STOP

1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.

According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.

2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.

If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.

Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.

3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.

In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.

As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.

this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.

NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.

You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.

That's bulllshit. He might no be able to indict the President but there was nothing preventing him from drawing a conclusion from the evidence on obstruction as he did on collusion, and if he believed the evidence supported it he could have recommended the Justice Department indict Trump once he left office. What was not proper was for Mueller to recommend that the issue go to Congress. The report was written for the AG and when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction, effectively refusing to do his job, it fell to the AG to decide. No honest person would claim the raving lunatics in the House, the Democrats, would be able to reach a just conclusion on anything regarding Trump.

 

[BluesLegend]

The House is ruled by bat shit crazy Dem's.

Meet the new boss, same as the old...

The dance continues. Americans get screwed by their faux-republic. Party over country.

Republicans don't care if scump is scum ,,It's ok just as long as he's their scum

Sounds like you have sour grapes over losing the election to Trump. Admit it you people were complaining about Trump before the guy was even sworn into office.

You dope He had a stinkin reputation What else should we have hated him for?

And Bill Clinton's reputation? LOL you lib bunnies walk right into the mockery buzz saw.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You clearly are not familiar with the Barr memo you are laughing about. If you were, you wouldn't post such nonsense. Here is a link to the memo and he clearly says a president can be guilty of obstruction and cites the relevant laws and federal court decisions. He makes two important points, that the definition of obstruction Mueller seems to be using has no precedent and there is no case law to support it, and that if Mueller was never investigating a crime, then there can be no obstruction. Read it - you don't have to look up every law or court decision Barr cites to understand his argument - and then maybe you will be able to post an intelligent comment on this subject. Here's the link.

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

STOP

1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.

According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.

2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.

If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.

Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.

3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.

In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.

As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.

this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.

NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.

You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.

Nice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr.

BULLFUCKINGSHIT. Did you READ THE LETTER? Nothing about any media in it.

And hey I've got a very simple way for us, and the rest of America to fully settle this one - HAVE MUELLER TESTIFY.

The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.

Mueller did testify to what he believed to be true in his report, and performing in Nadler's circus will not provide anything but an opportunity for tne Democrats on the committee trash the President. It is time for the Democrats in the House to attend to the business of government instead of using the House to campaign. No one in America is benefitting from all this bullshit dribbling out of the mouths of the Democrats and their 2020 candidate will suffer the same fate as Hillary did unless the Democrats start going to work for the people rather than just for themselves.

 

[Dragonlady]

Most reasonable representatives agree that Nadler is in way over his head as a representative. Whether his many deficiencies are the result his diet, some environmental factor or maybe he's just a bad result of inbreeding. Nobody knows.

Most reasonable representatives know that Jerry Nadler has been handing Trump his ass on a platter for decades now:

Nadler-Trump Feud to Resume -- With Higher Stakes | RealClearPolitics

Trump always does the dumbest shit possible. Like walking out on the Budget Meeting with Pelosi and Schumer, shutting down the government, and now getting into a Constitutional battle with a Constitutional expert. Another smooth move by Trump.

 

[AntonToo]

STOP

1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.

According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.

2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.

If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.

Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.

3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.

In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.

As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.

this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.

NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.

You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.

Nice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr.

BULLFUCKINGSHIT. Did you READ THE LETTER? Nothing about any media in it.

And hey I've got a very simple way for us, and the rest of America to fully settle this one - HAVE MUELLER TESTIFY.

The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.

Mueller did testify to what he believed to be true in his report

You need to stop doing drugs son, Mueller never testified.

 

[AntonToo]

Lol - should we rely on president-can't-possibly-obstruct Barr? Who should we look to???

Who has the credibility and means to hold POTUS accountable if not Congress?

You clearly are not familiar with the Barr memo you are laughing about. If you were, you wouldn't post such nonsense. Here is a link to the memo and he clearly says a president can be guilty of obstruction and cites the relevant laws and federal court decisions. He makes two important points, that the definition of obstruction Mueller seems to be using has no precedent and there is no case law to support it, and that if Mueller was never investigating a crime, then there can be no obstruction. Read it - you don't have to look up every law or court decision Barr cites to understand his argument - and then maybe you will be able to post an intelligent comment on this subject. Here's the link.

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

STOP

1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.

According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.

2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.

If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.

Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.

3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.

In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.

As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.

this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.

NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.

You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.

That's bulllshit. He might no be able to indict the President but there was nothing preventing him from drawing a conclusion from the evidence on obstruction as he did on collusion, and if he believed the evidence supported it he could have recommended the Justice Department indict Trump once he left office. What was not proper was for Mueller to recommend that the issue go to Congress. The report was written for the AG and when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction, effectively refusing to do his job, it fell to the AG to decide. No honest person would claim the raving lunatics in the House, the Democrats, would be able to reach a just conclusion on anything regarding Trump.

No, actually there is something - DOJ policies of:

1. NOT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.
2. NOT MAKING DEREGATORY STATEMENTS WITHOUT INDICTMENT

And it's more than policy, Muller seems to have felt that is the RIGHT way of handling this for the sake of this country.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.

As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.

this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.

NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.

You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.

Nice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr.

BULLFUCKINGSHIT. Did you READ THE LETTER? Nothing about any media in it.

And hey I've got a very simple way for us, and the rest of America to fully settle this one - HAVE MUELLER TESTIFY.

The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.

Mueller did testify to what he believed to be true in his report

You need to stop doing drugs son, Mueller never testified.

His testimony on these issues is in his report. There is no plausible reason for him not to have stated he thought Trump was guilty of obstruction if he believed the evidence supported that conclusion.

 

[lantern2814]

You clearly are not familiar with the Barr memo you are laughing about. If you were, you wouldn't post such nonsense. Here is a link to the memo and he clearly says a president can be guilty of obstruction and cites the relevant laws and federal court decisions. He makes two important points, that the definition of obstruction Mueller seems to be using has no precedent and there is no case law to support it, and that if Mueller was never investigating a crime, then there can be no obstruction. Read it - you don't have to look up every law or court decision Barr cites to understand his argument - and then maybe you will be able to post an intelligent comment on this subject. Here's the link.

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

STOP

1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.

According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.

2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.

If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.

Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.

3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.

In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.

As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.

this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.

NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.

You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.

Nice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr.

BULLFUCKINGSHIT. Did you READ THE LETTER? Nothing about any media in it.

And hey I've got a very simple way for us, and the rest of America to fully settle this one - HAVE MUELLER TESTIFY.

The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.

So you've read Barr's personal mail? I'll take Barr's word over your hysterics. Since Mueller has not denied anything Barr said (remember he did come out and deny the Buzzfeed story so he would have made a statement) that should tell YOU all you need to know. Have Mueller testify? Go ahead. He can't answer most of your questions without breaking the law and then Republicans get to question him too. The matter is settled. For everybody except you people desperate to hold on to this hoax at all costs.

 

[AntonToo]

this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.

NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.

You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.

Nice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr.

BULLFUCKINGSHIT. Did you READ THE LETTER? Nothing about any media in it.

And hey I've got a very simple way for us, and the rest of America to fully settle this one - HAVE MUELLER TESTIFY.

The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.

Mueller did testify to what he believed to be true in his report

You need to stop doing drugs son, Mueller never testified.

His testimony on these issues is in his report.

We are talking about Mueller testifying to publicly clearify what he meant in his report, what don't you understand?

 

[toomuchtime_]

You clearly are not familiar with the Barr memo you are laughing about. If you were, you wouldn't post such nonsense. Here is a link to the memo and he clearly says a president can be guilty of obstruction and cites the relevant laws and federal court decisions. He makes two important points, that the definition of obstruction Mueller seems to be using has no precedent and there is no case law to support it, and that if Mueller was never investigating a crime, then there can be no obstruction. Read it - you don't have to look up every law or court decision Barr cites to understand his argument - and then maybe you will be able to post an intelligent comment on this subject. Here's the link.

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

STOP

1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.

According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.

2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.

If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.

Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.

3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.

In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.

As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.

this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.

NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.

You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.

That's bulllshit. He might no be able to indict the President but there was nothing preventing him from drawing a conclusion from the evidence on obstruction as he did on collusion, and if he believed the evidence supported it he could have recommended the Justice Department indict Trump once he left office. What was not proper was for Mueller to recommend that the issue go to Congress. The report was written for the AG and when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction, effectively refusing to do his job, it fell to the AG to decide. No honest person would claim the raving lunatics in the House, the Democrats, would be able to reach a just conclusion on anything regarding Trump.

No, actually there is something - DOJ policies of:

1. NOT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.
2. NOT MAKING DEREGATORY STATEMENTS WITHOUT INDICTMENT

And it's more then policy, Muller seems to have felt that is the RIGHT way of handling this for the sake of this country.

Silly stuff, both Barr and Rosenstein believed Mueller failed in his duties by not reaching a conclusion on obstruction. Apparently no one at Justice believes reaching a conclusion is against DoJ policy.