Some troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Republicans, who employed attorneys to question a witness during Kavanaugh’s hearings now get all squirmy when Barr is to be grilled by an attorney.

 

Yep, that’ll fly.

 

hahahahahaha

 

the female lawyer was hired to question CBF to appease the #metoo snowflakes who didn't want the optics of old white men interrogating a 'victim' a la Anita Hill.....what a dishonest fellow you are Chomper.

 

Barr was the smartest fellow in the room yesterday. Absolute master of his domain.....to think that an attorney general would do something without having the law on his side is an insane notion.....like most liberals.

barr et trump... the magic words...

13 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Barr was the smartest fellow in the room yesterday. Absolute master of his domain.

He did eat them up. My fav was when he started stifling his yawns.

 

If my Senators were Leahy, Vietnam Dick or that looneybin Hirono I would move.

 

Im still trying to figure out what the brouhaha is all about LOL. Read the report and build your own house of straw and quit posturing

In response to the lack of cooperation from the white house, it appears that Nancy Pelosi is moving towards the direction of supporting impeachment for obstruction of congress. Like happened to Nixon. She directly accused Barr of lying to congress -- a criminal offense. If the white house continues as they have under the leadership of the lawless president, I don't think there will be any choice but to impeach. Maybe that's what "trump" wants, but be careful what you wish for. 

27 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

the female lawyer was hired to question CBF to appease the #metoo snowflakes who didn't want the optics of old white men interrogating a 'victim' a la Anita Hill.....what a dishonest fellow you are Chomper.

Thank you for that amusing example of twisted thinking. Pretty much fulfills whatever lingering desire to read anymore of ThaiVisa today.

 

What's so very twisted about that thinking? Hmmm, let's see:

 

Keeping with the theme, let's start with the second twist first. You just called another poster dishonest in the same breath where you lied about why Republicans used a non-committee member female lawyer to question Christine Blasey Ford at the Kavanaugh hearing.

 

1st twist 2nd: What was your lie that makes you calling another person dishonest, at best, amusing? You said the lawyer was brought in "to appease the #metoo snowflakes who didn't want the optics of old white men interrogating". LOLOLOLOL Really!?!

 

That's actually two lies in one. It's twisty twisted thinking.

 

The first lie is to say that the Republican shenanigan of inserting their blowup doll "lawyer" to the process was to placate the opposition when they weren't trying to placate at all but to infuriate completely. Perhaps you missed seeing that.

 

Your second lie of that two part lie is to say that the #metoo contingent didn't want "the optics" as you put it of the GOP being, what, the GOP? And you provide evidence of that, where? Because wouldn't it make honest sense to know that other rape victims would rather not have Republicans pull the wool over their eyes before being further abused by them?

 

Before declaring another poster dishonest, were you yourself honest you'd ask yourself before making such a ludicrous statement:

A) Did Republicans bring a female lawyer into their hearing to appease their opposition or to attempt making themselves look less like a batch of slimy old white men (not that either of those objectives had a chance in hell)?

B) Who wouldn't want the optics of the reality of the GOP being so slimy: the opposition or Republicans themselves?

LOL...what a badass !!!

 

12 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

LOL...what a badass !!!

27 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

I understand the guy, why would he want to go back and listen to another round of crap from morons. Harris in particular seems to have the comprehension of a rock. The Democrat members on these committees are just playing games, and are not really interested in the truth of what is really happening.

Has staff ever questioned in congressional testimony?

anyone know?  if yes when?

 

45 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Thank you for that amusing example of twisted thinking. Pretty much fulfills whatever lingering desire to read anymore of ThaiVisa today.

 

What's so very twisted about that thinking? Hmmm, let's see:

 

Keeping with the theme, let's start with the second twist first. You just called another poster dishonest in the same breath where you lied about why Republicans used a non-committee member female lawyer to question Christine Blasey Ford at the Kavanaugh hearing.

 

1st twist 2nd: What was your lie that makes you calling another person dishonest, at best, amusing? You said the lawyer was brought in "to appease the #metoo snowflakes who didn't want the optics of old white men interrogating". LOLOLOLOL Really!?!

 

That's actually two lies in one. It's twisty twisted thinking.

 

The first lie is to say that the Republican shenanigan of inserting their blowup doll "lawyer" to the process was to placate the opposition when they weren't trying to placate at all but to infuriate completely. Perhaps you missed seeing that.

 

Your second lie of that two part lie is to say that the #metoo contingent didn't want "the optics" as you put it of the GOP being, what, the GOP? And you provide evidence of that, where? Because wouldn't it make honest sense to know that other rape victims would rather not have Republicans pull the wool over their eyes before being further abused by them?

 

Before declaring another poster dishonest, were you yourself honest you'd ask yourself before making such a ludicrous statement:

A) Did Republicans bring a female lawyer into their hearing to appease their opposition or to attempt making themselves look less like a batch of slimy old white men (not that either of those objectives had a chance in hell)?

B) Who wouldn't want the optics of the reality of the GOP being so slimy: the opposition or Republicans themselves?

The problem for the Democrats, is they have nothing of substance to stand on. Most of this is a distraction for when things start flowing the other way. They are trying to give Barr crap over one letter, but somehow didn't have a problem with Hillary's 33,000 missing emails, or classified material going to the wrong place, and that's just one example.

6 minutes ago, beechguy said:

I understand the guy, why would he want to go back and listen to another round of crap from morons. Harris in particular seems to have the comprehension of a rock. The Democrat members on these committees are just playing games, and are not really interested in the truth of what is really happening.

you spoke too soon. nadler just snapped and cut off republicans mic.lol

After implying that POTUS acts like a monarch, Nadler demonstrated the very behavior he criticized.

1 minute ago, cbtstorm said:

you spoke too soon. nadler just snapped and cut off republicans mic.lol

 

Actually, I think that was good timing, and the clown just proved my point.

20 minutes ago, cbtstorm said:

Has staff ever questioned in congressional testimony?

anyone know?  if yes when?

 

Yes.

Kavanaugh hearings.

Impeachment hearings. 

22 minutes ago, beechguy said:

I understand the guy, why would he want to go back and listen to another round of crap from morons. Harris in particular seems to have the comprehension of a rock. The Democrat members on these committees are just playing games, and are not really interested in the truth of what is really happening.

It's called congressional oversight. A constitutional obligation. 

16 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

That is incorrect. There are 10 counts of evidence for obstruction.

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That is incorrect. There are 10 counts of evidence for obstruction.

no, there aren't. 

there is no prosecutable evidence, but keep up the outrage machine

Barr is not the AG of the USA. He's the AG of authoritarian demagogue "trump" only. This is not what the founders intended. The USA is fully into Banana Republic mode now.

 

 

Quote

Barr ensures Congress can't stop Trump now.

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump was right: He can get away with almost anything -- a factor that is likely to mean an even more unchained presidency over the next 18 months.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/donald-trump-william-barr-congress/index.html

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That is incorrect. There are 10 counts of evidence for obstruction.

It's not a count, until an AG says their is, ask Hillary.

7 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

no, there aren't. 

there is no prosecutable evidence, but keep up the outrage machine

Incorrect. Mueller EXPLICITY said that he can not exonerate the president on the 10 counts. He intended for CONGRESS to make the determination. Not a "trump" lackey A.G. Not Fox News.

1 minute ago, beechguy said:

It's not a count, until an AG says their is, ask Hillary.

But but but Hillary. She's a New York granny now. FOCUS. 

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Incorrect. Mueller EXPLICITY said that he can not exonerate the president on the 10 counts. He intended for CONGRESS to make the determination. Not a "trump" lackey A.G. Not Fox News.

I dont recall Mueller stating his intentions, do you have a link. thx

7 minutes ago, cbtstorm said:

I dont recall Mueller stating his intentions, do you have a link. thx

Mueller speaks through his report and also now we know via disapproving letters to shameless lackey AG Barr. 

 

You know perfectly well that Mueller hasn't spoken directly to the public.

 

Quote

 

Mueller’s Signal on Obstruction: Congress Should Take On Trump

 

Robert Mueller filled his 448-page report with at least 10 instances where President Donald Trump tried to impede the special counsel’s investigation -- yet he stopped short of concluding whether the president obstructed justice.

So Attorney General William Barr sought to make the decision for him: no obstruction, no crime.

But that isn’t what Mueller intended at all.

 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-19/mueller-s-signal-on-obstruction-congress-should-take-on-trump

7 minutes ago, beechguy said:

Not impressed, Harris was just trying to set a perjury trap, and Barr was smart enough not to fall for it. I don't think she can accept that he's smarter than her, and she was just playing to the Democrats to keep the donations coming in. 

Trying to set a perjury trap? You think that exculpates Barr evasiveness? Actually, if you're correct about that, and I think you are, it does exactly the opposite.

Posts removed.  

4 hours ago, beechguy said:

It's not a count, until an AG says their is, ask Hillary.

But but but .... Hillary!

To be entirely correct, Barr did not ‘Cancel second day of testimony’ he simply chickened out.

 

The House Will now vote to hold him in contempt of Congress and perhaps seek charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

 

#Getting all the best people.

#Drain the swamp.

#Be Best.

4 hours ago, beechguy said:

Not impressed, Harris was just trying to set a perjury trap, and Barr was smart enough not to fall for it. I don't think she can accept that he's smarter than her, and she was just playing to the Democrats to keep the donations coming in. 

She spanked him like the dirty little monkey he is he might be sharing a cell with Paul soon lol it’s true everything Donald touches dies

4 hours ago, cbtstorm said:

I dont recall Mueller stating his intentions, do you have a link. thx

I realize not reading the Mueller report is something common amongst those who criticize its content but make the effort to read the introduction to Volume 2 of the report, including foot notes.

 

And while reading try to inwardly digest what it is saying.