Democrats amplify pressure on Trump as Pelosi accuses Barr of 'crime'

[Berkshire]

32 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

This Barr defamation is a coordinated attempt by the Dems to brand Barr an untrustworthy person so that any evidence his office turns up of a covert US government operation to first remove Trump the candidate and secondly remove him from office once the American people voted Republican...is a Trump orchestrated LIE...because the Dems say so...????  

 

Many previous Dem government heads are going to roll...

It's not just "Dems" trying to brand Barr as an untrustworthy person, but pretty much every objective, fair-minded, individual can see that Barr clearly misrepresented Mueller's findings.  Heck, even some of the more respected journalists on Fox News recognizes this....

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-chris-wallace-hosts-165703145.html

 

[Becker]

31 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

If it did fully capture context, nature and substance of the report, it would not be a summary would it?

Mueller also stated Barr’s summary was accurate, yes?

 

Since you apparently are adverse to actually reading the posts you reply to I will repeat the statement from Mueller.

“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,” 

[Becker]

54 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

This Barr defamation is a coordinated attempt by the Dems to brand Barr an untrustworthy person so that any evidence his office turns up of a covert US government operation to first remove Trump the candidate and secondly remove him from office once the American people voted Republican...is a Trump orchestrated LIE...because the Dems say so...????  

 

Many previous Dem government heads are going to roll...

And in other news from the Twilight Zone.....

[Puchaiyank]

41 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Democrat Senators ask Barr questions, he responds with lies, half truths and prevarication.

 

Republicans stick to their customary practice of not asking awkward questions of Trump’s man.

 

Barr is no fool (well he’s not entirely stupid) he could easily scupper your claimed coordinated Democrat ‘defamation’ by simply telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I think if we have learned anything from the Russian debacle...truth is not blind...it's either the elephant in the room...or the jackass eating crow...no gray areas...

[pedro01]

33 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Actually, capturing the context, nature, and substance, without the detail, is exactly what a summary is.

 

Re point 2, please refer to Meuller’s letter to Barr.

 

This is a silly argument.

 

Barr put out a summary, at the time he planned to release the full report.

 

His summary focused on the outcome, he mentioned this in his testimony and gave examples. There was no need for the summary to contain anything other than "the upside of the investigation is no collusion and unclear on obstruction" - which is what he said.

 

The <deleted> report is out there - it was release quickly with minimal redactions.

 

Mueller's letter wanted more in the summary but did not say that anything in the summary wasn't factual.

 

At this point, it's like picking an empty nostril.

[stevenl]

20 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

This is a silly argument.

 

Barr put out a summary, at the time he planned to release the full report.

 

His summary focused on the outcome, he mentioned this in his testimony and gave examples. There was no need for the summary to contain anything other than "the upside of the investigation is no collusion and unclear on obstruction" - which is what he said. 

 

The <deleted> report is out there - it was release quickly with minimal redactions.

 

Mueller's letter wanted more in the summary but did not say that anything in the summary wasn't factual.

 

At this point, it's like picking an empty nostril.

" There was no need for the summary to contain anything other than "the upside of the investigation is no collusion and unclear on obstruction" - which is what he said.
That is what Barr said, not what the report or Muller said.

[attrayant]

20 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

His summary focused on the outcome, he mentioned this in his testimony and gave examples.

 

 

Barr himself admitted he did not base his summary on the underlying evidence - in fact he did not even review the underlying evidence.

 

20 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

At this point, it's like picking an empty nostril.

 

 

That depends: are you doing it in full view of the public?  Seems like Barr is.

[mogandave]

“Mueller also stated Barr’s summary was accurate, yes?”
 
Absolutely not.
Nowhere does Mueller state that Barr’s summary was accurate.
 
Back to comprehension class you go.

Yes, I assumed when he said it was not inaccurate, it implied it was accurate.

My bad.

[Colonel Klink]

 
This is a silly argument.
 
Barr put out a summary, at the time he planned to release the full report.
 
His summary focused on the outcome, he mentioned this in his testimony and gave examples. There was no need for the summary to contain anything other than "the upside of the investigation is no collusion and unclear on obstruction" - which is what he said.
 
The report is out there - it was release quickly with minimal redactions.
 
Mueller's letter wanted more in the summary but did not say that anything in the summary wasn't factual.
 
At this point, it's like picking an empty nostril.

If you read the Mueller report you will find Mr Mueller expressly states he was unable to prove conspiracy against the United States despite the many connections of the Trump campaign with the Russians, because of lack of evidence due to witnesses lying, being unavailable (overseas), destroying evidence, using lawyer client privilege to shield evidence from investigators, and that were the 'gaps' filled, it may place things in a different light.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[thaibeachlovers]

Expected and ultimately, IMO, pointless attack on Trump through Barr.

Pity the Dems are not more dedicated to doing their job of taking care of their citizens instead of being obsessed with Trump.

If they believed their hype they'd be trying to impeach him already instead of waffling about everything under the sun that has even the slightest connection to Trump.

That they are not says it all.

[riclag]

2 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

This Barr defamation is a coordinated attempt by the Dems to brand Barr an untrustworthy person so that any evidence his office turns up of a covert US government operation to first remove Trump the candidate and secondly remove him from office once the American people voted Republican...is a Trump orchestrated LIE...because the Dems say so...????  

 

Many previous Dem government heads are going to roll...

 Pelosi Politics are classic Kavanoughrian attack tactics(destroy the character of the subject)  ! After his reviews,the AG of the USA will appoint a Special Prosecutor to distance himself from further attacks ! The dems will attack the SP! Mr. Barr will set the scope of the Special Prosecutor.Only need to look at what  Mr. Barr has been reviewing in his latest testimony to determine what the scope of the SP will be if he determines  the alleged abuse of  spying by the top Doj  ,FBI , and various  domestic and foreign intel agency ,as well as  media malfeasance claimed by the previous IG report!

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lindsey-graham-robert-mueller-probe_n_5c98ddeee4b057f7330dbcc2?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKNJDB4-9LuzbbEZDJJDMslZa85YeO9AjhDXnFFIBF7h3M8Lspx-3tORUNznSOB5uFP5yCwUwi5lfjWLgpC2HJEArx9kZtwkmx0qoVyG_yLgN9hB0Z982FQuURKwrtHJFmWHXKCOwRTQUr-fa8RRKf8HKBJTKgBdzoa6WHEyUpFn

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/25/graham-calls-for-new-special-counsel-to-probe-justice-department/

Edited May 3, 2019 by riclag

[Puchaiyank]

8 minutes ago, riclag said:

 Pelosi Politics are classic Kavanoughrian attack tactics(destroy the character of the subject)  ! After his reviews,the AG of the USA will appoint a Special Prosecutor to distance himself from further attacks ! The dems will attack the SP! Mr. Barr will set the scope of the Special Prosecutor.Only need to look at what  Mr. Barr has been reviewing in his latest testimony to determine what the scope of the SP will be if he determines  the alleged abuse of  spying by the Doj  ,FBI , and various  domestic and foreign intel agency ,as well as  media malfeasance claimed by the previous IG report!

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lindsey-graham-robert-mueller-probe_n_5c98ddeee4b057f7330dbcc2?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKNJDB4-9LuzbbEZDJJDMslZa85YeO9AjhDXnFFIBF7h3M8Lspx-3tORUNznSOB5uFP5yCwUwi5lfjWLgpC2HJEArx9kZtwkmx0qoVyG_yLgN9hB0Z982FQuURKwrtHJFmWHXKCOwRTQUr-fa8RRKf8HKBJTKgBdzoa6WHEyUpFn

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/25/graham-calls-for-new-special-counsel-to-probe-justice-department/

This has the Dems squirming and running for cover...it has been a long time in coming...will be fun to watch these bad actors get their just reward...

[Mavideol]

5 hours ago, Lungstib said:

As shown by this report (and as we will see from the posts that follow) US politics has sunk to an awful low level of trust and cooperation between what has become two sides that refuse to agree on anything. The law apparently means nothing to these people and both sides use different interpretations to back their claims and assertions. Its an appalling show that the world is watching with fascination and no doubt some fear as a country that used to be respected for its political system spirals down the drain and out of sight. Nothing is more obvious than the fact that the two party system and what passes for 'democracy' but is in fact a plutocracy, is nothing more than laughable theatre. Poor old US of A.

could compare it to Thai politics..... Trump does as he wishes and so does Prayut, both sunk to awful low

[Hanaguma]

^{Since the entire report is available to the public, as well as Congress, i'm not sure what the problem is. Mueller was a bit upset because Barr's summary was too dry and didn't have any of the nuance and background of the full report. That's what a summary is for, though. In any case, the report was released within weeks of the Barr summary, so there's nothing else to say. It's over.} 

 

^{As to obstruction, there was no testimony in the original Mueller report that Trump or his people actually obstructed anything. Sure, he was mad and made angry comments and stupid requests. But none were actually carried out. Perhaps they were the justified anger of a man accused of a crime which he did not commit...}

[attrayant]

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

As to obstruction, there was no testimony in the original Mueller report that Trump or his people actually obstructed anything. Sure, he was mad and made angry comments and stupid requests. But none were actually carried out.

 

Obstruction of justice is itself a crime, whether successful or not.  The Nixon articles of impeachment included attempts at obstruction of justice:

 

1. Making false statements to investigators;
2. Withholding evidence and information from investigators;
3. Approving or condoning false testimony by his aides;
4. Interfering with investigations by the FBI, Department of Justice, special prosecutor, and congressional committees;
5. Approving or condoning “the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purposes of obtaining the silence” of witnesses or potential witnesses;
6. Attempting to abuse the CIA;
7. Giving aides material from the Justice Department to help them evade criminal charges;
8. Making “false or misleading statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States” into believing that a full investigation of the Watergate scandal had been completed and that none of his aides or campaign staff had engaged in any misconduct; and
9. Leading defendants to believe that they would receive favorable treatment in exchange for silence or misleading testimony.

Edited May 3, 2019 by attrayant

[pedro01]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

" There was no need for the summary to contain anything other than "the upside of the investigation is no collusion and unclear on obstruction" - which is what he said.
That is what Barr said, not what the report or Muller said.

In Barr's testimony - he stated that his summary was only intended to relay the outcome.

 

Which it did.

[pedro01]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

Barr himself admitted he did not base his summary on the underlying evidence - in fact he did not even review the underlying evidence.

 

 

That depends: are you doing it in full view of the public?  Seems like Barr is.

 

Correct.

 

It was Muellers job to review evidence and put a report together, with conclusions.

 

Barr sent out a short letter summarising the conclusions and followed up with the full report.

 

Are you suggesting that Barr re-investigate all evidence?

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, pedro01 said:

Are you suggesting that Barr re-investigate all evidence?

 

 

He should evaluate the underlying evidence; not just be a rubber stamp.  Otherwise how does he know if he agrees with Mueller's findings?  Some of the things Barr said in his summary were in stark contrast to what Mueller said.

[riclag]

23 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Obstruction of justice is itself a crime, whether successful or not.

There was no crime to  obstruct

[Becker]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

In Barr's testimony - he stated that his summary was only intended to relay the outcome.

 

Which it did.

It was a pathetic attempt at a whitewash and Mr. Mueller wasn't too impressed'

“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,”

[Guitarzan]

4 hours ago, candide said:

 

Please share with us the privileged information you have on how she criminally (according to you) became wealthy.

Where there is smoke there’s fire. 

 

Im not so interested in how a billionaire became a politician, but, very interested in how a politician became a billionaire!

[candide]

9 minutes ago, Guitarzan said:

Where there is smoke there’s fire. 

 

Im not so interested in how a billionaire became a politician, but, very interested in how a politician became a billionaire!

So you have nothing.

[Hanaguma]

19 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

He should evaluate the underlying evidence; not just be a rubber stamp.  Otherwise how does he know if he agrees with Mueller's findings?  Some of the things Barr said in his summary were in stark contrast to what Mueller said.

If the AG did that, he would be accused of doing a 'rush job' and not taking all the facts into account. No, his job was not to investigate- that was Mueller. Barr was basically to pass on the results with a quick look. There's no way he could properly evaluate the hundreds of interviews and thousands of pages of testimony in any meaningful way. 

 

Interesting how the media, so obsessed up to last month with collusion and conspiracy, has all of a sudden stopped talking about them. It was 24 hour a day collusion and conspiracy! "Bombshells", "could this be the last straw", "the beginning of the end", are all now irrelevant and inaccurate. 

 

Now the best that can be mustered is a lame stab at obstruction. Obstruction that has no related criminal charge. Obstruction that didnt actually happen. Mueller at no time said that his investigation was in any way impeded. 

 

What will be next? Sorry, this horse has been well and truly flogged.

[attrayant]

18 minutes ago, riclag said:

There was no crime to  obstruct

 

(1) That was not Mueller's finding, and (2) it doesn't matter.  Obstruction of justice (meaning the process of determining whether or not there is a crime) is itself a crime.

 

I can't believe this is so hard to understand.  

[attrayant]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Now the best that can be mustered is a lame stab at obstruction. Obstruction that has no related criminal charge. Obstruction that didnt actually happen. Mueller at no time said that his investigation was in any way impeded. 

 

I am getting tired of listening to you pretend that you don't understand that obstruction of justice is a crime, regardless of the outcome of the criminal investigation.

 

By your reasoning, if a president obstructs an investigation sufficiently so that investigators would be unable to collect enough evidence and therefore unable to come to a conclusion of whether or not there was a crime, the president would be in the clear?  Is that really what you are saying?  

[Becker]

6 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

well evidently he did since he accurately told us what was in there. So do you dispute whats in the report?

 

4 hours ago, Becker said:

So I gather you don't dispute what's in Mueller's report. Do you dispute Mueller's characterization of Barr's "summary"? 

“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's letter to Barr

Simon & Garfunkel's lovely rendition of "The Sound of Silence".

[ResandePohm]

3 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

This Barr defamation is a coordinated attempt by the Dems to brand Barr an untrustworthy person so that any evidence his office turns up of a covert US government operation to first remove Trump the candidate and secondly remove him from office once the American people voted Republican...is a Trump orchestrated LIE...because the Dems say so...????  

 

Many previous Dem government heads are going to roll...

Barr is clearly untrustworthy as are any lackeys of Trump not because the Dems brand him so. It has been proven time and time again that anyone appointed by Trump must lie, misrepresent facts and try to argue Trump's unsustainable positions on all matters or they lose their jobs. If any American still supports this moronic and incompetent POTUS then it says a lot about the moral culture of the US.

[riclag]

19 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

(1) That was not Mueller's finding, and (2) it doesn't matter.  Obstruction of justice (meaning the process of determining whether or not there is a crime) is itself a crime.

 

I can't believe this is so hard to understand.  

Barr and rosenstein found no obstruction of justice .Further more there was no act of prevention of laws or prevention of a course to find justice

Edited May 3, 2019 by riclag

[Hanaguma]

15 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I am getting tired of listening to you pretend that you don't understand that obstruction of justice is a crime, regardless of the outcome of the criminal investigation.

 

By your reasoning, if a president obstructs an investigation sufficiently so that investigators would be unable to collect enough evidence and therefore unable to come to a conclusion of whether or not there was a crime, the president would be in the clear?  Is that really what you are saying?  

Mueller himself said that his investigation was not impeded in any way. His team was fully able to collect evidence, and were not hindered.   Hell, President Trump was could have FIRED Mueller and that would not have been a crime either.  Plus, obstruction requires the accused to have a 'corrupt intent' in his actions. If Trump sincerely believed that he was innocent of all accusations, then his actions would not have corrupt intent. 

[attrayant]

11 minutes ago, riclag said:

Barr and rosenstein found no obstruction of justice.

 

 

From Mueller's summary:
 

"...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment."

 

Consider yourself informed.  If you persist in repeating this "no obstruction of justice" line, then you're either willfully ignorant or intentionally lying.