20 minutes ago, ResandePohm said:

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.

Sorry pal, you have bought into the desperate attempt to turn the spotlight on Barr and deflect the real issue...attempted coup by Obama's appointed henchmen...

3 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

Sorry pal, you have bought into the desperate attempt to turn the spotlight on Barr and deflect the real issue...attempted coup by Obama's appointed henchmen...

There was no coup attempt.

That's just deflection propaganda. 

1 hour 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.

 

No he should not.

 

He is the attorney general. His job is not to review all evidence of all cases under his purview. If it was, he'd be working 1000 hours a week.

 

I think it's called delegation.

1 minute ago, pedro01 said:

He is the attorney general. His job is not to review all evidence of all cases under his purview.

 

 

I didn't say he should review "all evidence of all cases under his purview".  He should have reviewed this one.  The fact that Rob "Chicken" Barr's statements were at odds with Mueller's findings, and that now he's running away from congress makes that point even clearer.

 

Humor break time --

 

Start at 2:55

 

 

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Humor break time --

 

Start at 2:55

 

 

I thought you said "humor"....

 

Anyway, the real fun will begin when Barr starts "Mueller II: the Prequel". Much like the Star Wars saga, he will look into the roots of the story. In this case, how the whole bogus Russia conspiracy began (during Obama's tenure), who contributed to it, and who will pay for it. 

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Anyway, the real fun will begin when Barr starts "Mueller II: the Prequel". Much like the Star Wars saga, he will look into the roots of the story. In this case, how the whole bogus Russia conspiracy began (during Obama's tenure), who contributed to it, and who will pay for it. 

 

I hope you won't be too sad to hear what Barr said about that:
 

"We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon."

25 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

Sorry pal, you have bought into the desperate attempt to turn the spotlight on Barr and deflect the real issue...attempted coup by Obama's appointed henchmen...

Who are Obama's henchmen? Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, Sessions are all republicans. The WH, the house and the Senate were all dominated by republicans.

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I hope you won't be too sad to hear what Barr said about that:
 

"We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon."

You know, TBH you are probablly right, as is the Attorney General. Just wishful thinking on my part. God forbid the government actually get on with, I don't know, governing the country. 

1 minute ago, candide said:

Who are Obama's henchmen? Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, Sessions are all republicans. The WH, the house and the Senate were all dominated by republicans.

It’s OK... These are the same peeps who cheered investigating “Bengazhi” umpteen times expecting a different result... they have a tenuous grasp on reality.

33 minutes ago, attrayant said:

47 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.

It went on to say-"The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred".

 

1 hour 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.

LOL. Given the complaints on here because the report was not yet given to congress, if Barr had had to evaluate all the evidence it would be delayed so long that certain posters would be having a complete melt down.

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

It went on to say-"The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred".

 

You're right, it clearly states 'no criminal conduct'. You just have to omit some words before and after it.

So are there really people that believe Trump is or was an agent of Russia conspiring to harm the United States?

Would that not have to be the case were he to be obstructing justice?

6 minutes ago, candide said:

Who are Obama's henchmen? Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, Sessions are all republicans. The WH, the house and the Senate were all dominated by republicans.

LOL. Many if not most Republicans in government dislike Trump as much as the Dems. Just saying they are Republicans is meaningless, unless one knows if they support or oppose Trump.

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So are there really people that believe Trump is or was an agent of Russia conspiring to harm the United States?

Would that not have to be the case were he to be obstructing justice?

No it would not.

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You're right, it clearly states 'no criminal conduct'. You just have to omit some words before and after it.

  like

 

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

It went on to say-"The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred".

 

You're right, it clearly states 'no criminal conduct'. You just have to omit some words before and after it.

 Barr together with Rosenstein found no criminal conduct  occurred

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

  like

 

 Barr together with Rosenstein found no criminal conduct  occurred

Comey's bud Rosenstein would sure have found something if it existed.

This sort of performance by the Dems is why Trump got elected in the first place and will help him get re elected in 2020.

Total swamp, IMO.

 

 

•  #74

Posted 20 minutes ago

"So are there really people that believe Trump is or was an agent of Russia conspiring to harm the United States? 

Would that not have to be the case were he to be obstructing justice"?

 

 Barr determine the Russian accusation on Trump were false while at the same time Barr stated that the OFFICE of the POTUS has every right constitutionally of supervising the matter procedures(all his objections which have stated in public and done in private where with in his rights constitutionally)

Edited May 3, 20197 yr by riclag

Deleted

7 minutes ago, riclag said:

  like

 

 Barr together with Rosenstein found no criminal conduct  occurred

Barr never even bothered to read the evidence.

 

And not only that, prior to being appointed AG Barr wrote a piece arguing that a sitting President cannot be indicted. 

 

But that's not the best bit. 

 

If Barr argues that a sitting President cannot face Indictment by the DOJ then indictment and judgement of accusations of crimes committed by the President are the sole purview of Congress and the Senate. 

 

Barr can't have it both ways, if the President cannot be indicted by the DOJ then he as AG has no business making any kind of a decision on whether the President committed crimes. 

 

Then there's the Barr criminality bit.

 

Rossenstein is a material witness to events recorded in the Mueller report. 

 

On what legal basis can Barr give authority for a material witness to events recored in a report of a crime investigation decide if those events are crimes warranting indictment?

 

 

 

No it would not.

So if Trump was not conspiring with Russian against the United States, what was the “justice” he was obstructing? Was that not what the investigation was about?

Do you think Mueller was in the bag for Trump?

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given the complaints on here because the report was not yet given to congress, if Barr had had to evaluate all the evidence it would be delayed so long that certain posters would be having a complete melt down.

 

He had the option of handing the report over to congress, but did not.  If he didn't want to review the evidence and support Mueller's conclusion, he should not have issued his summary.  He could have immediately released Mueller's executive summaries, which were intended for public consumption and required no redactions.

 

He could have absolved himself of the need to review the evidence by immediately releasing the Mueller report to congress and letting them review it.  Nobody would have had a problem with that.

 

The problem is that he released a summary that was factually at odds with Mueller's findings, let that inaccurate summary sit in the public domain effectively misleading people for four weeks, giving Fox "News" enough time to convince the Trump Base that its lies were, in fact, truth.

 

Now the damage has been done.  Now that we have the report, we can see Barr's words were at odds with Mueller's findings but Trump's Base has only enough brain cells to remember Barr's exculpatory summary regardless of what the actual report says.

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

He had the option of handing the report over to congress, but did not.  If he didn't want to review the evidence and support Mueller's conclusion, he should not have issued his summary.  He could have immediately released Mueller's executive summaries, which were intended for public consumption and required no redactions.

 

He could have absolved himself of the need to review the evidence by immediately releasing the Mueller report to congress and letting them review it.  Nobody would have had a problem with that.

 

The problem is that he released a summary that was factually at odds with Mueller's findings, let that inaccurate summary sit in the public domain effectively misleading people for four weeks, giving Fox "News" enough time to convince the Trump Base that its lies were, in fact, truth.

 

Now the damage has been done.  Now that we have the report, we can see Barr's words were at odds with Mueller's findings but Trump's Base has only enough brain cells to remember Barr's exculpatory summary regardless of what the actual report says.

He was obligated by rules and regs to give a summary to Congress

1 minute ago, riclag said:

He was obligated by rules and regs to give a summary to Congress

 

At least a summary.  He could have given the entire report.

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

At least a summary.  He could have given the entire report.

He followed the rules and regs 1. Summary first . He explained his course of action to follow up the summary in the summary with a detail explanation or be as transparent as he can with the redactions.

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So if Trump was not conspiring with Russian against the United States, what was the “justice” he was obstructing? Was that not what the investigation was about?

Do you think Mueller was in the bag for Trump?

 

The Mueller report finds no evidence conspiracy with Russia that meets the level for criminal prosecution WITHIN an investigation that was obstructed by the people under investigation. 

 

 

A post in violation of fair use violation has been removed:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

 

15) Any links posted must lead to the website the link indicates. Links that are misleading or direct to a site different than the one indicated are not allowed.

38 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

God forbid the government actually get on with, I don't know, governing the country. 

 

 

Part of governing the country is making sure the kids don't set it on fire.  Presently, 308 resolutions have passed at least one chamber or become law.  If we had a sane, law-abiding president, congress would be more productive.