In Barr’s Battle With Congress, He’s in the Right!

[The Purge]

In the battle unfolding in Congress between the Democrats and Attorney General William Barr, I’m on the side of the United States Constitution. That means defending not only Mr. Barr but also President Trump. The two men stand on America’s legal bedrock.

Which is why Mr. Barr was able to make short work of his Democratic questioners at Wednesday’s hearing in the Senate. His calm, straightforward testimony made it clear that he isn’t the caricature the Democrats have been drawing of him.

And events aren’t the conspiracy the Democrats are still trying to validate, even after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s finding that there was no collusion, actual or attempted, between Trump’s camarilla and the Kremlin. Nor any prosecutable obstruction case.

Yet no sooner did Barr, under pressure for an early summary, send a sketch of Mueller’s report to Congress than the Democrats started suggesting he had spun the story in favor of the President. That was the guts of the hearing in the Senate.

The nastiest of the Democrats — Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont — went so far as to suggest that Mr. Barr had misled Congress in his reporting of the investigation. He tweeted that Mr. Barr “knew that Mueller had serious concerns” about Mr. Barr’s summary report.

So what? Mr. Mueller didn’t accuse Mr. Barr of misrepresenting him. He complained that Mr. Barr’s letter sketching the key elements of Mr. Mueller’s report didn’t “fully capture” the report’s “context, nature and substance.” What four-page sketch can fully capture a 448-page report?

It turns out that Mr. Mueller wanted the report released piecemeal. Mr. Barr overruled him. It looks similar to, say, a hapless middle-ranking editor (Mr. Mueller) caught between an activist staff (Mr. Mueller’s Clintonite investigators) and a hard-headed boss (Mr. Barr).

(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ..

Hmmm...It turns out that Mr. Mueller wanted the report released piecemeal. Mr. Barr overruled him.

That's an interesting NEW detail.

Not really surprising, Mueller had little to smear the President with, so by slowly releasing his report - with accompanying Media howling at every release - he obviously hoped to maximize the political damage inflicted on Trump.

Big Media was probably on board the whole way, helping to coordinate what they thought would be Watergate Hearings v.2019 ...

instead, Bill Barr cut them off at the kneecaps ... no wonder THEY'RE - i.e., Democrats and their Big Media pals - so ticked off

History in the making here!!

 

[Rambunctious]

The dems want to get him in a perjury trap so they can get rid of him before he uncovers their treasonous actions....he knows it and is too smart for them...can you imagine what Brennan and Comey and Clapper and Obama and Hillary are thinking right now?....

 

[Rambunctious]

The media in America will never be trusted again...that is the truly sad part....they flipped on their own nation because they hated Trump and still love Obama....I knew the members of our media were not bright but I didn't think they were criminally corrupt too...until Trump won....

 

[Ridgerunner]

In Barr’s Battle With Congress, He’s in the Right!


absotively…

 

[B. Kidd]

In the battle unfolding in Congress between the Democrats and Attorney General William Barr, I’m on the side of the United States Constitution. That means defending not only Mr. Barr but also President Trump. The two men stand on America’s legal bedrock.

Which is why Mr. Barr was able to make short work of his Democratic questioners at Wednesday’s hearing in the Senate. His calm, straightforward testimony made it clear that he isn’t the caricature the Democrats have been drawing of him.

And events aren’t the conspiracy the Democrats are still trying to validate, even after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s finding that there was no collusion, actual or attempted, between Trump’s camarilla and the Kremlin. Nor any prosecutable obstruction case.

Yet no sooner did Barr, under pressure for an early summary, send a sketch of Mueller’s report to Congress than the Democrats started suggesting he had spun the story in favor of the President. That was the guts of the hearing in the Senate.

The nastiest of the Democrats — Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont — went so far as to suggest that Mr. Barr had misled Congress in his reporting of the investigation. He tweeted that Mr. Barr “knew that Mueller had serious concerns” about Mr. Barr’s summary report.

So what? Mr. Mueller didn’t accuse Mr. Barr of misrepresenting him. He complained that Mr. Barr’s letter sketching the key elements of Mr. Mueller’s report didn’t “fully capture” the report’s “context, nature and substance.” What four-page sketch can fully capture a 448-page report?

It turns out that Mr. Mueller wanted the report released piecemeal. Mr. Barr overruled him. It looks similar to, say, a hapless middle-ranking editor (Mr. Mueller) caught between an activist staff (Mr. Mueller’s Clintonite investigators) and a hard-headed boss (Mr. Barr).

(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ..

Hmmm...It turns out that Mr. Mueller wanted the report released piecemeal. Mr. Barr overruled him.

That's an interesting NEW detail.

Not really surprising, Mueller had little to smear the President with, so by slowly releasing his report - with accompanying Media howling at every release - he obviously hoped to maximize the political damage inflicted on Trump.

Big Media was probably on board the whole way, helping to coordinate what they thought would be Watergate Hearings v.2019 ...

instead, Bill Barr cut them off at the kneecaps ... no wonder THEY'RE - i.e., Democrats and their Big Media pals - so ticked off

History in the making here!!

And that's just the way it is!

 

[MarathonMike]

"Turn out the lights
The party's over
They say that all
Good things must end
Call it a night
The party's over
And tomorrow starts
The same old thing."

 

[DGS49]

I realize this is a Pipe Dream, but the next time he comes to Congress he should simply remind the bastards that he is there voluntarily, and his remaining there is contingent on (a) no more "Foghorn Leghorn" imitations, (b) no speeches instead of questions, and (c) he insists on having sufficient time to respond fully to every question, regardless of how long it takes. And if they don't comply with his conditions, he stands up and walks out.

They can hold him in contempt until the cows come home, and it will be meaningless.

 

[deanrd]

Either you guys know congress has oversight authority.

Or you are a bunch of liars.

Which is it?

 

[B. Kidd]

The Dems are headhunting Barr, because he will be going after Dems!
Just a reality check in case very few noticed!

 

[jknowgood]

The dems want to get him in a perjury trap so they can get rid of him before he uncovers their treasonous actions....he knows it and is too smart for them...can you imagine what Brennan and Comey and Clapper and Obama and Hillary are thinking right now?....

What are the news networks thinking, they covered it up.

 

[jknowgood]

Either you guys know congress has oversight authority.

Or you are a bunch of liars.

Which is it?

Don't worry, your Obama will be in Muslim heaven. He will have unlimited penises to have fun with. The only problem is, I don't think they are virgins.

 

[justoffal]

Either you guys know congress has oversight authority.

Or you are a bunch of liars.

Which is it?

They have no Judicial authority. No judge will sign a politically motivated arrest warrant not even a democrat judge. If they insist on sending the SAA department to the cemetery they can try to move in without a signed warrant. The results are fairly predictable though.

 

[Kilroy2]

He’s in the Right

Of course he is a conservative repub on the right

still being on the right is not the same as being able to interpret the law in a fair and impartial manner

When Mueller says that Trump is NOT exonerated

you can't interpret it as Trump is exonerated

especially when Trump just hired you a few months ago

to be fair you have to let Congress decide what they want to do as it is in their ballpark

It is a political issue now and as the head of the DOJ you can get caught in determining guilt

As the head of DOJ you have many people who can quote you the law, so no need to feel that your right in stepping into shit because you don't understand congressional power which has the right to question any thing that Trump does especially if it isn't right.

 

[Darkwind]

He’s in the Right

Of course he is a conservative repub on the right

still being on the right is not the same as being able to interpret the law in a fair and impartial manner

When Mueller says that Trump is NOT exonerated

you can't interpret it as Trump is exonerated

especially when Trump just hired you a few months ago

to be fair you have to let Congress decide what they want to do as it is in their ballpark

It is a political issue now and as the head of the DOJ you can get caught in determining guilt

As the head of DOJ you have many people who can quote you the law, so no need to feel that your right in stepping into shit because you don't understand congressional power which has the right to question any thing that Trump does especially if it isn't right.

Out of curiosity, do you think it is a prosecutors job to exonerate someone? Or are they simply to follow the evidence and if it is there, prosecute; or if not there, to drop the matter?

Simply because Congress is on the left does not mean the same as their being able to interpret the law.

 

[AquaAthena]

The media in America will never be trusted again...that is the truly sad part....they flipped on their own nation because they hated Trump and still love Obama....I knew the members of our media were not bright but I didn't think they were criminally corrupt too...until Trump won....

Turncoats!

 

[HenryBHough]

They have no Judicial authority. No judge will sign a politically motivated arrest warrant not even a democrat judge. If they insist on sending the SAA department to the cemetery they can try to move in without a signed warrant. The results are fairly predictable though.

Sadly, you underestimate the cupidity of Obamajudges.

 

[Leo123]

Legally exoneration is a word used for a person who was once convicted but now found innocent. It's a discharge of liability. Trump was never convicted so, being exonerated just doesn't apply legally however, IMO, it does apply to the MSM who set themselves up a judge and jury and 'convicted' Trump in the press.

 

[Kilroy2]

He’s in the Right

Of course he is a conservative repub on the right

still being on the right is not the same as being able to interpret the law in a fair and impartial manner

When Mueller says that Trump is NOT exonerated

you can't interpret it as Trump is exonerated

especially when Trump just hired you a few months ago

to be fair you have to let Congress decide what they want to do as it is in their ballpark

It is a political issue now and as the head of the DOJ you can get caught in determining guilt

As the head of DOJ you have many people who can quote you the law, so no need to feel that your right in stepping into shit because you don't understand congressional power which has the right to question any thing that Trump does especially if it isn't right.

Out of curiosity, do you think it is a prosecutors job to exonerate someone? Or are they simply to follow the evidence and if it is there, prosecute; or if not there, to drop the matter?

Simply because Congress is on the left does not mean the same as their being able to interpret the law.

Well obvious in your average prosecution that is what happens

A prosecutor determines if there is enough evidence to pursue a trial. It is up the the jury or judge on who wins .

But I am assuming your alluding to Mueller who in this case is a Special Counsel that was appointed. The game rules are slightly different. Thus he is able to put together a team which consists of agents to investigate, prosecutors, lawyers and whomever he wants to do the job that was assigned to him. So his teams has prosecutors. He is able to investigate any crime that he comes across while doing his work as a Special Counsel.

So he can prosecute as he has done with various others in connection with this investigation

Yet going back to my first sentence

There is an inability to prosecute a sitting president which changed the game rules and played a key role in his conclusions (Thus my understanding is he can bring Trump to trial while he is the President)

So in his conclusion he clearly states that he is not making a traditional prosecutorial judgment

and then he stated what he wanted to state

in this case he cannot exonerate trump in the obstruction of justice, thus leaving it up to the congress who is the only one that can remove a sitting president. So yea the legal meaning of exonerate is different but it appears they used it in a way that got his message across

They believe that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice yet they cannot prosecute it .
So it will be up to the congress to exonerate him

I am sure with all the smart people on his team he knows the legal meaning of the word but used it in terms of the general meaning of exonerate

 

[Leo123]

Well obvious in your average prosecution that is what happens

A prosecutor determines if there is enough evidence to pursue a trial. It is up the the jury or judge on who wins .

But I am assuming your alluding to Mueller who in this case is a Special Counsel that was appointed. The game rules are slightly different. Thus he is able to put together a team which consists of agents to investigate, prosecutors, lawyers and whomever he wants to do the job that was assigned to him. So his teams has prosecutors. He is able to investigate any crime that he comes across while doing his work as a Special Counsel.

So he can prosecute as he has done with various others in connection with this investigation

Yet going back to my first sentence

There is an inability to prosecute a sitting president which changed the game rules and played a key role in his conclusions (Thus my understanding is he can bring Trump to trial while he is the President)

So in his conclusion he clearly states that he is not making a traditional prosecutorial judgment

and then he stated what he wanted to state

in this case he cannot exonerate trump in the obstruction of justice, thus leaving it up to the congress who is the only one that can remove a sitting president. So yea the legal meaning of exonerate is different but it appears they used it in a way that got his message across

They believe that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice yet they cannot prosecute it .
So it will be up to the congress to exonerate him

I am sure with all the smart people on his team he knows the legal meaning of the word but used it in terms of the general meaning of exonerate

Trump doesn't HAVE to be exonerated because he has not been indicted, charged, or prosecuted for any crime. You are buying into 'guilty until proven innocent' political demagoguery foisted upon the American public by Democrats and the MSM.

 

[Kilroy2]

Well obvious in your average prosecution that is what happens

A prosecutor determines if there is enough evidence to pursue a trial. It is up the the jury or judge on who wins .

But I am assuming your alluding to Mueller who in this case is a Special Counsel that was appointed. The game rules are slightly different. Thus he is able to put together a team which consists of agents to investigate, prosecutors, lawyers and whomever he wants to do the job that was assigned to him. So his teams has prosecutors. He is able to investigate any crime that he comes across while doing his work as a Special Counsel.

So he can prosecute as he has done with various others in connection with this investigation

Yet going back to my first sentence

There is an inability to prosecute a sitting president which changed the game rules and played a key role in his conclusions (Thus my understanding is he can bring Trump to trial while he is the President)

So in his conclusion he clearly states that he is not making a traditional prosecutorial judgment

and then he stated what he wanted to state

in this case he cannot exonerate trump in the obstruction of justice, thus leaving it up to the congress who is the only one that can remove a sitting president. So yea the legal meaning of exonerate is different but it appears they used it in a way that got his message across

They believe that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice yet they cannot prosecute it .
So it will be up to the congress to exonerate him

I am sure with all the smart people on his team he knows the legal meaning of the word but used it in terms of the general meaning of exonerate

Trump doesn't HAVE to be exonerated because he has not been indicted, charged, or prosecuted for any crime. You are buying into 'guilty until proven innocent' political demagoguery foisted upon the American public by Democrats and the MSM.

This is in the Mueller report - Mr. Trump had another demand: He wanted Mr. Sessions to reverse his recusal and order the prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

There is a reason why Trump is pushing for executive privileged with McGowen

Session, Don Jr, and Ivanka's husband have testified before congress but because McGowen is on record in the mueller report , Trump like to claim executive privileged when he knows that someone is NOT going to say nice things about him.

guilty until proven innocent but the main guy doesn't play that way. Calling her crooked Hillary but she hasn't been convicted of any crime.

yet repubs for the last two years have believed that Hillary is guilty in the emails , bengazi, and the clinton foundation.

Seem the repubs don't believe in innocent until proven guilty