Barr Tells Congress Rats To Pound Sand

[jc456]

so how does one obstruct something one knows nothing about? please explain? Was mueller ever told not to do anything? if not, then again, you are spewing nonsense.

I gave you the definition, retard. It said nothing about a crime being required.

I can be a suspect and under investigation.
If I act to impede or lie to those investigators, I've committed obstruction whether the investigation later clears me or not. The act of obstructing the investigation is the crime.

I just have to laugh at the stupidity you spew. One is only a suspect if there is a crime. Nonsense.

Stupid is strughling with your native language. You obviously know obstruction of justice is a real crime and I gave you a real definition so.....the disconnect is somewhere in your own head.

obstruction of justice is a crime. I already told you that. why do you act as if I didn't say that? What I said was one can't obstruct something that isn't a crime. Just saying, if you would pay the fk attention to my comments.

Obstruction isn't about obstructing a crime, dope. It's about obstructing an investigation.
Obstruction is the crime.

an investigation into an actual crime. an investigation that is just an investigation isn't active in a criminal investigation has no obstruction protection. what is it protecting against? We have rights as citizens, and one can't just come at someone unencumbered. I can obstruct you all fking day long. like the president did about meeting with him.

 

[jc456]

I just have to laugh at the stupidity you spew. One is only a suspect if there is a crime. Nonsense.

Stupid is strughling with your native language. You obviously know obstruction of justice is a real crime and I gave you a real definition so.....the disconnect is somewhere in your own head.

Oh sure, obstructing an active criminal investigation is a crime. Never said it wasn't. I said what mueller was doing wasn't a criminal investigation. As such, the probability of obstruction is null. There isn't a crime that Mueller was investigating. So, interviewing people on subjects that aren't crimes can't obstruct anything since no one has to incriminate oneself. You should learn the law.

There is no such qualifier, dope. Trump was a subject of the investigation, period.

I can't even begin to fathom why you would ever believe that you understand the law better than someone like Mueller.

Some sort of chronic, toxic dissonance I guess.

trump is a crime? how does one just get to investigate someone for nothing? It's all illegal. it's all biased and it's all a nothing burger that cost 25 million dollars and now we get to hear you all still whining about trump. why do you hate the man? just because he won? so you're admitting that you are a sore fking loser? sore loser boi.

Last time, retard.

The purpose of any investigation is to determine if there was any wrongdoing by the subject of that investigation.
Obstruction is a deliberate attempt by that subject to hinder that investigation.
Regardless of the findings of wrongdoing or not, the subject still committed obstruction, a crime.

Get it?

nope, I don't have to talk to you about nothing. I don't have to give you material or anything. you either identify a crime you suspect me of, or you can go pound sand. just saying, there is no precedence to that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

again, no crime was being investigated. so. until you can name me one, this is all nonsense.

LOL....nonsense?

It's the very definition, dope.
How horrible your life must be when you have to struggle to understand such basic things.

nonsense? then tell me what crime was being investigated?

Go away, dope. Read up on the investigation and come back prepared.

why can't you name the crime? The directive was to look for collusion. collusion isn't a crime.So instead, they made a witch hunt, look for anything.

Obstruction of justice would be the crime.

What crime were they obstructing investigation of? Muelller clearly wrote "No crimes were found invovling t

so how does one obstruct something one knows nothing about? please explain? Was mueller ever told not to do anything? if not, then again, you are spewing nonsense.

I gave you the definition, retard. It said nothing about a crime being required.

I can be a suspect and under investigation.
If I act to impede or lie to those investigators, I've committed obstruction whether the investigation later clears me or not. The act of obstructing the investigation is the crime.

I just have to laugh at the stupidity you spew. One is only a suspect if there is a crime. Nonsense.

Stupid is strughling with your native language. You obviously know obstruction of justice is a real crime and I gave you a real definition so.....the disconnect is somewhere in your own head.

obstruction of justice is a crime. I already told you that. why do you act as if I didn't say that? What I said was one can't obstruct something that isn't a crime. Just saying, if you would pay the fk attention to my comments.

Obstruction isn't about obstructing a crime, dope. It's about obstructing an investigation.
Obstruction is the crime.

You must identify a crime before obstruction can be charged moron..

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL....nonsense?

It's the very definition, dope.
How horrible your life must be when you have to struggle to understand such basic things.

nonsense? then tell me what crime was being investigated?

Go away, dope. Read up on the investigation and come back prepared.

why can't you name the crime? The directive was to look for collusion. collusion isn't a crime.So instead, they made a witch hunt, look for anything.

Obstruction of justice would be the crime.

What crime were they obstructing investigation of? Muelller clearly wrote "No crimes were found invovling t

I gave you the definition, retard. It said nothing about a crime being required.

I can be a suspect and under investigation.
If I act to impede or lie to those investigators, I've committed obstruction whether the investigation later clears me or not. The act of obstructing the investigation is the crime.

I just have to laugh at the stupidity you spew. One is only a suspect if there is a crime. Nonsense.

Stupid is strughling with your native language. You obviously know obstruction of justice is a real crime and I gave you a real definition so.....the disconnect is somewhere in your own head.

obstruction of justice is a crime. I already told you that. why do you act as if I didn't say that? What I said was one can't obstruct something that isn't a crime. Just saying, if you would pay the fk attention to my comments.

Obstruction isn't about obstructing a crime, dope. It's about obstructing an investigation.
Obstruction is the crime.

You must identify a crime before obstruction can be charged moron..

You must identify a crime before obstruction can be charged moron..

Jesus you dopes are dumb as shit.

Obstructing the investigation is the crime, retard.

That's why lying to the FBI or perjury is a crime in and of itself seperate from anything found in the investigation.

 

[Care4all]

He was honest. Mule reported no evidence of collusion.

No where did Barr say there was NO EVIDENCE of collusion...or that's the LIAR N CHIEF'S comment.... the Barr report said there WAS evidence of obstruction, but not enough to ESTABLISH a charge.

this "no evidence" mantra, on collusion or obstruction is a LIE.

''No'', being the key part

sure it was there. why do you ignore facts? So dude, are there any open indictments to act on, or sealed? if your answer is no, then there is no collusion. It's quite simple loser.

Princess,

What part of collusion is NOT a crime do you not understand? You can have collusion, without there being a crime.

Barr never used the word 'collusion' when talking about crimes or anywhere in the whole report, that I saw....


And he did NOT say there was no collusion or the legal term, no evidence of Conspiracy.... he worded it carefully and said they could not ESTABLISH (beyond a reasonable doubt) obstruction or a conspiracy (to defraud the US) in order to convict.

Barr could have easily said there was no evidence of collusion, but he did not, and chose not to do such.... why?

my guess is because there WAS evidence of collusion or a conspiracy, but NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to establish an indictment.

 

[Thinker101]

He was honest. Mule reported no evidence of collusion.

No where did Barr say there was NO EVIDENCE of collusion...or that's the LIAR N CHIEF'S comment.... the Barr report said there WAS evidence of obstruction, but not enough to ESTABLISH a charge.

this "no evidence" mantra, on collusion or obstruction is a LIE.

''No'', being the key part

sure it was there. why do you ignore facts? So dude, are there any open indictments to act on, or sealed? if your answer is no, then there is no collusion. It's quite simple loser.

Princess,

What part of collusion is NOT a crime do you not understand? You can have collusion, without there being a crime.

Barr never used the word 'collusion' when talking about crimes or anywhere in the whole report, that I saw....


And he did NOT say there was no collusion or the legal term, no evidence of Conspiracy.... he worded it carefully and said they could not ESTABLISH (beyond a reasonable doubt) obstruction or a conspiracy (to defraud the US) in order to convict.

Barr could have easily said there was no evidence of collusion, but he did not, and chose not to do such.... why?

my guess is because there WAS evidence of collusion or a conspiracy, but NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to establish an indictment.

Your guess? WTF, you clowns have been "guessing" for years.

 

[Care4all]

Former FBI Director Comey openly declared Hillary Clinton had been careless with classified while his FBI informed the public she had broken laws. Comey even testified under oath before Congress that Hillary had done so. The Republicans asked Comey to release the FBI's reports and all documents pertaining to the investigation and his decision. Comey told the Republicans to 'pound sand', that according to the law he did not have to.

The House Intel Committee (Republican-led) issued to Subpoenas to Deputy US AG Rosenstein and to Mueller's team to hand over documents regarding the fake Russian collusion investigation...and they defied those subpoenas, refusing to do so, missing the deadlines set in the subpoenas.

Now the exposed treasonous hypocrites are demanding Barr turn over Grand Jury information - even threatening to subpoena Barr - EVEN THOUGH THAT INFORMATION IS PROTECTED BY LAW - IT IS AGAINST THE LAW FOR BARR TO GIVE THEM THAT INFORMATION.




Despite Jonathon Gruber continuously bragging during the Obama administration how stupid their constituents were / are and how Democrats count on them being that stupid to get away with what they get away with, the rest of the American people are not that stupid. They SEE everything the Democrats are doing...and the democrats are only killing their own 2020 chances...

Congress has the legal right to the grand jury information....at least the Judiciary committee and the Intelligence committee, we the people do not, until a later date.

I thought you wanted it all released, a month ago? Trump and donny junior too.... what happened? What changed your minds? Got something to hide from the American people, eh?

redacted you bet. i don't want the skanks that are the demolosers to punish innocent victims any longer. their names can be left out of your nonsense lie.

like who?

 

[hunarcy]

So you want Barr to break the very Law Democrats Wrote?

Do Democrats know why the Mueller report is classified? Has it occurred to them to even ask this question? If they did a little checking, they would be embarrassed about their claims/insinuations that Barr is "hiding" or misrepresenting the report's findings.

HINT: Do Democrats understand that grand jury proceedings are sealed?

Do you understand Mueller knows Grand Jury findings are sealed, and that is why he likely enclosed an Executive Summary of his findings that could be released without any further censoring by a partisan political hack posing as Attorney General?

Mueller's report could have been released days ago; the only reason that hasn't occurred is because Barr is functioning as Trump's personal fixer and not as a public servant.

So you want Barr to break the very Law Democrats Wrote?

I want Barr to follow the same rules Ken Starr and Leon Jaworski followed with their investigations; why don't you?

Because the report Mueller produced was under different law than Starr and Jaworski.

It was a special prosecutor, not a special counsel.

So you want Barr to break the very Law Democrats Wrote?

Do Democrats know why the Mueller report is classified? Has it occurred to them to even ask this question? If they did a little checking, they would be embarrassed about their claims/insinuations that Barr is "hiding" or misrepresenting the report's findings.

HINT: Do Democrats understand that grand jury proceedings are sealed?

Do you understand Mueller knows Grand Jury findings are sealed, and that is why he likely enclosed an Executive Summary of his findings that could be released without any further censoring by a partisan political hack posing as Attorney General?

Mueller's report could have been released days ago; the only reason that hasn't occurred is because Barr is functioning as Trump's personal fixer and not as a public servant.

So you want Barr to break the very Law Democrats Wrote?

I want Barr to follow the same rules Ken Starr and Leon Jaworski followed with their investigations; why don't you?

Because the report Mueller produced was under different law than Starr and Jaworski.

It was a special prosecutor, not a special counsel.

So you want Barr to break the very Law Democrats Wrote?

Do Democrats know why the Mueller report is classified? Has it occurred to them to even ask this question? If they did a little checking, they would be embarrassed about their claims/insinuations that Barr is "hiding" or misrepresenting the report's findings.

HINT: Do Democrats understand that grand jury proceedings are sealed?

Do you understand Mueller knows Grand Jury findings are sealed, and that is why he likely enclosed an Executive Summary of his findings that could be released without any further censoring by a partisan political hack posing as Attorney General?

Mueller's report could have been released days ago; the only reason that hasn't occurred is because Barr is functioning as Trump's personal fixer and not as a public servant.

So you want Barr to break the very Law Democrats Wrote?

I want Barr to follow the same rules Ken Starr and Leon Jaworski followed with their investigations; why don't you?

Because the report Mueller produced was under different law than Starr and Jaworski.

It was a special prosecutor, not a special counsel.

Yep

 

[jc456]

He was honest. Mule reported no evidence of collusion.

No where did Barr say there was NO EVIDENCE of collusion...or that's the LIAR N CHIEF'S comment.... the Barr report said there WAS evidence of obstruction, but not enough to ESTABLISH a charge.

this "no evidence" mantra, on collusion or obstruction is a LIE.

''No'', being the key part

sure it was there. why do you ignore facts? So dude, are there any open indictments to act on, or sealed? if your answer is no, then there is no collusion. It's quite simple loser.

Princess,

What part of collusion is NOT a crime do you not understand? You can have collusion, without there being a crime.

Barr never used the word 'collusion' when talking about crimes or anywhere in the whole report, that I saw....


And he did NOT say there was no collusion or the legal term, no evidence of Conspiracy.... he worded it carefully and said they could not ESTABLISH (beyond a reasonable doubt) obstruction or a conspiracy (to defraud the US) in order to convict.

Barr could have easily said there was no evidence of collusion, but he did not, and chose not to do such.... why?

my guess is because there WAS evidence of collusion or a conspiracy, but NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to establish an indictment.

Right, he said interfere. however, there are no open indictments to act on nor none sealed. therefore, no collusion. it's quite obvious. you keep ignoring that. I'll repeat it as many times necessary. but without an indictment with a charge, you got no collusion, nor obstruction.

 

[hunarcy]

Former FBI Director Comey openly declared Hillary Clinton had been careless with classified while his FBI informed the public she had broken laws. Comey even testified under oath before Congress that Hillary had done so. The Republicans asked Comey to release the FBI's reports and all documents pertaining to the investigation and his decision. Comey told the Republicans to 'pound sand', that according to the law he did not have to.

The House Intel Committee (Republican-led) issued to Subpoenas to Deputy US AG Rosenstein and to Mueller's team to hand over documents regarding the fake Russian collusion investigation...and they defied those subpoenas, refusing to do so, missing the deadlines set in the subpoenas.

Now the exposed treasonous hypocrites are demanding Barr turn over Grand Jury information - even threatening to subpoena Barr - EVEN THOUGH THAT INFORMATION IS PROTECTED BY LAW - IT IS AGAINST THE LAW FOR BARR TO GIVE THEM THAT INFORMATION.




Despite Jonathon Gruber continuously bragging during the Obama administration how stupid their constituents were / are and how Democrats count on them being that stupid to get away with what they get away with, the rest of the American people are not that stupid. They SEE everything the Democrats are doing...and the democrats are only killing their own 2020 chances...

Congress has the legal right to the grand jury information....at least the Judiciary committee and the Intelligence committee, we the people do not, until a later date.

I thought you wanted it all released, a month ago? Trump and donny junior too.... what happened? What changed your minds? Got something to hide from the American people, eh?

Rule 6. The Grand Jury

 

[RealDave]

Gruber had a program that analyzed the effects of various options under consideration. That's it. He developed it when MA was doing their health care initiative.

As for his "stupid" comment, it was proven true when you morons elected Trump.

Yeah, keep telling yourself the lie that he was not talking about snowflakes like yourself, especially liberal idiots who bought Obama's BS about how Obamacare paying for itself / not costing a dime and how you could keep your plan / doctor if you wanted to....



Whatever helps you sleep at night, snowflake.

1) The ACA was fully funded and a dipshit moron like you did not fund it unless to go to the tanning booth a lot.
2) There is a clause in the ACA that said that any plan in effect at the bill's signing could be continued
3) There is nothing in the ACA that sets provider networks. If you lost your doctor, then you were too stupid to pick a plan that included them.

 

[RealDave]

He was honest. Mule reported no evidence of collusion.

No where did Barr say there was NO EVIDENCE of collusion...or that's the LIAR N CHIEF'S comment.... the Barr report said there WAS evidence of obstruction, but not enough to ESTABLISH a charge.

this "no evidence" mantra, on collusion or obstruction is a LIE.

''No'', being the key part

sure it was there. why do you ignore facts? So dude, are there any open indictments to act on, or sealed? if your answer is no, then there is no collusion. It's quite simple loser.

Princess,

What part of collusion is NOT a crime do you not understand? You can have collusion, without there being a crime.

Barr never used the word 'collusion' when talking about crimes or anywhere in the whole report, that I saw....


And he did NOT say there was no collusion or the legal term, no evidence of Conspiracy.... he worded it carefully and said they could not ESTABLISH (beyond a reasonable doubt) obstruction or a conspiracy (to defraud the US) in order to convict.

Barr could have easily said there was no evidence of collusion, but he did not, and chose not to do such.... why?

my guess is because there WAS evidence of collusion or a conspiracy, but NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to establish an indictment.

Right, he said interfere. however, there are no open indictments to act on nor none sealed. therefore, no collusion. it's quite obvious. you keep ignoring that. I'll repeat it as many times necessary. but without an indictment with a charge, you got no collusion, nor obstruction.

He said there was insufficient evidence of collusion.

 

[Care4all]

Flynn lied to the FBI and to Vice President elect Pence about talking with the Russian ambassador about removing the sanctions the Obama admin just put on them... I want to know why he did this and if then Pres Elect trump told him to do this?

Manafort gave inside secret Trump polling data to Kilimnik, I want to know why? And I want to know if Kilimnik passed that information on to the Russian GRU, who he was close to....

Roger Stone worked with Julian Assange on the DNC and Podesta stolen email dissemination/release/timing....and the contents and worked with Guciffer2, a Russian GRU agent on them..... Did he also work with the Trump campaign, letting them know the inside scoop? I'd like to know the answers to all of this....

Jarod Kushner tried to set up a back channel of communications with Putin/Russia and suggested using the Russian embassy to do it....

What in the heck was that all about? I'd like to know why?

Erik Prince set up and went to a secret meeting in the Seychelles with a Russian Operative, I'd like to know why and what was discussed?

I'd like to know what really happened at the Trump tower meeting with the 6 Russian govt operatives... I'd like to know why president trump made up a story full of lies about it, for Donny Junior, and told the American citizens all those lies??

I'd like to know why NONE of the Trump campaign, after being warned by our intelligence community of Russian hacking and interference, the Trump campaign never reported the Russian contacts with them, to the FBI?

I'd like to know why Candidate Trump lied over and over and over again about all of his team's Russian contacts...?

I'd like to know why Trump and Cohen lied about trying to get a Trump Moscow built and agreed to, while he was running for President?

there are so many things in addition to what I mentioned, I'd like to know answers to, that I KNOW Mueller's team investigated.

 

[Care4all]

He was honest. Mule reported no evidence of collusion.

No where did Barr say there was NO EVIDENCE of collusion...or that's the LIAR N CHIEF'S comment.... the Barr report said there WAS evidence of obstruction, but not enough to ESTABLISH a charge.

this "no evidence" mantra, on collusion or obstruction is a LIE.

''No'', being the key part

sure it was there. why do you ignore facts? So dude, are there any open indictments to act on, or sealed? if your answer is no, then there is no collusion. It's quite simple loser.

Princess,

What part of collusion is NOT a crime do you not understand? You can have collusion, without there being a crime.

Barr never used the word 'collusion' when talking about crimes or anywhere in the whole report, that I saw....


And he did NOT say there was no collusion or the legal term, no evidence of Conspiracy.... he worded it carefully and said they could not ESTABLISH (beyond a reasonable doubt) obstruction or a conspiracy (to defraud the US) in order to convict.

Barr could have easily said there was no evidence of collusion, but he did not, and chose not to do such.... why?

my guess is because there WAS evidence of collusion or a conspiracy, but NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to establish an indictment.

Right, he said interfere. however, there are no open indictments to act on nor none sealed. therefore, no collusion. it's quite obvious. you keep ignoring that. I'll repeat it as many times necessary. but without an indictment with a charge, you got no collusion, nor obstruction.

He said there was insufficient evidence of collusion.

of conspiracy, he didn't use the word collusion, because collusion is not a crime.

 

[easyt65]

1) The ACA was fully funded and a dipshit moron like you did not fund it unless to go to the tanning booth a lot.

That is a flat-out LIE!

Aetna CEO Bertolini says Obamacare's 'biggest problem' is that it's not fully funded by government
Aetna CEO Bertolini says Obamacare's 'biggest problem' is that it's not fully funded by government

Furthermore, It did NOT pay for itself as Obama promised. The promise that it would NOT COST A DIME was complete and utter bullshit.

The web site alone cost Americans hundreds of millions and turned into a personal identity thief's / scam artists paradise. Obama / Democrats hired the asshole who was fired in Canada to design their web site and failed miserably:

"The Obamacare Website Has Cost $840 Million. A slew of management failures led to the site's disastrous launch, according to a new GAO report"

Obamacare Website Has Cost $840 Million

2) There is a clause in the ACA that said that any plan in effect at the bill's signing could be continued

"If you like your plan (and doctor), you can keep it."

This was not only a LIE, this was the 'LIE OF THE YEAR' FOR 2013
-- Politifact
Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'

Four Pinocchios

The Democrats / government created a new definition - a new mandatory minimum amount of coverage for all health care coverage. This change MANDATED / RESULTED in millions of Americans losing their tailor-made plans that met their needs and forced them to buy new plans that mandated coverage for all, even if not needed:

"within five years, every health-care plan will have to meet a new federal definition for coverage — one that your current plan might not match, even if you like it.”
-- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...th-plan/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4a939a360253


OBAMA EVEN APOLOGIZED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HE LIED TO FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THEIR PLANS THEY LIKED DUE TO OBAMACARE:
- Obama apologizes for insurance cancellations due to Obamacare - CNNPolitics

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," he told NBC News in an exclusive interview.

3) There is nothing in the ACA that sets provider networks. If you lost your doctor, then you were too stupid to pick a plan that included them.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU, YOU LIE!

You TRY to claim that if Americans lost the doctors that they liked then it was THEIR fault, not the changes made by Obamacare that resulted in these Americans losing the doctors they liked...despite Obama promising they could keep the doctors they liked. IT WAS NOT TRUE - IT WAS ANOTHER LIE!


Patients outraged after losing doctors under Obamacare

"Kevin McCarthy of Thousand Oaks, California, was surprised last spring, when he learned his family doctor of 14 years could not accept the Blue Shield insurance he'd purchased under Obamacare. He said he was "outraged" because when he was shopping for his policy, Blue Shield confirmed his doctor was covered."

'If you like your DOCTOR you can KEEP your doctor was just another LIE - IMO part of Obama's 'LIE OF THE YEAR' about the ability to keep your plan you liked!




THERE IS NOT 1 THING IN THIS POST OF YOURS THAT YOU DID NOT LIE ABOUT!

 

[JimBowie1958]

the President came out and claimed there was no evidence of collusion, exonerated completely, and said it was all made up.... that's a lie...
the President came out and said their was absolutely NO evidence of obstruction of justice by him, he was exonerated completely, and that too was a lie.

OK, so what evidence of either was given for obstruction or collusion in the Mueller report?

 

[Cellblock2429]

According to MSNBC and CNN she's a ******* genius! Designing a simple tunnel shouldn't be a problem for her.

Hmmmmm....the Pacific is 36,000' deep in places....pressure enough to crush a submarine like a beer can.....Since trains cost as much as flying, I wonder how far a Toyota would get through AOC's tunnel?

/——-/ AOC announces rail service from LA to Hawaii.

 

[MAGAman]

Do Democrats know why the Mueller report is classified? Has it occurred to them to even ask this question? If they did a little checking, they would be embarrassed about their claims/insinuations that Barr is "hiding" or misrepresenting the report's findings.

HINT: Do Democrats understand that grand jury proceedings are sealed?

Of course they know.

Did you think they started this investigation based on manufactured lies by accident?

Democrats are power hungry tyrant wannabes.

Now they want to use the Witch Hunt to obtain private information that they aren't entitled to, in order to gain more power, so that they can break the law again. Etc, etc, etc...

 

[Care4all]

the President came out and claimed there was no evidence of collusion, exonerated completely, and said it was all made up.... that's a lie...
the President came out and said their was absolutely NO evidence of obstruction of justice by him, he was exonerated completely, and that too was a lie.

OK, so what evidence of either was given for obstruction or collusion in the Mueller report?

good point! But I nor he, has seen the Mueller report... why is he saying the Mueller report exonerated him and there was absolutely no evidence at all on obstruction and collusion?

if you read my post right above with all the things listed of possible collusion, it gives the collusion incidences that we, millions and millions and millions of Americans need answers to...

 

[jc456]

He was honest. Mule reported no evidence of collusion.

No where did Barr say there was NO EVIDENCE of collusion...or that's the LIAR N CHIEF'S comment.... the Barr report said there WAS evidence of obstruction, but not enough to ESTABLISH a charge.

this "no evidence" mantra, on collusion or obstruction is a LIE.

''No'', being the key part

sure it was there. why do you ignore facts? So dude, are there any open indictments to act on, or sealed? if your answer is no, then there is no collusion. It's quite simple loser.

Princess,

What part of collusion is NOT a crime do you not understand? You can have collusion, without there being a crime.

Barr never used the word 'collusion' when talking about crimes or anywhere in the whole report, that I saw....


And he did NOT say there was no collusion or the legal term, no evidence of Conspiracy.... he worded it carefully and said they could not ESTABLISH (beyond a reasonable doubt) obstruction or a conspiracy (to defraud the US) in order to convict.

Barr could have easily said there was no evidence of collusion, but he did not, and chose not to do such.... why?

my guess is because there WAS evidence of collusion or a conspiracy, but NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE to establish an indictment.

Right, he said interfere. however, there are no open indictments to act on nor none sealed. therefore, no collusion. it's quite obvious. you keep ignoring that. I'll repeat it as many times necessary. but without an indictment with a charge, you got no collusion, nor obstruction.

He said there was insufficient evidence of collusion.

double speak for no evidence. there is no other meaning.