Barr Tells Congress Rats To Pound Sand

[bripat9643]

Obstruction of what? He's following the law, isn't he?

Barr is technically acting within the law. True. He is not however prevented by law from releasing the Report. He is taking advantage of the law (like the weasel lawyer he is) to obstruct the release of that report...just as he said he would in his job application letter to Trump.

A subpoena has just been issued by Congress and refusing to honor that subpoena will put him on the WRONG side of the law

"Technically within the law" is synonymous with "within the law." A number of laws prevent him from releasing the unredacted report. You already know what they are. It's actually Congress who is on the wrong side of the law. Barr can tell Congress to pound sand, and there isn't a thing they can do about it.

Absolutely false.

I'd ask you to cite those laws but you don't know what you're yammering about so that would be pointless

They have been cited ad nauseum in the forum already. I don't take pointless homework assignments from douchebags like you

 

[kyzr]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

"Oversight" doesn't mean that the House can run roughshod over the Executive.
The USSC will probably need to decide on the interpretation of the "Law vs oversight".
Barr will not provide the unredacted report until the USSC says they have to.

Yes it does in regards to any document that is produced by the Executive Branch.
If the USSC follows the precedents established during Watergate, it will be released to Congress.
Barr will not be allowed to continue his coverup.

The Law was revised since Watergate. There is no coverup, only what the Law prescribes to be released.
If the dems don't like that, they can tee it up in court.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

Don't you, lush, and care4none EVER get tired of lying? The lying Dimbos are entitled to NOTHING. Learn the law, then maybe you won't look quite so stupid. By all means, all three of you keep lying and crying as we laugh at you. Poor Dimbos, getting nothing and being told to like it.

You are the lying little weasel. The Congress is entitled to any documents as they have the responsibility of oversight. You need to learn the law and about the Constitution. 77% of Trump supporters want the report publicly released Dumbo.

"You need to learn about the law and the Constitution. I'm not going to cite either to prove my point, however. I'm just going to chant the words and hope you believe me that that means they agree with me."

Without an actual citation of the "law and Constitution" we "need to learn" to see how right you are . . . you aren't. Call us when you can prove you're correct, rather than just telling us that you can prove it.

77% of people want a lot of stupid shit that's not actually viable in real life. Pretty sure adherence to the law is not decided by popular opinion polls in this country.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Looks like Barr will be served a subpoena today

What will they do when he ignores it? Take it to the courts? The Law says what it says, and Barr is following it.

The laws do not apply to Congress. They have the duty of oversight of the executive branch and being able to subpoena those documents are a part of that oversight. This is not a active investigation anymore so there is no excuse for not allowing Congress to see them. They have the security clearances so that is not a issue.

You might want to check out the law and what IT says about keeping grand jury proceedings confidential before you breezily assert that "there's no reason". And security clearances are not the issue (not to mention that half of those media whores shouldn't have security clearances, because they can't be trusted to keep jack shit to themselves if they think they can score a headline).

You might learn that there are numerous exceptions to this and Congress has access as part of their oversight. Watergate established the rights that Congress has to subpoena documents from the Executive branch.

I might learn it, but not from your posts full of assertion without evidence. Don't even go there with "Watergate established". No one has suggested that Congress can't subpoena things, but if you really knew anything about the laws that you love to claim would support you if we just go do YOUR homework and look up YOUR evidence to back YOUR assertion for you, you would know that Congress has to be able to show reasonable, lawful cause to subpoena when challenged. Right now, I can't think of a single reason why Congress needs to see the items that would require redaction under the law, which means the AG is not only within his rights to challenge their subpoena, he's also in the moral and ethical right to do so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

"Oversight" doesn't mean that the House can run roughshod over the Executive.
The USSC will probably need to decide on the interpretation of the "Law vs oversight".
Barr will not provide the unredacted report until the USSC says they have to.

Yes it does in regards to any document that is produced by the Executive Branch.
If the USSC follows the precedents established during Watergate, it will be released to Congress.
Barr will not be allowed to continue his coverup.

"We got one decision in our favor 50 years ago, so that means we can have anything we want forever!"

No.

There is an excellent case to be made that this situation is different in multiple respects from that situation, which means that the fate of the overreaching subpoena can and should be decided strictly as a stand-alone case, on its own merits.

 

[AntonToo]

Wow. What else to say?

Can you explain what in the world makes you think it’s words only after dozens of women say it happened to them and Trump fully confessed to doing it?

I'd have to diagnose you with two separate diseases - TDS and Maddow On The Brain (MOB) Disease.

So you can’t explain?

I have no idea why you're a worthless leftist traitor. Maybe you were born a couple cells short.

So you can’t explain why you believe it’s “just words”, you just pathetically try to switch topics.

Good job useful moron, you can now get back to your blind Dear Leader worshiping.

How can you type so well with Hillary's panties stuck in your throat?

This has been another fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trumpster.

He should do it for the sake of transparency in the law and our Judicial department, and for the sake of our country to stay a country.... and for the sake of honesty.... and truth...

cover ups by government swamp creatures, are never good for the Nation...

Honesty is the best policy... transparency is the best policy, where ever possible.... knowing the actual facts is the best policy.... informing the public of the facts, is the best policy.

At least if we are going to go at each other, we can do so with actual facts instead of conjecture on both sides.

He was honest

How would you know? Seen the report?

Barr also took it upon himself to clear Trump on Obstruction, which is of course not a credible judgement considering he auditioned for the job by assuring Trump he could not possibly commit that.

Let’s see the report, wtf are you Trumplings so concerned about if it really does clear Trump???

Barr did nothing of the sort. Did you ever even bother to read his summary?

"The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public."

"As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. ""

"After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""

It's pretty obvious that all Barr did was summarize what Mueller said, and quote him directly where appropriate.

So why don't you tell us where Barr "took it upon himself to exonerate Trump"?

Yes I did read it DID YOU????

It EXPLICITLY states that Mueller specifically DID NOT clear Trump of Obstruction and it was Barr that took it upon himself to clear him on that.

It’s RIGHT THERE IN YOUR QUOTE, READ THE ******* THING

 

[AntonToo]

Lush?

Yea you're an asshole

What ******* law are you yammering about jerk off?

Well lush, learn how to read. It's only been put up probably 100 times in the last week. Grand jury information can NOT be released by law. People named but not indicted (including TRUMP) can NOT have their names or information on them released BY LAW. Sure, Mueller and Rosenstein would just let Barr misrepresent them and say nothing. Maybe in your fantasy world. Now go jerk yourself off asshole.

Realeased...to where?

Public? No.

To Congress as classified information? YES.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd have to diagnose you with two separate diseases - TDS and Maddow On The Brain (MOB) Disease.

So you can’t explain?

I have no idea why you're a worthless leftist traitor. Maybe you were born a couple cells short.

So you can’t explain why you believe it’s “just words”, you just pathetically try to switch topics.

Good job useful moron, you can now get back to your blind Dear Leader worshiping.

How can you type so well with Hillary's panties stuck in your throat?

This has been another fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trumpster.

He should do it for the sake of transparency in the law and our Judicial department, and for the sake of our country to stay a country.... and for the sake of honesty.... and truth...

cover ups by government swamp creatures, are never good for the Nation...

Honesty is the best policy... transparency is the best policy, where ever possible.... knowing the actual facts is the best policy.... informing the public of the facts, is the best policy.

At least if we are going to go at each other, we can do so with actual facts instead of conjecture on both sides.

He was honest

How would you know? Seen the report?

Barr also took it upon himself to clear Trump on Obstruction, which is of course not a credible judgement considering he auditioned for the job by assuring Trump he could not possibly commit that.

Let’s see the report, wtf are you Trumplings so concerned about if it really does clear Trump???

Barr did nothing of the sort. Did you ever even bother to read his summary?

"The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public."

"As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. ""

"After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""

It's pretty obvious that all Barr did was summarize what Mueller said, and quote him directly where appropriate.

So why don't you tell us where Barr "took it upon himself to exonerate Trump"?

Yes I did read it DID YOU????

It EXPLICITLY states that Mueller specifically DID NOT clear Trump of Obstruction and it was Barr that took it upon himself to clear him on that.

It’s RIGHT THERE IN YOUR QUOTE, READ THE ******* THING

I never said Mueller DID exonerate him. I asked you to show me where BARR exonerated him. So clearly, the problem is that you don't understand English the instant something is said that isn't what you want to hear, kinda like my Chinese mother-in-law.

This has been another not-at-all-fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trump Derangement mental case who's frothing at the mouth while his eyes roll in opposite directions and screaming, "If you don't want Trump dead, you're a TRUMPSTER!!!! Nothing else exists!!!! Aaaaarrrrgghh!!!"

The problem isn't that I'm a "Trumpster", you 1-digit-IQ shitforbrains. I don't like the guy. The problem is that every time you open your drooling cakehole, you make Trump look rational, intelligent, and classy. So congratulations on being a bigger shitstain than the guy you're obsessed with hating.

 

[AntonToo]

So you can’t explain?

I have no idea why you're a worthless leftist traitor. Maybe you were born a couple cells short.

So you can’t explain why you believe it’s “just words”, you just pathetically try to switch topics.

Good job useful moron, you can now get back to your blind Dear Leader worshiping.

How can you type so well with Hillary's panties stuck in your throat?

This has been another fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trumpster.

He should do it for the sake of transparency in the law and our Judicial department, and for the sake of our country to stay a country.... and for the sake of honesty.... and truth...

cover ups by government swamp creatures, are never good for the Nation...

Honesty is the best policy... transparency is the best policy, where ever possible.... knowing the actual facts is the best policy.... informing the public of the facts, is the best policy.

At least if we are going to go at each other, we can do so with actual facts instead of conjecture on both sides.

He was honest

How would you know? Seen the report?

Barr also took it upon himself to clear Trump on Obstruction, which is of course not a credible judgement considering he auditioned for the job by assuring Trump he could not possibly commit that.

Let’s see the report, wtf are you Trumplings so concerned about if it really does clear Trump???

Barr did nothing of the sort. Did you ever even bother to read his summary?

"The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public."

"As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. ""

"After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""

It's pretty obvious that all Barr did was summarize what Mueller said, and quote him directly where appropriate.

So why don't you tell us where Barr "took it upon himself to exonerate Trump"?

Yes I did read it DID YOU????

It EXPLICITLY states that Mueller specifically DID NOT clear Trump of Obstruction and it was Barr that took it upon himself to clear him on that.

It’s RIGHT THERE IN YOUR QUOTE, READ THE ******* THING

I never said Mueller DID exonerate him. I asked you to show me where BARR exonerated him. So clearly, the problem is that you don't understand English the instant something is said that isn't what you want to hear, kinda like my Chinese mother-in-law.

This has been another not-at-all-fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trump Derangement mental case who's frothing at the mouth while his eyes roll in opposite directions and screaming, "If you don't want Trump dead, you're a TRUMPSTER!!!! Nothing else exists!!!! Aaaaarrrrgghh!!!"

The problem isn't that I'm a "Trumpster", you 1-digit-IQ shitforbrains. I don't like the guy. The problem is that every time you open your drooling cakehole, you make Trump look rational, intelligent, and classy. So congratulations on being a bigger shitstain than the guy you're obsessed with hating.

1. I was replying in the first half to smoke-a-lib, not you.


2. YOU ARE STILL NOT READING. Mueller didn’t clear Trump on Obstruction BUT BARR DID.

Here it is since you can’t find it:

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

 

[lantern2814]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

Don't you, lush, and care4none EVER get tired of lying? The lying Dimbos are entitled to NOTHING. Learn the law, then maybe you won't look quite so stupid. By all means, all three of you keep lying and crying as we laugh at you. Poor Dimbos, getting nothing and being told to like it.

You are the lying little weasel. The Congress is entitled to any documents as they have the responsibility of oversight. You need to learn the law and about the Constitution. 77% of Trump supporters want the report publicly released Dumbo.

Sorry dummy. YOU would be he liar. Congress has ZERO right to anything. Try learning about what happened after Starr's report went public. The AG will decide what they can or can't see. Doesn't matter what crying liars like you and your leftist pals want. It's called the consequences of passing laws limiting what can be released.

 

[Care4all]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

Don't you, lush, and care4none EVER get tired of lying? The lying Dimbos are entitled to NOTHING. Learn the law, then maybe you won't look quite so stupid. By all means, all three of you keep lying and crying as we laugh at you. Poor Dimbos, getting nothing and being told to like it.

You are the lying little weasel. The Congress is entitled to any documents as they have the responsibility of oversight. You need to learn the law and about the Constitution. 77% of Trump supporters want the report publicly released Dumbo.

Sorry dummy. YOU would be he liar. Congress has ZERO right to anything. Try learning about what happened after Starr's report went public. The AG will decide what they can or can't see. Doesn't matter what crying liars like you and your leftist pals want. It's called the consequences of passing laws limiting what can be released.

actually you need to learn... the Judiciary committee has the constitutional authority to receive the full report and the intelligence committee has the authority to receive all parts of the report involved in counter intelligence.

This does not mean the full unredacted report can go public... but these select committees can get them, for their constitutional duties of oversight or impeachment if necessary.

 

[Lesh]

Sorry dummy. YOU would be he liar. Congress has ZERO right to anything. Try learning about what happened after Starr's report went public. The AG will decide what they can or can't see. Doesn't matter what crying liars like you and your leftist pals want. It's called the consequences of passing laws limiting what can be released.

What are you ******* talking about?

NOTHING prevents releasing the Report to Congress other than for Grand Jury testimony...and THAT can be overcome by a request to release from a judge as was done in Watergate

 

[lantern2814]

I'd post a nice diplomatic explanation of why Barr is redacting the report, and that it will be released in a few weeks, and that the dems' subpoena is worthless, but after the first 10x I'm just going to let the dem posters figure it out for themselves.
The House gets the redacted report when Barr sends it to them, period. Whine all you want until then.

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

Don't you, lush, and care4none EVER get tired of lying? The lying Dimbos are entitled to NOTHING. Learn the law, then maybe you won't look quite so stupid. By all means, all three of you keep lying and crying as we laugh at you. Poor Dimbos, getting nothing and being told to like it.

You are the lying little weasel. The Congress is entitled to any documents as they have the responsibility of oversight. You need to learn the law and about the Constitution. 77% of Trump supporters want the report publicly released Dumbo.

Sorry dummy. YOU would be he liar. Congress has ZERO right to anything. Try learning about what happened after Starr's report went public. The AG will decide what they can or can't see. Doesn't matter what crying liars like you and your leftist pals want. It's called the consequences of passing laws limiting what can be released.

actually you need to learn... the Judiciary committee has the constitutional authority to receive the full report and the intelligence committee has the authority to receive all parts of the report involved in counter intelligence.

This does not mean the full unredacted report can go public... but these select committees can get them, for their constitutional duties of oversight or impeachment if necessary.

You've constantly shown that you need to learn, well, a LOT of things. Agan, you will get what BARR decides to give you and like it. Cry all you want. Subpoena all you want. Congress gets NOTHING except what they are given by the AG. Maybe the idiot Dims shouldn't have pushed for changed in the LAW after the Starr report. Reap what you sowed.

 

[WillPower]

If they "lied their butts off", why are there a half-dozen of Trump's campaign officials in jail? Why did they all lie about contacts with the Russian's?

Nobody is in jail ya blithering halfwit.....not Flynn, not Stone, not even Manafort or Cohen. Pop was sentenced to 14 days but only did ten for imaginary perjury.

 

[Lesh]

You've constantly shown that you need to learn, well, a LOT of things. Agan, you will get what BARR decides to give you and like it. Cry all you want. Subpoena all you want. Congress gets NOTHING except what they are given by the AG. Maybe the idiot Dims shouldn't have pushed for changed in the LAW after the Starr report. Reap what you sowed.

NOTHING in that law precludes the AG from releasing the report to Congress.

You have not read the law. I have

 

[Care4all]

The Congress is entitled to the full UNREDACTED report. It is part of their oversight duties.

Don't you, lush, and care4none EVER get tired of lying? The lying Dimbos are entitled to NOTHING. Learn the law, then maybe you won't look quite so stupid. By all means, all three of you keep lying and crying as we laugh at you. Poor Dimbos, getting nothing and being told to like it.

You are the lying little weasel. The Congress is entitled to any documents as they have the responsibility of oversight. You need to learn the law and about the Constitution. 77% of Trump supporters want the report publicly released Dumbo.

Sorry dummy. YOU would be he liar. Congress has ZERO right to anything. Try learning about what happened after Starr's report went public. The AG will decide what they can or can't see. Doesn't matter what crying liars like you and your leftist pals want. It's called the consequences of passing laws limiting what can be released.

actually you need to learn... the Judiciary committee has the constitutional authority to receive the full report and the intelligence committee has the authority to receive all parts of the report involved in counter intelligence.

This does not mean the full unredacted report can go public... but these select committees can get them, for their constitutional duties of oversight or impeachment if necessary.

You've constantly shown that you need to learn, well, a LOT of things. Agan, you will get what BARR decides to give you and like it. Cry all you want. Subpoena all you want. Congress gets NOTHING except what they are given by the AG. Maybe the idiot Dims shouldn't have pushed for changed in the LAW after the Starr report. Reap what you sowed.

If they are the ones that pushed this, maybe they didn't expect a corrupt AG in bed with the President, to hide the President's wrong doings, and act like his personal lawyer, instead of being the AG of WE THE PEOPLE, of the United States of America, as Barr was sworn in to be...

I can understand not wanting sexually personal stuff in grand jury testimony not being released and spread all over the news, which has damned Monica, her whole life since...

In this case, I do not want to know about any Golden shower tapes...

but anything involved in the Russia interference, what happened and how and with whom, we need to be able to see the report.

Why would you be against something like that....?

 

[WillPower]

I was amazed when my thread hit a thousand views, then two, three, and now almost FOUR THOUSAND....WOO HOO! MAGA!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have no idea why you're a worthless leftist traitor. Maybe you were born a couple cells short.

So you can’t explain why you believe it’s “just words”, you just pathetically try to switch topics.

Good job useful moron, you can now get back to your blind Dear Leader worshiping.

How can you type so well with Hillary's panties stuck in your throat?

This has been another fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trumpster.

He was honest

How would you know? Seen the report?

Barr also took it upon himself to clear Trump on Obstruction, which is of course not a credible judgement considering he auditioned for the job by assuring Trump he could not possibly commit that.

Let’s see the report, wtf are you Trumplings so concerned about if it really does clear Trump???

Barr did nothing of the sort. Did you ever even bother to read his summary?

"The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public."

"As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. ""

"After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""

It's pretty obvious that all Barr did was summarize what Mueller said, and quote him directly where appropriate.

So why don't you tell us where Barr "took it upon himself to exonerate Trump"?

Yes I did read it DID YOU????

It EXPLICITLY states that Mueller specifically DID NOT clear Trump of Obstruction and it was Barr that took it upon himself to clear him on that.

It’s RIGHT THERE IN YOUR QUOTE, READ THE ******* THING

I never said Mueller DID exonerate him. I asked you to show me where BARR exonerated him. So clearly, the problem is that you don't understand English the instant something is said that isn't what you want to hear, kinda like my Chinese mother-in-law.

This has been another not-at-all-fun episode of trying to rationally converse with a Trump Derangement mental case who's frothing at the mouth while his eyes roll in opposite directions and screaming, "If you don't want Trump dead, you're a TRUMPSTER!!!! Nothing else exists!!!! Aaaaarrrrgghh!!!"

The problem isn't that I'm a "Trumpster", you 1-digit-IQ shitforbrains. I don't like the guy. The problem is that every time you open your drooling cakehole, you make Trump look rational, intelligent, and classy. So congratulations on being a bigger shitstain than the guy you're obsessed with hating.

1. I was replying in the first half to smoke-a-lib, not you.


2. YOU ARE STILL NOT READING. Mueller didn’t clear Trump on Obstruction BUT BARR DID.

Here it is since you can’t find it:

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

That's not clearing him, moron, any more than it was when Mueller said essentially the same thing (and that IS what Mueller said, and Mueller's report IS the reason Barr said it.)

You're still not thinking. Really need to clear that "We MUST get Trump!!!" obsession you have. They have meds for that.

 

[Billo_Really]

Not a one of Trump's alleged campaign officials colluded with Russia. What are the names of the six incarcerated individuals, please.

Paul Manafort gave a Russian oligarch polling data. You don't call that collusion? Don Jr. and Jarod Kushner had a meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. You don't call that colluding? Donald Trump said at a campaign rally, "Russia, if you're listening, get those (Hillary's) emails. You don't call that collusion?

The following people have been convicted (or indicted) and are either in jail, soon to be sentenced or already did their time:

Paul Manafort
Rick Gates
Mike Flynn
Michael Cohen
George Papadopoulos
Roger Stone​

 

[beautress]

My sources say Manafort was convicted of Bank Fraud, not collusion. He worked for 4 administrations as a foreign relations specialist. I would like to see your source because My sources didn't mention any collusion by him. If he did bad things without authorization, then I am not surprised that he received an instant pink slip even if his information was turned down.

Edit I just found your link, thanks. However, this is not showing any collusion:

Paul Manafort: Prosecutors accused Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman, of laundering over $30 million in overseas income, using a network of companies to mask millions he earned as a political consultant and lobbyist for Ukrainian politicians. The charges were not connected to Manafort’s work for Trump. Manafort pleaded guilty and a jury convicted him on eight counts of tax and bank fraud. In March 2019, a federal judge sentenced Manafort to four years in prison and then a separate federal judge sentenced Manafort to 3 1/2 years related to secret foreign lobbying and witness tampering.

Your Politifact source: Here's all of the charges from Mueller's Russia probe​