Kamala Harris Draws Blood At Senate Hearing

[iamwhatiseem]

Mule said Barr did not mis-interpet my report.

He did? When and where?

In the leaked report lol where do you get your news?

CNN etc. glossed over the line, and only reported in the carefully cherry picked line that, without this line, looks like Mueller is calling out Barr and not the media.
Mueller was saying the summary is too easily being misrepresented by the media and perhaps Barr could release more of the report.
But that don't stop the Butthurt media from spinning it to say it is Barr who is misreprenting and not them

 

[SSGT Bags]

What do you have if the past President, the Dali Lama and Kamala aer in the same room?


Obama Lama Ding Dong.

 

[Rambunctious]

Mueller was concerned over the media? Lol! What Mueller is concerned about is his findings being twisted by Trump & his stooge Barr, that's what he's concerned about. Ya think Mueller documented his concerns in writing to Barr just for the hell of it? No, he put it in writing because he knows Barr is Trumps stooge & he wanted it documented in writing. Do ya think Mueller, a man of his caliber Trusts Trump or his goons to do the right thing after what he uncovered during the past 2 years? Nobody in their right mind would.

Mueller is a big boy....if he felt his report was being bastardized by Barr he could say so anytime he wants....Mueller told Barr he had no objection to his handling of the report...Mueller just didn't like it that the people are beginning to ask why it took 2 years and cost 30 million bucks....in other words Mueller looks like a partisan hack and Barr should have done the swampy thing and covered for him....but Barr is not like Mueller and Comey and Brennan and Clapper and he doesn't work for a felon like Obama....

Mueller is a big boy....if he felt his report was being bastardized by Barr he could say so anytime he wants..

LOL..
He did, dope.

No he didn't...pay attention idiot....willful stupidity is a form of mental illness....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Are you people stupid or something?
So Barr, himself, was supposed to verify the entire investigation before issuing a summary??
Really??

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Mueller was concerned over the media? Lol! What Mueller is concerned about is his findings being twisted by Trump & his stooge Barr, that's what he's concerned about. Ya think Mueller documented his concerns in writing to Barr just for the hell of it? No, he put it in writing because he knows Barr is Trumps stooge & he wanted it documented in writing. Do ya think Mueller, a man of his caliber Trusts Trump or his goons to do the right thing after what he uncovered during the past 2 years? Nobody in their right mind would.

Mueller is a big boy....if he felt his report was being bastardized by Barr he could say so anytime he wants....Mueller told Barr he had no objection to his handling of the report...Mueller just didn't like it that the people are beginning to ask why it took 2 years and cost 30 million bucks....in other words Mueller looks like a partisan hack and Barr should have done the swampy thing and covered for him....but Barr is not like Mueller and Comey and Brennan and Clapper and he doesn't work for a felon like Obama....

Mueller is a big boy....if he felt his report was being bastardized by Barr he could say so anytime he wants..

LOL..
He did, dope.

No he didn't...pay attention idiot....willful stupidity is a form of mental illness....

He did, dope.

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

READ IT: Robert Mueller's Letter To Attorney General Bill Barr

Good advice. You should try it.

"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

??? I didn’t opine in the post I just posted it. This is why Leftists like you are a joke. Now just because of you, I will take an opposing stance. Barr is the AG and can do as he wishes.

Great.

So can Congress.

Indeed. What exactly can Congress do? The House is Democrat controlled and the Senate Republican?

You're still an idiot for accusing me of something that never happened. Typical, uneducated Leftist. So I posted a link and you replied with a barb. Care to explain why? Coward.

I didn't accuse you of anything. I said you should follow your own advice.
Congress is doing what they should. What Congress did during Watergate and the Clinton investigations. Investigating. Conducting oversight. The better question is, why shouldn't they do as their predecessors did?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

His report is not a summary, but a statement of Mullers conclusions

Except he called it a summary in his summary. So all you are doing is pointing out the doublespeak of a weasel. And then adopting it for yourself.

No he didn't.
Read his letter to congress.
Here’s the text of the Mueller report summary letter, typed out for easy reading

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller.

Mainstream media calls it a summary and are reporting it as a summary and it is not correct.

It is a statement of Mullers principal conclusions.

From your own link:
"I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation."

 

[OldLady]

Are you people stupid or something?
So Barr, himself, was supposed to verify the entire investigation before issuing a summary??
Really??

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.
Barr read what Mueller said about the evidence, since that was Mueller's job. To look at the evidence and report on it. I did not need oxygen when Barr said he hadn't read the underlying evidence himself, because Mueller already did and he put it all in the report. Harris wanted to make it sound as if Barr had done some extraordinarily godawful thing, but I wonder if he actually did anything at all out of the ordinary. A thorough investigative report is supposed to provide what you need to know. Barr trusted Mueller to do that. Apparently, Kamala doesn't.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Are you people stupid or something?
So Barr, himself, was supposed to verify the entire investigation before issuing a summary??
Really??

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.
Barr read what Mueller said about the evidence, since that was Mueller's job. To look at the evidence and report on it. I did not need oxygen when Barr said he hadn't read the underlying evidence himself, because Mueller already did and he put it all in the report. Harris wanted to make it sound as if Barr had done some extraordinarily godawful thing, but I wonder if he actually did anything at all out of the ordinary. A thorough investigative report is supposed to provide what you need to know. Barr trusted Mueller to do that. Apparently, Kamala doesn't.

It is quite important. The AG is misrepresenting the reprts findings.
Barr said there was no crime of obstruction indicated in the report. That is simply not true. Mueller never made such a determination and explained why.

 

[OKTexas]

California Sen. Kamala Harris used her time in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General William Barr to ask a few key questions about his handling of the Mueller report. Utilizing great precision, she peppered Barr with questions and was able to get him to admit something absolutely incredible: the sitting attorney general has not personally reviewed the underlying evidence laid out in the Mueller Report.


Sen. Harris gets AG Barr to admit he never even reviewed the underlying evidence in Mueller Report

Looks like Trumps Roy Cohn doesn't read anything either.

And you can bet the *****, as a district attorney, didn't review every detail of evidence presented to her to seek indictments or declinations. She relied on the professional prosecutors and investigators just as Barr did. The ***** just demonstrated the double standard the commies are using in their political games.

.

 

[hadit]

Are you people stupid or something?
So Barr, himself, was supposed to verify the entire investigation before issuing a summary??
Really??

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

Why would he take a lot of extra time to analyze all the evidence when Mueller summarized it all? I do believe the narrative was set long ago. In the circumstance that the report does not immediately remove Trump from office, complain bitterly about every step the administration takes. If they hold it for a few weeks, insist they're trying to hide it. If they release it in a decent amount of time, insist they didn't even look at it. If they redact portions, complain that they're trying to hide stuff. If they don't, insist they're being careless with national security.

It really shouldn't be this easy to predict how people are going to act.

 

[hadit]

Are you people stupid or something?
So Barr, himself, was supposed to verify the entire investigation before issuing a summary??
Really??

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.
Barr read what Mueller said about the evidence, since that was Mueller's job. To look at the evidence and report on it. I did not need oxygen when Barr said he hadn't read the underlying evidence himself, because Mueller already did and he put it all in the report. Harris wanted to make it sound as if Barr had done some extraordinarily godawful thing, but I wonder if he actually did anything at all out of the ordinary. A thorough investigative report is supposed to provide what you need to know. Barr trusted Mueller to do that. Apparently, Kamala doesn't.

Harris is just working off the talking points, complain bitterly about everything the administration does, whether it's a good thing or not. Then tomorrow, complain about those actions, even if they are what you demanded yesterday.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

READ IT: Robert Mueller's Letter To Attorney General Bill Barr

Good advice. You should try it.

"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

??? I didn’t opine in the post I just posted it. This is why Leftists like you are a joke. Now just because of you, I will take an opposing stance. Barr is the AG and can do as he wishes.

Great.

So can Congress.

Indeed. What exactly can Congress do? The House is Democrat controlled and the Senate Republican?

You're still an idiot for accusing me of something that never happened. Typical, uneducated Leftist. So I posted a link and you replied with a barb. Care to explain why? Coward.

I didn't accuse you of anything. I said you should follow your own advice.
Congress is doing what they should. What Congress did during Watergate and the Clinton investigations. Investigating. Conducting oversight. The better question is, why shouldn't they do as their predecessors did?

Because the predecessors did it for political gain and not for the good of the country. Time to evolve.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

California Sen. Kamala Harris used her time in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General William Barr to ask a few key questions about his handling of the Mueller report. Utilizing great precision, she peppered Barr with questions and was able to get him to admit something absolutely incredible: the sitting attorney general has not personally reviewed the underlying evidence laid out in the Mueller Report.


Sen. Harris gets AG Barr to admit he never even reviewed the underlying evidence in Mueller Report

Looks like Trumps Roy Cohn doesn't read anything either.

Anyone notice progs are high on dramatics, hatred and violence (e.g. draws blood) and low on substance?

 

[Rambunctious]

He did, dope.

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.

Just what is it that you see in that statement?......I read a man that is upset that people are questioning why he took two years and cost us 30 million bucks...but it doesn't say what you are suggesting at all....what are you suggesting anyway?...do you even know at this point?....Mueller told Barr he had no issue in the way Barr handled the release of the report....he was upset at the way the media was spinning it....think of that...the proud respected grown up Mueller whining like a child because Barr didn't fall for his bear trap....Mueller is as corrupt as Obama and Comey and Hillary and Clapper and the treasonous Brennan.....and you apparently....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Are you people stupid or something?
So Barr, himself, was supposed to verify the entire investigation before issuing a summary??
Really??

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.
Barr read what Mueller said about the evidence, since that was Mueller's job. To look at the evidence and report on it. I did not need oxygen when Barr said he hadn't read the underlying evidence himself, because Mueller already did and he put it all in the report. Harris wanted to make it sound as if Barr had done some extraordinarily godawful thing, but I wonder if he actually did anything at all out of the ordinary. A thorough investigative report is supposed to provide what you need to know. Barr trusted Mueller to do that. Apparently, Kamala doesn't.

Well said.
And I for one appreciate your willingness to set aside opinion in favor of fact. Too rare indeed on both sides.
In my opinion she was grandstanding. It was a question for the spectators and not the witness.

 

[Dragonlady]

Are you people stupid or something?
So Barr, himself, was supposed to verify the entire investigation before issuing a summary??
Really??

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.
Barr read what Mueller said about the evidence, since that was Mueller's job. To look at the evidence and report on it. I did not need oxygen when Barr said he hadn't read the underlying evidence himself, because Mueller already did and he put it all in the report. Harris wanted to make it sound as if Barr had done some extraordinarily godawful thing, but I wonder if he actually did anything at all out of the ordinary. A thorough investigative report is supposed to provide what you need to know. Barr trusted Mueller to do that. Apparently, Kamala doesn't.

Harris is just working off the talking points, complain bitterly about everything the administration does, whether it's a good thing or not. Then tomorrow, complain about those actions, even if they are what you demanded yesterday.

Harris wasn’t working off talking points. She was asking very pointed questions, the kind that the former Attorney General might ask a witness to elicit information about how he came to his decisions regarding obstruction.

Harris got Barr to admit that he made his decision without reading the evidence. She then asked follow up questions based on Barr’s responses. Her questions made Barr squirm in his chair as he desperately tried to come up with non-answers to her questions without perjuring himself. Define suggestion indeed.

What kind of prosecutor decides whether or not to file charges without reviewing the evidence? What kind of prosecution lawyer makes excuses for the criminal behaviour of the accused?

 

[IM2]

Kamala Harris ruined William Barr yesterday.

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck
It took just eight minutes for Harris to destroy the attorney general’s “no obstruction” story.

Imagine: you’re the Attorney General of the United States and have a big decision to make, in this case whether or not to charge the president with obstructing justice. The special counsel has written an exhaustive report citing numerous situations that sure sound like obstruction attempts—asking the White House counsel to lie to investigators, for instance—and it appears the only reason they weren’t successful is because staffers refused to do the Big Guy’s bidding, apparently unaware of how the mafia is supposed to operate. No, you’ve decided, you’re not going to charge the POTUS with a crime—a conclusion that, deep down inside, you know you made months prior. Instead, you’re going to tell the American public that “the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Should be an open-and-shut case but, on the off chance anyone asks, it would probably be a good idea to actually read the underlying evidence you claimed wasn’t robust enough to charge the president, right? Actually, in the case of one William Barr, the answer is somehow wrong-o!

Noting that the special counsel’s report contained “a great deal of evidence,” including witnesses’ notes and memos, congressional testimony, interviews, and former F.B.I. director James Comey’s memos, Senator Kamala Harris asked Barr during his congressional hearing on Wednesday, “In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?” Again, one would have expected the answer to be Of course, I did! What kind of cockamamie question is that? but, somehow, it wasn’t! “No,” Barr told the former prosecutor. “We accepted the statements in the report as factual record, we did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate.” What about departed Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, Harris wondered. How ‘bout that guy? Did he “review the underlying evidence . . . that supports the conclusions in the report?” Again, the answer was no.

“Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report,” Harris asked, as Cory Booker struggled to conceal his smile watching the senator from California nail Barr to the wall. “No,” Barr answered. “Yet you represented to the America public that the evidence was not ‘sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense?’” Harris pressed.

Backed into a corner, Barr attempted to A.G.-splain to Harris—who, incidentally, served as the Attorney General of California for six years—how all this works and why it’s completely absurd to expect him to have looked at all the evidence before deciding there wasn’t enough of it to charge Donald Trump. “This is not a mysterious process,” Barr said. “In the Department of Justice we have [prosecution] memos every day coming and we don’t go and look at the underlying evidence.” To which Harris responded, effectively, you’re ******* kidding me, right?

Kamala Harris Guts Barr Like a Fish, Leaves Him Flopping on the Deck

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Are you people stupid or something?
So Barr, himself, was supposed to verify the entire investigation before issuing a summary??
Really??

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.
Barr read what Mueller said about the evidence, since that was Mueller's job. To look at the evidence and report on it. I did not need oxygen when Barr said he hadn't read the underlying evidence himself, because Mueller already did and he put it all in the report. Harris wanted to make it sound as if Barr had done some extraordinarily godawful thing, but I wonder if he actually did anything at all out of the ordinary. A thorough investigative report is supposed to provide what you need to know. Barr trusted Mueller to do that. Apparently, Kamala doesn't.

Harris is just working off the talking points, complain bitterly about everything the administration does, whether it's a good thing or not. Then tomorrow, complain about those actions, even if they are what you demanded yesterday.

Harris wasn’t working off talking points. She was asking very pointed questions, the kind that the former Attorney General might ask a witness to elicit information about how he came to his decisions regarding obstruction.

Harris got Barr to admit that he made his decision without reading the evidence. She then asked follow up questions based on Barr’s responses. Her questions made Barr squirm in his chair as he desperately tried to come up with non-answers to her questions without perjuring himself. Define suggestion indeed.

What kind of prosecutor decides whether or not to file charges without reviewing the evidence? What kind of prosecution lawyer makes excuses for the criminal behaviour of the accused?

But that is the thing. How could he possibly review the mountains of data? Perhaps you don't know just how large this thing was?
She asked the question in her attempt to discredit Barr...that is what this whole thing is about. Trumps guilt/innocence no longer matters. WHat matters to the Dems is discrediting Barr due to his investigation into how and why this things started.

 

[hadit]

Are you people stupid or something?
So Barr, himself, was supposed to verify the entire investigation before issuing a summary??
Really??

He should at least have looked at the evidence before declaring there was no obstruction. No?

Mueller didn't say there was no obstruction.

I love our shark extraordinaire Kamala Harris, but I'm not sure the point she was making is actually an important one.
Barr read what Mueller said about the evidence, since that was Mueller's job. To look at the evidence and report on it. I did not need oxygen when Barr said he hadn't read the underlying evidence himself, because Mueller already did and he put it all in the report. Harris wanted to make it sound as if Barr had done some extraordinarily godawful thing, but I wonder if he actually did anything at all out of the ordinary. A thorough investigative report is supposed to provide what you need to know. Barr trusted Mueller to do that. Apparently, Kamala doesn't.

Harris is just working off the talking points, complain bitterly about everything the administration does, whether it's a good thing or not. Then tomorrow, complain about those actions, even if they are what you demanded yesterday.

Harris wasn’t working off talking points. She was asking very pointed questions, the kind that the former Attorney General might ask a witness to elicit information about how he came to his decisions regarding obstruction.

Harris got Barr to admit that he made his decision without reading the evidence. She then asked follow up questions based on Barr’s responses. Her questions made Barr squirm in his chair as he desperately tried to come up with non-answers to her questions without perjuring himself. Define suggestion indeed.

What kind of prosecutor decides whether or not to file charges without reviewing the evidence? What kind of prosecution lawyer makes excuses for the criminal behaviour of the accused?

The setup is obvious. Complain that he's trying to hide the report when he doesn't release it right away, then complain he didn't keep it for months and read all the supporting evidence when he releases it. He read Mueller's summary and believed him. Should he have ignored the summary?