Kamala Harris Draws Blood At Senate Hearing

[BS Filter]

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.

The Democrats were jumping up and down about seeing the Report before anyone else could. To chill their fury a little, the good man that Attorney General William Barr is simply put aside the 1.2 million pieces of paperwork created by Mueller's team in order to appease DNC screaming demands with HIS OWN findings. Every stinking Democrat on this planet is so crazy-mad-wild right now they're grabbing at every little straw and parading it as a big win. Which one of you speedreaders can read upward of two million pieces of paper (there was more), make a decision which is the more important, reread it for presentation that will merely gall the Democrats more and lead to more squealing and crazy-mad-wild false narratives that go nowhere and achieve nothing.

President Trump made a very wise move to take his staff out of the evil eye of Nancy Pelosi from San Fecesicko who needs to be shoveling some serious shit at home rather than heaping it on President Trump and his advisers as part of the DNC Plan to grab power like the Grinch Who Stole Christmas TM from the American people.

65 million American people voted for Clinton and 62 million voted for Trump. So it's time you republicans shut up about how people are trying to end the presidency of a man who really should not be president.

So you don't respect the Constitution. Nothing new there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you don't respect the Constitution.

Says the guy cheering for Barr to defy a congressional subpoena, the constitutional power of which has been reaffirmed constently throughout history...ya fraud

 

[BS Filter]

So you don't respect the Constitution.

Says the guy cheering for Barr to defy a congressional subpoena, the constitutional power of which has been reaffirmed constently throughout history...ya fraud

I don't respect the Democrats in the House of Representatives. They are using our government institutions for political purposes. You're corrupt and so is your party. Nothing but a bunch of gangsters.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't respect the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

So what? So,essentially, the constituion is only important to you until it rubs up againat your immature little fetishes. Noted.

 

[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.

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.

Mueller didn't conclude there was no obstruction committed by the president.

Barr did. He did so without reviewing a single piece of evidence. How did Barr then reach his decision?

Okay, now you're flailing. He didn't say he didn't review ANY of the evidence, he said he didn't review ALL of the evidence. Big difference. You're exaggerating without knowledge.

Now, which way did you want it?

1. He holds it back for months, going over all the evidence in detail with a team of lawyers, in the end doing nothing about it because he can't indict a sitting president, all the while the haters are screeching that he's trying to hide the report because it's damaging to the president and he's trying to figure out how to get around that. Keep in mind, that's exactly what they were screeching right up until he released it.

2. He goes over the report for a few weeks with Mueller's team to redact sensitive and personal information and takes Mueller's conclusions at face value, passing it on to Congress.

Face reality, the only reason you're even complaining that he didn't take months to go over all the evidence is the narrative that's trying to discredit any counter investigations he may launch into the way this whole thing came about.

Okay, now you're flailing. He didn't say he didn't review ANY of the evidence, he said he didn't review ALL of the evidence. Big difference. You're exaggerating without knowledge.

Yeah....he didn't say that at all.
Please review and reevaluate.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Sorry...... no.

So Watergate was just partisan theater?

What a stupid premise.

I was not alive then but it was done for political gain from everything I have read. You’re pretty stupid. Your posts give that away.

LOL...
Nixon directed a break in of the DNC headquarters, dope.

 

[BS Filter]

I don't respect the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

So what? So,essentially, the constituion is only important to you until it rubs up againat your immature little fetishes. Noted.

Read my post again. The democrats in the House are using our government institutions for political purposes against their political opponents. It's the democrats that don't respect the Constitution. Idiot.

 

[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.

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.

Mueller didn't conclude there was no obstruction committed by the president.

Barr did. He did so without reviewing a single piece of evidence. How did Barr then reach his decision?

Mueller's report contained no evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr simply added 2 + 2 and drew the correct conclusion.

Mueller's report contained no evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr simply added 2 + 2 and drew the correct conclusion

Not true in any way.

Read the report, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Snooze! You mean Barr hasn't bothered to read the thousands of pages of evidence that formed the basis of the Mueller report? He's read the report, but that's not good enough? Humm, how many of those Senators whining about this non-issue read all the evidence that Comey examined (and dismissed)? How many of them read the thousands of pages of evidence behind the Benghazi Select Committee's report? What a bunch of hogwash. But, oh, it's "shocking" that Barr has not read the thousands of pages of evidence that Mueller's team developed--never mind that Mueller said no collusion and no conclusion on obstruction, right?

It's a bogus issue, or course. Barr accepted all the evidence Mueller presented as valid. What more do they want? Are they claiming some of it is invalid?

Mueller didn't conclude there was no obstruction. Barr did. How did he do that without even a glimpse at the evidence?

Mueller laid out all the evidence in his report. There was none. Are you saying Mueller lied?

Mueller laid out all the evidence in his report. There was none. Are you saying Mueller lied?

So.....Mueller laid out all of the evidence of which there was none?

Good job, dope.

Read the report.

 

[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.

Like Comey before him, Barr decided that the evidence did not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction. Didn't he?
Being the AG, isn't that his job?

No. Mueller did not say that at all.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

Like Comey before him, Barr decided that the evidence did not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction. Didn't he?
Being the AG, isn't that his job?

No. Mueller did not say that at all.

Mueller never said Trump obstructed justice.

 

[EGR one]

Which means the investigator would need to know the person's mind at the time.

Not necessarily. A pattern of behavior can be established that demonstrates corrupt intent. The court does not need a recoding of the suspect saying, "i want to obstruct the investigation" to determine this corrupt intent. Though, we have that with trump. On national television.

Mueller and his anti-Trump lawyers must have missed all that obvious evidence that you are convinced makes Trump guilty. The rats in the House of Representatives want to spend two years rehashing any and all evidence that fits their narrative. What a bunch of jerks!

 

[EGR one]

BTW, there was no crime.

Sure there was. Obstruction of justice.

Only in your partisan little mind.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What a dope.

Of course they're different. WTF do you think Mueller reached out to Barr four seperate times to correct the record?

Read the report!

Why don't you provide the specifics from the report where Mueller recommended prosecuting Trump for obstruction?

I'll wait.

.

 

[EGR one]

I don't respect the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

So what? So,essentially, the constituion is only important to you until it rubs up againat your immature little fetishes. Noted.

The U.S. Constitution is golden. Your interpretation of it is not.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

Sorry...... no.

So Watergate was just partisan theater?

What a stupid premise.

I was not alive then but it was done for political gain from everything I have read. You’re pretty stupid. Your posts give that away.

LOL...
Nixon directed a break in of the DNC headquarters, dope.

For political reasons you fat old loser.

 

[Olde Europe]

I thought I remembered something about obstruction of justice needing to involve purposely obstructing an investigation. Which means the investigator would need to know the person's mind at the time. I thought the final determination was that they didn't know if Trump was doing this to obstruct justice or just running his mouth per usual.

Yes, and so Mueller went to great detail outlining a dozen cases of possibly obstructive behavior, including the three elements of the crime present (or not), which includes evidence of the crook's state of mind, including a terse explanation that a pattern of obstructive behavior in itself also adds to the overall evidence for corrupt intent. Did you miss these pages?

 

[BS Filter]

I thought I remembered something about obstruction of justice needing to involve purposely obstructing an investigation. Which means the investigator would need to know the person's mind at the time. I thought the final determination was that they didn't know if Trump was doing this to obstruct justice or just running his mouth per usual.

Yes, and so Mueller went to great detail outlining a dozen cases of possibly obstructive behavior, including the three elements of the crime present (or not), which includes evidence of the crook's state of mind, including a terse explanation that a pattern of obstructive behavior in itself also adds to the overall evidence for corrupt intent. Did you miss these pages?

Mueller sent people to jail. He didn't even specify that Trump committed a crime.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Mueller didn't conclude there was no obstruction committed by the president.

Barr did. He did so without reviewing a single piece of evidence. How did Barr then reach his decision?

Mueller's report contained no evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr simply added 2 + 2 and drew the correct conclusion.

Mueller's report contained no evidence that Trump obstructed justice. Barr simply added 2 + 2 and drew the correct conclusion

Not true in any way.

Read the report, dope.

Fantasies are not evidence. The author or the report, Weisenstein, doesn't know what obstruction of justice is. The President can fire anyone he wants to. That's his constitutional authority. He can't be guilty of obstruction by exercising his powers under the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

I thought I remembered something about obstruction of justice needing to involve purposely obstructing an investigation. Which means the investigator would need to know the person's mind at the time. I thought the final determination was that they didn't know if Trump was doing this to obstruct justice or just running his mouth per usual.

Yes, and so Mueller went to great detail outlining a dozen cases of possibly obstructive behavior, including the three elements of the crime present (or not), which includes evidence of the crook's state of mind, including a terse explanation that a pattern of obstructive behavior in itself also adds to the overall evidence for corrupt intent. Did you miss these pages?

There was no "obstructive behavior," you lying douchebag. None.