Kamala Harris Draws Blood At Senate Hearing

[toomuchtime_]

For political reasons you fat old loser.

No........For a crime, dope.
Nixon didn't resign and was later pardoned due to "political reasons".

I am Saying he committed the crime for political reasons.

Great.... but you said congress acted for political reasons in the earlier post.

They did in the case of Trump and Barr. Few questions mostly statements.

Derp...

Except the discussion was about congress acting in the same way as their predecessors.

Neither of the Independent Counsels in Watergate or Clinton charged the president either. The report went to congress and hearings began.

This is how it is done.

That is not at all how it is done. The report goes to the Justice Department and then the Justice Department decides if and how much of the report goes to Congress.

 

[lantern2814]

See.....This is why I called you a dope. You argue over what Mueller said when you obviously haven't read the report.

You make the claim that Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction. I asked you to show me. You have the burden. Show it or shut the **** up.

Mueller explained that per OLC policy Trump could not be indicted and therefore could not be accused of a crime either. He also explained that he would have exonerated him if he could have. He could not.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

So.....The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mueller felt he did in fact commit crimes and that it was up to congress to do with that information as they will since the DOJ cannot.

So, Barr cannot do anything with the information, right?

Barr said there was no evidence of obstruction. That was not Mueller's finding.

When? I didn't see or hear that. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall Barr making that statement.

.

I made no such claim, liar.

This is what Barr said regarding obstruction nearly a month before the report was released:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

"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 was not Mueller's finding and Barr testified this week that he had not reviewed any underlying evidence before making his determination.

Mueller reached no finding on obstruction of justice, and after reveing the evidence Mueller laid out in his report, Barr quite appropriately concluded there was no actionable evidence of obstruction of justice.

Except Mueller's decision was not based on a lack of evidence. He, under DOJ policy, could not make a determination and Barr, as the AG could not have taken prosecutorial action either. He opted instead to cover the president.

Therefore the correct course was to pass it along to the only body who could take action. The congress.

Just because the AG felt there was no evidence for prosecution, does not mean there isnt ample evidence for impeachment.

The congress should have the full, unredacted report with all of the underlying evidence.

Sorry dope. Congress is entitled to NOTHING. Turning the entire case over to Mueller put this in the AG's hands. Per Mueller whether or not Trump was President played NO PART in his decision to not indict. The LACK OF EVIDENCE did. The AG can't decide on prosecution? Do you even know how stupid you sound? Give it up derpster. You LOST. Period. End of book. Enjoy 6 more years of Trump.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You make the claim that Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction. I asked you to show me. You have the burden. Show it or shut the **** up.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

So, Barr cannot do anything with the information, right?

When? I didn't see or hear that. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall Barr making that statement.

.

I made no such claim, liar.

This is what Barr said regarding obstruction nearly a month before the report was released:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

"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 was not Mueller's finding and Barr testified this week that he had not reviewed any underlying evidence before making his determination.

Mueller reached no finding on obstruction of justice, and after reveing the evidence Mueller laid out in his report, Barr quite appropriately concluded there was no actionable evidence of obstruction of justice.

Except Mueller's decision was not based on a lack of evidence. He, under DOJ policy, could not make a determination and Barr, as the AG could not have taken prosecutorial action either. He opted instead to cover the president.

Therefore the correct course was to pass it along to the only body who could take action. The congress.

Just because the AG felt there was no evidence for prosecution, does not mean there isnt ample evidence for impeachment.

The congress should have the full, unredacted report with all of the underlying evidence.

Bullshit. Nothing stopped Mueller from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice if he believed the evidence was sufficient. It is not clear he could have indicted the President while he was still in office, but nothing stopped him from charging him. The fact that Mueller didn't conclude the President was guilty of obstruction of justice is clear evidence he didn't think there as actionable evidence pointing to guilt.

It was highly improper of Mueller to suggest the issue be taken up by Congress and if you had noticed, Mueller did not disagree with Barr's conclusion that there was not actionable evidence of obstruction of justice. As for impeachment, the Democrats will impeach Trump regardless of the evidence if they think it will help them in the election and they will not impeach him regardless of the evidence if they think it will hurt them in the election. Again, while Mueller complained that Barr's method of releasing the report gave it less impact on public opinion than Mueller would have liked, Mueller did not contradict Barr on any of his findings.

BS.

A deep thinker, are you?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, how many millions of dollars spent to tell us this is a political issue, not a criminal one?

Like I said 2 years ago?

Like I said when the R's tried to remove Clinton for lying about a blow job?

.

 

[justoffal]

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?

Possibly obstructive? It could possibly rain today. Does that mean it will?

Poor Mueller....he soooo wanted everyone to think he had a foot long schlong. Ah well...
Life can be unfair at times.

Jo

 

[bripat9643]

He didn't charge Trump because a sitting President cannot be indicted under DOJ policy, dope.

So, impeach or STFU.

Why is everybody bitching about it?

Democrats are just gutless little butt hurt shits. They know impeachment is political suicide, but at this point, they have nothing to lose.

Impeach, bitches.

.

LOL...
Untwist your panties, shirley
In due time.
After Americans have heard the truth.

They already have heard the truth, shit for brains. No collusion. No obstruction.

 

[bripat9643]

Barr decided that the evidence did not rise to the level of prosecutable obstruction. Didn't he?

It would have been good had he actually taken a look at the evidence, no? He even claimed, "We 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 almost comical, considering he hadn't seen any of the evidence Mueller developed.

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.

The examples shown in volume 2 of the Mueller report shows Trump was attempting to purposely obstruct an investigation.

Wrong. None of those examples constitute obstruction.

 

[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.

The DOJ cannot indict a sitting president.

Mueller would have noted obstruction of Justice if he found it. Your game isn't working. You claim something happened, yet you can't explain what happened. Wanna know why? Because you're liars.

 

[the other mike]

This disrespectful ***** treated him as if he were one of her previous
criminals who she prosecuted and should apologize to him along with her mentor Lady Pelosi.
Then she should take some time off....maybe go home and practice plucking her eyebrows .

 

[Hutch Starskey]

See.....This is why I called you a dope. You argue over what Mueller said when you obviously haven't read the report.

You make the claim that Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction. I asked you to show me. You have the burden. Show it or shut the **** up.

Mueller explained that per OLC policy Trump could not be indicted and therefore could not be accused of a crime either. He also explained that he would have exonerated him if he could have. He could not.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

So.....The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mueller felt he did in fact commit crimes and that it was up to congress to do with that information as they will since the DOJ cannot.

So, Barr cannot do anything with the information, right?

Barr said there was no evidence of obstruction. That was not Mueller's finding.

When? I didn't see or hear that. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall Barr making that statement.

.

I made no such claim, liar.

This is what Barr said regarding obstruction nearly a month before the report was released:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

"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 was not Mueller's finding and Barr testified this week that he had not reviewed any underlying evidence before making his determination.

Mueller reached no finding on obstruction of justice, and after reveing the evidence Mueller laid out in his report, Barr quite appropriately concluded there was no actionable evidence of obstruction of justice.

Except Mueller's decision was not based on a lack of evidence. He, under DOJ policy, could not make a determination and Barr, as the AG could not have taken prosecutorial action either. He opted instead to cover the president.

Therefore the correct course was to pass it along to the only body who could take action. The congress.

Just because the AG felt there was no evidence for prosecution, does not mean there isnt ample evidence for impeachment.

The congress should have the full, unredacted report with all of the underlying evidence.

Bullshit. Nothing stopped Mueller from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice if he believed the evidence was sufficient. It is not clear he could have indicted the President while he was still in office, but nothing stopped him from charging him. The fact that Mueller didn't conclude the President was guilty of obstruction of justice is clear evidence he didn't think there as actionable evidence pointing to guilt.

It was highly improper of Mueller to suggest the issue be taken up by Congress and if you had noticed, Mueller did not disagree with Barr's conclusion that there was not actionable evidence of obstruction of justice. As for impeachment, the Democrats will impeach Trump regardless of the evidence if they think it will help them in the election and they will not impeach him regardless of the evidence if they think it will hurt them in the election. Again, while Mueller complained that Barr's method of releasing the report gave it less impact on public opinion than Mueller would have liked, Mueller did not contradict Barr on any of his findings.

It is not clear he could have indicted the President while he was still in office, but nothing stopped him from charging him.

Yeah....you're not worth my time. Too freaking dumb.
Indicting and charging are the same thing, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No........For a crime, dope.
Nixon didn't resign and was later pardoned due to "political reasons".

I am Saying he committed the crime for political reasons.

Great.... but you said congress acted for political reasons in the earlier post.

They did in the case of Trump and Barr. Few questions mostly statements.

Derp...

Except the discussion was about congress acting in the same way as their predecessors.

Neither of the Independent Counsels in Watergate or Clinton charged the president either. The report went to congress and hearings began.

This is how it is done.

That is not at all how it is done. The report goes to the Justice Department and then the Justice Department decides if and how much of the report goes to Congress.

Nonsense. There is nothing preventing Barr from giving the judiciary committee the full report.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

See.....This is why I called you a dope. You argue over what Mueller said when you obviously haven't read the report.

You make the claim that Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction. I asked you to show me. You have the burden. Show it or shut the **** up.

Mueller explained that per OLC policy Trump could not be indicted and therefore could not be accused of a crime either. He also explained that he would have exonerated him if he could have. He could not.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

So.....The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mueller felt he did in fact commit crimes and that it was up to congress to do with that information as they will since the DOJ cannot.

So, Barr cannot do anything with the information, right?

Barr said there was no evidence of obstruction. That was not Mueller's finding.

When? I didn't see or hear that. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall Barr making that statement.

.

I made no such claim, liar.

This is what Barr said regarding obstruction nearly a month before the report was released:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

"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 was not Mueller's finding and Barr testified this week that he had not reviewed any underlying evidence before making his determination.

Mueller reached no finding on obstruction of justice, and after reveing the evidence Mueller laid out in his report, Barr quite appropriately concluded there was no actionable evidence of obstruction of justice.

Except Mueller's decision was not based on a lack of evidence. He, under DOJ policy, could not make a determination and Barr, as the AG could not have taken prosecutorial action either. He opted instead to cover the president.

Therefore the correct course was to pass it along to the only body who could take action. The congress.

Just because the AG felt there was no evidence for prosecution, does not mean there isnt ample evidence for impeachment.

The congress should have the full, unredacted report with all of the underlying evidence.

Sorry dope. Congress is entitled to NOTHING. Turning the entire case over to Mueller put this in the AG's hands. Per Mueller whether or not Trump was President played NO PART in his decision to not indict. The LACK OF EVIDENCE did. The AG can't decide on prosecution? Do you even know how stupid you sound? Give it up derpster. You LOST. Period. End of book. Enjoy 6 more years of Trump.

LOL....
The AG can't indict a sitting president either, dope.

What would Barr have done if Mueller had recommended charges? Nothing.
Probably would have critcized and excoriated Mueller for suggesting so.

Barr is doing what he was recruited to do.
Bury it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He didn't charge Trump because a sitting President cannot be indicted under DOJ policy, dope.

So, impeach or STFU.

Why is everybody bitching about it?

Democrats are just gutless little butt hurt shits. They know impeachment is political suicide, but at this point, they have nothing to lose.

Impeach, bitches.

.

LOL...
Untwist your panties, shirley
In due time.
After Americans have heard the truth.

They already have heard the truth, shit for brains. No collusion. No obstruction.

Sure.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

You loons wet dream was just that.

Poor loons

 

[IM2]

See.....This is why I called you a dope. You argue over what Mueller said when you obviously haven't read the report.

You make the claim that Mueller recommended prosecution for obstruction. I asked you to show me. You have the burden. Show it or shut the **** up.

Mueller explained that per OLC policy Trump could not be indicted and therefore could not be accused of a crime either. He also explained that he would have exonerated him if he could have. He could not.

Isn't that exactly what Barr said?

So.....The only conclusion to be drawn is that Mueller felt he did in fact commit crimes and that it was up to congress to do with that information as they will since the DOJ cannot.

So, Barr cannot do anything with the information, right?

Barr said there was no evidence of obstruction. That was not Mueller's finding.

When? I didn't see or hear that. Not saying you're wrong, but I don't recall Barr making that statement.

.

I made no such claim, liar.

This is what Barr said regarding obstruction nearly a month before the report was released:

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report

"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 was not Mueller's finding and Barr testified this week that he had not reviewed any underlying evidence before making his determination.

Mueller reached no finding on obstruction of justice, and after reveing the evidence Mueller laid out in his report, Barr quite appropriately concluded there was no actionable evidence of obstruction of justice.

Except Mueller's decision was not based on a lack of evidence. He, under DOJ policy, could not make a determination and Barr, as the AG could not have taken prosecutorial action either. He opted instead to cover the president.

Therefore the correct course was to pass it along to the only body who could take action. The congress.

Just because the AG felt there was no evidence for prosecution, does not mean there isnt ample evidence for impeachment.

The congress should have the full, unredacted report with all of the underlying evidence.

Sorry dope. Congress is entitled to NOTHING. Turning the entire case over to Mueller put this in the AG's hands. Per Mueller whether or not Trump was President played NO PART in his decision to not indict. The LACK OF EVIDENCE did. The AG can't decide on prosecution? Do you even know how stupid you sound? Give it up derpster. You LOST. Period. End of book. Enjoy 6 more years of Trump.

Wrong. Read the constitution.

 

[IM2]

This disrespectful ***** treated him as if he were one of her previous
criminals who she prosecuted and should apologize to him along with her mentor Lady Pelosi.
Then she should take some time off....maybe go home and practice plucking her eyebrows .

She treated him like what she was. His boss.

 

[IM2]

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.

You loons wet dream was just that.

Poor loons

As usual. You conservatives are completely wrong.

 

[IM2]

The senate confirms the AG. And the congress can impeach the AG. So like I said, Harris is Barrs boss.

 

[basquebromance]

no obstruction, no collusion, NO SHIT! why would a billionaire New Yorker get into politics just to do it for the Russians?

 

[IM2]

no obstruction, no collusion, NO SHIT! why would a billionaire New Yorker get into politics just to do it for the Russians?

Why do you guys keep lying?