You do not have to be a smart a$$. You have no clue what I watch. You also have no clue if Barr's mind was already made up. OR if you do, let's see the proof.
You did read the post, didn't you?
Barr had already decided Trump hadn't obstructed anything. It was in his letter mentioned above.
"Barr said he was concerned about the parts of the investigation examining whether Trump obstructed justice in requesting then-FBI Director James Comey to drop an investigation into former National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn, and by later firing Comey, because he believed the president had acted within his authority."
Yeah, I read that....before today. Still does not prove that Barr already had his mind made up about Trump and collusion. You can argue till the cows come home.
Collusion and obstruction are two different things. Barr claimed there was neither. That is not what Mueller said. We need to see what the real report says, not just some 4 page note from Trump's chosen spokesman. His obvious lie about no obstruction makes that clear.
Bull, you spin to much, and are grasping at straws.
1. Was Flynn prosecuted? Was he indicted? Is he up for sentencing? So then, how did Trump intervene?
2. How many AGs and FBI directors worked for the Obama Administration? Who picked them? The President has EVERY right under the constitution, to pick his cabinet members. He can fire them because they are cross eyed if he sees it as necessary.
3. When Comey and Trump had their meeting, Comey admitted under oath that he did NOT tell the President that he was under investigation. In fact, he told Trump that he was NOT! In essence, he lied to the Commander And Chief.
And so, from a logical point of view, how do you obstruct an investigation by firing the FBI director, over a crime that never happened, an investigation that you personally do NOT know that is ongoing, all the while having the right under the constitution to choose anyone you want for the job?!?!?!?!
I find it fascinating that your side would even pursue this, as its ramifications imply that the power given to the President is faulty under our constitution. You realize that your side is working totally on innuendo here? To prove any sort of obstruction of a crime never committed, you would have to have a tape recording with Trump on it, saying he was firing Comey SOLEY because of the investigation into his administration; not 10% because, not 30% because, but 100% because.
Short of that, your side would somehow have to prove state of mind. So now are you people Karnak the magnificent?
And what do we have as evidence you are wrong? Each and every person brought in to testify including Comey, proclaimed that---- NOBODY had tried to in any way, impede the investigation. THAT WAS ALL OF THEIR TESTIMONY! If you don't believe me, look it up. Their testimony is all over the internet.
And so, if YOUR side wants to pursue another loser idea, even as the hoaxers will soon be indicted since the special counsel has been disolved; the only question I have is----------->are the rank and file like you people, going to be dumb enough to back it up, putting your own credibility at risk again, without even researching this time for yourselves? They have been leading you people around by the nose for over 20 months, and look where it got you. You gonna keep letting them lead you from disaster, to disaster, without ever checking it out for yourself?!?!?!
Thanks Bob!
I love me!
