democrats are getting frantic and truly desperate and I really fear for the physical safety of Attorney General Bill Barr. Just now Maria Bartiromo said that her sources tell her that Nadler will introduce a contempt of Congress resolution on Wednesday.
Eric Holder has taught us that such charges may be dismissed summarily and they have no meaning. Obama appointee Judge Amy Berman Jackson declined to hold Holder in contempt. Ater all, Holder was Obama’s wing man.
You will remember that no democrat had objections to Holder as Attorney General was acting as Obama’s personal attorney but now are offended by such accusations against Barr.
democrats are settting one trap after another for Barr. First they used Barr’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary committee to assail him, insult him and impugn his integrity. It was shameful. Then Jerry Nadler demanded that Barr appear before the House Judiciary Committee and Barr agreed. Then after Barr agreed to appear, Nadler changed the rules to allow staff members to put Barr on trial-something entirely unprecedented. Barr then decided against appearing.
Nadler no doubt has calculated Barr would refuse and then started barking about Contempt charges.
Bill Barr is going to unravel the conspiracy against Donald Trump and democrats know it. They know he will expose the false premises upon which the investigations are premised. They know he will get to the bottom of the obama administration spying on Trump and the obama FBI opening a counter intelligence investigation on Americans.
And let’s be clear- Barr did not lie.
The mindless, no-need-to-check-the-record allegation against Barr goes like this: The AG testified on April 9 that he had no idea why Special Counsel Mueller was upset over the way Barr’s March 24 letter described Mueller’s report; but, in fact, Barr knew exactly why Mueller was upset because he had received the latter’s March 27 letter complaining about Barr’s missive.
Now, here is the exchange on which the perjury allegation is based, with my italics highlighting key portions:
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don’t. I think — I think . . . I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but, in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report. . . . I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller’s own language in doing that.
When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr’s testimony is clearly accurate. And I don’t mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque “depends on what the definition of is is” sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.
Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller’s reaction to Barr’s letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller’s “team” to the Barr letter’s description of “the report’s findings.” Regarding the March 24 letter’s rendering of this bottom line — namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question — Barr said he did not know what Mueller’s staff was complaining about.
CNN even went so far as to deceptively alter a video to make Barr appear dishonest.
It is highly unlikely that any judge would grant a Contempt citation and if necessary SCOTUS would put an end to it, especially as all of this is based on lies and deceit.
Nadler now demands that Barr hand over the entire Mueller report in an unredacted fashion.
In a letter to Barr on Friday, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler gave the Justice Department a 9 a.m. Monday deadline to respond to his letter affirming that it will comply with the subpoena — which called for Barr to supply the full Mueller report and underlying evidence to Congress by May 1 — or negotiate in good faith with the committee to reach a “reasonable accommodation.”
So far, DOJ has stiffed the committee, citing legal statutes that restrict the attorney general from handing over some information underlying the Mueller report to Congress and claiming the committee does not have a “legitimate” reason to demand such information.
By law, grand jury testimony is not to be made public. The Mueller team made its own redactions. So here’s the deal- if Barr releases the information, Nadler impeaches him for violating the law. If he doesn’t, Nadler hits Barr with a contempt charge.
democrats are demanding that Barr resign especially now that Barr is over the target.
None of this is likely to succeed and that brings us to a very dark place. When all of the legal avenues are exhausted, it leaves only the illicit ones.
Do I think that democrats will grow so desperate that they would resort to physically harm Barr?
You bet I do.
democrats are talking of “jail time” for Barr.
They’re talking about putting Barr in handcuffs.
Colbert threatens to “wring his (Barr’s) neck”.
They’re deranged and they have everything to lose.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Here’s one thing I’ve learned from visiting this site: since Barr is a Trump partisan, any unflattering findings he makes in regard to Clinton or Obama can be immediately discounted as Deep State machinations and ignored.
@Michael: Thing is, after such total democrat one-sided and warped control of the DOJ, anything that Barr does looks biased but I think he’s played it straight.
@Michael:
Unflattering we really couldnt care less about.
We expect Barr will discover criminal wrong doing, not “well he said this or that” actions taken by them, things they really did do.
Will you discount that?
@kitt:
In that sentence, I used something called a euphemism.
Probably not, since I’d rather see right prevail, unlike some here, whose clarion call is, “If I think that somebody else got away with something, then you have to let me get away with it.”
@Michael:
A “Trump partisan” being someone that will not LIE about Trump.
And THAT’S why you cannot address the complete collapse of two years of “absolutely certain mountain of evidence on hand” that Democrats in Congress and the media assured us they had proving Trump was guilty of collusion. Because all you want is to see “right” prevail. Yeah… that rings really, really true. That’s a good one.
@Michael: Yes the whataboutism, the two tiered justice system. The total lack of equal outrage for equal or greater crimes, that crapola must end.
Watched the Barr testimony again last night and saw the slant on both sides of the questioning. Some pushing their upcoming bills, some just petting and soothing the witness after being slandered and attempts at character assassination. Happens with every witness both sides, if you watch these inqisitions.
Interesting certain members of congress think they can nail Barr on contempt, before they subpoena him, his appearance before the senate was voluntary, as was the date he broke with the house. Do any of them know how it actually works, or are they simply posing for the cameras? Look at me I am a real hardball player, sucking in they old gut for the photographer.
@Michael:
I would like to know on what basis you make that statement. Perhaps you can tell me who, and what sources, you rely on for your news.
@Deplorable Me:
I’m not sure what you want me to say. How do you want me to address it? I’ve acknowledged that it turned out not to be true. I’m not raising it as a talking point against Trump. What are you expecting here?
@Michael: Well, why did all those people lie? Why did so many of you accept their lies? Why are you not DEMANDING answers from the liars for lying so extensively? WHY do you still believe what they tell you? How’s that for starters?
That was a gigantic, coordinated lie designed to destroy Trump and it no doubt did damage to US prestige. I find it curious how easily you accept it. Yet, you profess to desire what is “right”. The fact is, those two are mutually exclusive.
@kitt:
Perhaps you’ve noticed the whataboutism here: “What about Obama?! He did something I find reprehensible, so Trump gets to do something I find reprehensible (but which I want him to do any way, because I’m all about stiggin’ it to the libs)!”
@retire05:
We can start with Barr’s explanation that the actions that Mueller lists as examples of obstruction are understandable, really, and totally acceptable since Trump was frustrated. “Frustrated” is not a defense against potential violations of the law unless you’re really looking hard to find some method to explain them away.
@Deplorable Me:
I’ve already acknowledged that the conspiracy accusations turned out to be untrue. That’s the exact opposite of still believing them.
@Michael: Allow me…
You acknowledged that the Russian conspiracy turned out not to be true.
Are you using the same sources of information, that obviously lied, or were so totally biased as to not bother research the “leaks” to make your judgement as to Barr is a Partisan?
If indeed you have not cast aside that source of information, how can you trust they are not again lying to you or again leading you and your opinions down the merry path?
I see where the Democrats want Barr to lean away from the written code and precedence to convict or bring charges against the President. They repeatedly asked, “Do you think this is right?”.
As AG he cannot go by feelings, he did not set the precedence, nor write the code. They seem to be totally frustrated that he isnt taking the blindfold off lady justice.
@kitt:
I have already answered in this thread why I made that judgment, and that answer renders your followups inoperative.
Please read what I write before getting into discussions about it. I read your stuff before commenting.
the demorats, smoke, and mirrors. do you, anyone, know what is required to arrest a sitting AG? NO, and neither does bar fly polosi or script reading, fat nadler.
there is no cure for demorat or liberal stupidity. by the way,where is the radacalixed muslin terrorist obama??
@MOS#8541:
WTF.
@Michael:
OK. So you think being accused of everything from “collusion” (which is not a crime, but collaboration is) to being a traitor to your nation, none of which was true and Trump knew it was not true, is not a cause for frustration? Tell me, if you were being investigated for say, abusing your neighbor’s child, and you knew it was not true, but the District Attorney was doing everything in their power to prove you did, would you not be frustrated?
You did not answer the my question which you even posted.
@kitt:
Please be advised that I’ve stopped clicking YouTube links you include in the comments you direct at me, since they’re never anything except movie or TV clips that you intend as jokes.
Ain’t nobody got time for that.
@Michael: Now you seem to be saying, since Hillary got away with everything, the Dims are worried that Barr might get away with something. Barr can only get away with the truth, which is what terrifies the Dims and Hill lovers, the truth is horrible for the Dims.
@Michael: You called Barr a Partisan thats what I was addressing perhaps I need to hit you in the head with a tack hammer, why are you calling Barr a partisan if you still are listening to the same information sources?
Hellloooo tap tap tap anyone hoooome?
@retire05:
Here’s the full quote from your comment:
You were asking me for my sources in direct connection with asking where I got my assessment of Barr. I got my assessment of Barr from Barr’s own words, so the rest of it didn’t pertain to the discussion.
No, and you know for a fact that’s not what I said. Here’s the pertinent quote:
That’s in no way what you suggested I said. Again, you know that.
@kitt:
For the last time: I didn’t get my assessment from interpretation by “information sources.” I got my assessment from listening to the words coming out of his mouth, putting on my thinking cap, stroking my chin thoughtfully, and coming to a conclusion.
If you want to be specific, my “information source” is Barr, and I’m still listening to him because that’s how I make my mind up about stuff.
@Redteam: I don’t know who “the Dims” are in this scenario.
@Michael:
Actually, no, you didn’t. Kitt’s question was: “Are you using the same sources of information, that obviously lied, or were so totally biased as to not bother research the “leaks” to make your judgement as to Barr is a Partisan?” which was quite similar to the question I asked you (Perhaps you can tell me who, and what sources, you rely on for your news.?)
@Michael:
So you’re now going to play the obfuscation game. Got it. But you ignored two words I used; sources (plural) and news. So, let me rephrase my question: what news sources do you use to create an opinion? Since Barr, himself, is not a “news source” please don’t insult everyone’s intellect by parroting that same excuse.
@retire05:
My source of information on Barr’s partisanship is Barr’s mouth. Did he “obviously lie”? I never said that he did.
I could, but I won’t, for two reasons. First, I know that you would not reciprocate. Second, I know that you would just call me a liar, pretty much whatever I said. (Or you’d demand that I somehow provide proof that it was my source of information.) Oh, wait; there’s a third reason: if I don’t tell you, you’ll get your panties into the most glorious bunch…
@Michael:
Well, that certainly explains it.
@Michael:
Which words? Answering which question?
It isnt just the media that lied there were those sitting on the panel that may have been unnamed sources, or those familiar with the matter.
@Michael:
And you purchased your crystal ball where?
Have not called you a liar yet. Although I do have my suspicions as to your honesty.
Well, it would be pretty difficult for you to substantiate your sources, I will admit to that. But I was willing to take your word for it (why, I don’t know since you seem to only want to play games)
Nah, you already have and I am not a copy cat.
@kitt:
These words at his press conference:
Trump’s frustration and anger made his obstruction not obstruction, apparently. Yes, there were acts of obstruction, but they weren’t illegal because he was bummed out? Who gives someone a pass like that for criminal acts except someone who’s on your side?
@retire05: Okay: if you tell me where you get your info, I’ll tell you where I get mine.
@Michael: Eric Holder was LITERALLY Obama’s butt boy. He not only covered up the many crimes and murders (hits) ordered by Obama and Hillary Clinton, he was actually complicit in the crimes and cover ups. The Democrat party is GOING DOWN.
@Michael: Those words must be combined with the actions taken, what actions taken that you believe were obstruction I am assuming you read volume 2 and not just listening to the source at your link MSNBC, the top rated Russian conspiracy channel.
Do remember Mueller and 19 top hand-picked attorneys could not put solid evidence behind the claims of obstruction, and make that determination, and solid recommendation to Rosenstein and/or Barr.
Im sure you can.
@retire05:
No crystal ball; just going on prior experience with you.
You have certainly have strongly implied it. Repeatedly.
Why? Why on Earth do you think that I care enough about your good opinion to lie to you to get it?
@Cynthia Campbell:
That’s where you lost me. Well, that and “LITERALLY.”
@kitt:
I’ve read Mueller’s executive summary, and I’ve gone to the full document when I wanted to know more about something.
Mueller said that the rules under which he was operating prevented his handing down an indictment, so he wasn’t able to make a traditional binary decision on the issue. (He wasn’t allowed to say, “Book him, Dano,” and saying that there was no evidence of obstruction would not have been an accurate description of what he found.) He specifically said that the president was not exonerated in the matter of obstruction. He also called on Congress to take up the matter as the appropriate body to look at those issues.
@Michael: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17270-fast-and-furious-fbi-now-linked-to-murder-of-u-s-border-agent.
Of course the Drones but who is looking close?
Right Cynthia?
It isnt healthy to get to close to the Clintons, do not look up Clinton body bag count.
@Michael:
Perception can be deceiving.
Thinking something is “implied” is another thing based on personal bias.
I don’t. I don’t think you care about the opinion of anyone you conceive to be a conservative.
I think you have been hanging around with your grade school students too long. Perhaps you would be better served to interact with more adults and that way you would tend reticent to play your silly “You first, no, you first” games.
@Michael:
Wrong. He was tasked with making a binary decision. He punted that to Rosenstein and Barr, i.e. he took the coward’s way out.
Not his place to state that. The President was innocent until proven guilty of a crime, as per our system of juris prudence. A first year law student could have written a better Part II.
Absolutely. He played to the Democrats. Again, abdicating the job he was tasked with not to mention also violating Bar Association rules.
@Michael: Just a Tid bit for you, Controlling “exactly what people think” is the job of the media, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski boldly declared
Barr never said there was no evidence the fact is everything listed in Muellers summery was investigated, the false premise is, he could not put in his report that he would indict, thats fake news.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/mueller-time-is-finally-over/
@retire05:
So: just as I said.
@retire05:
Then why would I bother lying to you?
@kitt:
I know. Now, if you’ll think back all the way to near the top of this comment thread, you’ll remember that I’m unhappy with the fact that Barr said Trump’s frustration was reason that the ten instances of obstruction Mueller found did not need to be addressed by the DoJ.
We’ve already covered this ground in this very thread.
@kitt:
From the article to which you linked:
To me and others who feel the same way I do — mainly Lefties, I guess — that’s precisely what Mueller did. To you and people who feel the same way you do — mainly Righties, I guess — Mueller did the opposite.
That’s why Mueller needs to testify: to clear up any confusion caused by his perhaps-too-lawyerly mode of communication in the report. Trump should not try to keep Mueller from testifying (see the tweets in the middle of this story).
@Michael:
Perhaps you would like to provide the quote, verbatum?
@retire05:
Don’t you mean “verbatim”? Here:
Emphasis mine.
“Apart from whether the acts were obstructive…” What?! There is no “apart from whether the acts were obstructive” — that’s the whole point of volume II of the report!
“…this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.” So: his frustration led to his “non-corrupt” actions.
That sounds mightily like a defense lawyer, rather than an Attorney General.
@Michael: You did not state he was acting as a defense lawyer, thats a new wrinkle you said partisan, which has political meanings a strong supporter of a party.
Barr agreed with Mueller in saying by a preponderance of the evidence and interpretation of the law the President could not be charged, he doesnt get the luxury of partisanship nor feelings.
All the Dems kicking sand in his face and calling him to recuse resign and threatening impeachment wont alter the facts.
I agree Mueller should testify before the Senate, the congress with the KFC stunt have shown themselves to immature and unprofessional to warrant them the courtesy. The gavel should set rules no petting no bashing.
@kitt:
“Partisan” means “a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.”
In the very first comment in this thread, I described Barr as acting like “a Trump partisan.” I intended that word choice to indicate my belief that Barr is acting like a person whose first loyalty is to Trump or Trump’s agenda.
That’s what one would think, but it seems otherwise. Perhaps his allegiance is simply to the concept of the Unitary Executive, which in this case would be six of one, a half-dozen of the other.
That’s one guy. If we do that, we should ban Republicans from attending the State of the Union because of Joe “You Lie!” Wilson.
@Michael:
“Apart from whether the acts were obstructive…” What?! There is no “apart from whether the acts were obstructive” — that’s the whole point of volume II of the report!
No, Michael. The whole cause (in legal terms) of Part II (there was only one volume) was to serve as a panacea for Congressional Democrats. There are clear and concise laws as to what pertains to “obstruction.” Mueller could not reach that benchmark.
That is your opinion, I’m sure based on the disaster that is the California legal standard. It is also a statement that I feel certain you gleaned from another source since you clearly are not qualified to make such a statement.
@Michael: Nice to see you wish no end to the investigation, and the business of the country get done. They are demanding all the underlying evidence Millions of documents it would be the end of Trumps second term before sorting through all that.
No Trump must put his foot down it is over, his side of the investigation, now its time to investigate how we got here.