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.
@retire05:
That is your opinion, I’m sure based on the disaster that is whatever is going on inside your head.
@Michael:
You pretend to miss the point. The point being, Obama and his administration actually DID reprehensible things and you happily cheered them on. Now, you ACCUSE Trump of doing reprehensible things and, though they are eventually proved false, and you pretend to be offended by them.
It’s called hypocrisy. You are seriously afflicted with it.
Read the questions again. Why are you so comfortable with being lied to? Once you answer that (should you ever) then you can ask YOURSELF why these people lied to you and what else are they lying about? Eventually, you will find your entire political belief system is based on lies You will require courage to face that question.
Taking responsibility for your own errors. That is commendable.
He didn’t have to indict. If he could have backed his charge up with facts, he could have clearly concluded that Trump committed obstruction. After all, YOU’VE concluded he did; if the evidence was there, Mueller could have and would have said so. It wasn’t, so he didn’t.
Sounds like an explanation of the facts; defending JUSTICE. On the other hand, were the facts otherwise, Mueller would have said something like, “… though a sitting President cannot be indicted, the evidence is clear and unambiguous that President Trump committed egregious acts of obstruction.” Mueller didn’t. Mueller found no obstruction.
Funny thing about that; Obama WAS lying.
@retire05:
Liberals are so used to and comfortable with lying about someone, they have no idea how frustrating it is to deal with people that lie with impunity and without conscience. Notice how difficult it is for Michael to come to the realization that he is repeatedly lied to and made a fool of. Either he can’t conceive of the vast magnitude of the lies he has believed or he simply accepts it as normal business. Liberals don’t seem to understand someone taking personally a lie about them… or the harm it does to the entire country.
@retire05: He has resorted to cheap shots he has no logical argument.
As he revealed his source of information, MSLSD, its nothing less than the total destruction of Trump the countrys pressing issues and crisis be damned.
Trump doesnt have to be guilty of anything, they are running on pure hatred.
@kitt:
I have cheap shots and a logical argument. It’s a two-fer!
Bear in mind that you frequently call me things like “moron.” When you do that, does it mean that you have no logical argument?
I did a Google search for “Barr press conference frustrated” and grabbed the first thing that had the section I was referring to. It’s a video of Barr speaking. How does the source of the video have anything to do with anything at all in that particular situation?
That’s not a rhetorical question. I’m really curious.
@Deplorable Me:
Again with the explaining what I’m really thinking. I should try that with you some time.
@Michael: Some sources due to past history should be avoided, CNN known to edit videos to put forward their out right lies, MSLSD , an asylum reality show, Fox not much better, all of them propaganda.
I have no idea if the liberals actually have an outlet that has any logic and true experts not just someone that stayed at the Holiday Inn.
You using Vanity Fair honestly made me laugh.
@Michael:
Why do you feel the need to resort to insults and pejorative comments? I was attempting to have a logical and rational dialog with you. The comments you resort to only show the lack of an ability to do that. Get back to me when you want to show some personal control over your animosity toward anyone who disagrees with you or who tries to present logical and rational facts for you to consider.
@kitt: If you’re saying that the video I linked to has been edited or doctored to change the meaning, then ante up and show me where and what. Otherwise, your warnings mean nothing in the context of the current discussion. There’s no spin; there’s nobody interpreting what was said; it’s the whole Barr and nothing but the Barr. You should deal with the substance of what Barr said in that clip or acknowledge that you have no interest in doing so.
@retire05:
To be frank, that’s only a fifty-fifty proposition with you. This time you’re being, “logical and rational”; next time, you’re dismissive and insulting. Am I supposed to gauge the tone of your current comment and then adjust accordingly? You get to set the tone of the interaction?
How about if you agree to be “logical and rational” every time, and I’ll do the same, so mote it be?
@kitt:
If I cite a Vanity Fair article, or a Rolling Stone article, or an Atlantic article, you are more than welcome to point to the flaw in the reporting and proceed from there. I stick to actual established sources; I’ll never link to the kind of personal blogs and other crapola that I often see linked here. (“BlabberBuzz”? Are you friggin’ kidding me? I’ve never seen you question that source. By the way: this is the first time I’ve ever ridiculed a source that you guys have cited as a source; it’s more effective to poke holes in the actual article.)
Again: if you don’t like my source, point to the problem with the specific article I’m citing. If you can’t, then quit your whining. At any rate, the problem doesn’t arise with the Barr clip; it’s not doctored, and it’s not interpreted.
@Michael: I dont know why I bother attempting explain my opinion, you are brainwashed with hate and totally immune to facts, have no capacity at all, you are a broken human being.
Nothing in your post remotely addresses my answer to your curiosity post.
Nothing in the clip shows Barr a partisan.
@kitt:
And I expanded on that with a direct quote from the raw transcript of the press conference. I’ll post it again here, as I’m assuming from your comment that you didn’t bother reading it the first time around. I’ll include my commentary from the original comment. You’ll need to move your eyeballs down two paragraphs to see it.
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: dont care, the investigation is over
@Michael:
That is not what Kitt said. Kitt said “CNN known to edit videos to put forward their out right lies,”
CNN has been known to edit its videos on many occasions to further their agenda. By doing so, CNN presents a false narrative and lies to its viewers.
Why? If someone disagrees with your interpretation of what AG Barr said, you dismiss them. There is no longer any point in trying to have a rational debate with you.
@kitt:
You’re aware, are you not, that you’re going off the reservation when you say that? The agreement hereabouts generally seems to be that there is no such “written code and precedence” about indicting a sitting president — that Mueller would violate such a directive if he really felt that obstruction had taken place.
@retire05:
Unless you’re saying that this video has been so edited, that’s a piece of information that bears on this discussion in no way at all. Are you saying that the video has been edited to “present a false narrative”? If so, show me where; if not, pack your factoid away until it’s of use.
@retire05:
You do exactly the same thing. In spades.
@kitt:
Yes, but the fallout from the investigation has just begun.
@Michael: dont care the investigation of Trump is over, la la la
No Charges
@Michael:
A truly juvenile response. Totally expected. It’s all you’ve got.
@retire05:
But absolutely true nonetheless. Can you point to anywhere in this thread where you’ve said anything approximating, “I see what you’re saying there, but…”?
@kitt:
True. It’s unfortunate. I have money down at work on Trump making it through two full terms; that’s what kind of fix I think we’re in.
@Michael: Dont care the investigation is oooover ooooooover, no charges la la la
Gambling, ha ha Ive seen people like you in the casino the dealer showing a 5 and they will hit on 16.
@kitt:
Let’s see if I have this straight: I said that I bet money on the idea that Trump would make it through two full terms — that is, I’m saying that Trump is going to last eight full years in the White House — and you then tell me what a stupid gambler I am?
Okay.
@Michael: Dont care, la la la investigation is over no charges.
@Michael:
Why should I when your only goal is to kneecap anyone on the right side of the aisle.
You want to be taken seriously start acting like it and not just arbitrarily insulting people right off the bat before they can respond to you. IOW, start acting like a rational adult, not a school yard bully
@Michael:
California school systems allow gambling in their schools? Who knew?
@retire05:
So, no; you can’t. Because you didn’t do it. It’s no mystery — I was here, too, and I know exactly what you wrote.
Save the holier-than-thou act.
@retire05:
If the kids are foolish enough to lay their money down, who am I to refuse to pick it up?
@retire05:
I just offered to do that; you never responded:
Me, from #59:
@Michael:
I’ll play your game. You first.
Dear G-d, tell me you’re not a Mason.
@retire05:
The only way you’ll find out is by giving me the secret handshake.
Didn’t you ridicule me for saying that exact thing earlier this evening?
@Michael:
Which one?
Just playing by the rules you laid down.
@retire05:
But you’re not playing. You never told me where you get the bulk of your info.
@Michael:
Yes, you should try thinking… instead of merely “repeating”.
Yet both Barr and Mueller drew the same conclusion: no obstruction. Is Mueller Trump’s “defense lawyer” too?
No there isn’t. He still COULD have… it simply would not have held up. However, he COULD have clearly stated, “President Trump committed obstruction here, here and here. See footnotes xxx, yyy and zzz for supporting evidence. However, “policy” prevents indictments being brought.” But, alas, he didn’t. He made allusions because he had no proof. Only allusions, insinuations and speculations. So, no obstruction.
@Deplorable Me:
Get this; Michael, who claims to be a history teacher to minors (a teacher being someone who helps build the character of students into honest adults) is now teaching them how to gamble illegally.
This guy should not be allowed to remain as a teacher for five more minutes. Or perhaps, that is just California [lack of] morals.
George Soros is only paying those useful idiots who can prove they are actually posting online so-&-so many times per hour.
Michael is trying to qualify.
@retire05: Well, apparently they are now teaching in California that pedophilia is a gender choice now, so go figure.
@Michael:
Makes life easier that way, just playing to your pathetic identity that is rooted in the Democratic party.
You are a Democratic partisan and anything you say can be immediately discounted as moonbat rubbish.
Do you think that “all or nothing” way of thinking gets us anywhere but dead? Your party has become violent, closed, and utterly threatening to democratic process.
You’ll do anything to re-make the world the way you want it. Brutally, if need be.
Trump won the election. Get over it. The Dem’s corrupted the objectivity of our defense and intelligence infrastructure, and it’s getting cleaned up. You can’t accuse the cleaners of making the mess.
So, the Democrats say Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice for attempting to fire a CIJ official.
Now, Democrats are calling for the firing of a DOJ official who has announced he will investigate Democrats.
According to Mueller, that’s obstruction of justice by the Democrats.
Keep going, AG Barr. The more they scream, the more it proves you are on the right trail of evidence.
Per the administration under investigation, Congress can’t see the full Mueller report, can’t call witnesses to testify about it, and can’t see the underlying evidence that Mueller collected.
Barr previously let it be known that the DoJ can’t indict a sitting president, and consequently should not even have investigated him in the first place. In Barr’s view, the only constitutional remedy to a president who is suspected of high crimes and misdemeanors or violation of federal laws is action on the part of Congress.
Can you figure out what those two paragraphs would add up to, if the first is not successfully challenged? It shouldn’t be difficult.
They would add up to Trump being answerable to nobody.
How compatible is that with all the right’s blather about our constitutional republic?
May 7, 2019 — Barr to Trump: Invoke executive privilege over redacted Mueller materials
@Greg:
Adds up to the aftermath of a failed witch hunt. Over three years of illegal spying, investigations, investigations, investigations without finding any evidence of wrongdoing. Think looking again and again and again you’ll find something you can use? What was the definition of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results again?
@Deplorable Me:Seems the Dems are just as upset that evidence did not show Trump was guilty of Russian collusion as when he beat their crooked candidate in the election. Hillary saying the election was stolen from her, I for one am glad I am an accessory to that crime.
Someone got one of those 2 buck tickets to an Evening w/Stinky and Slick and heckled her, not the first time https://ilovemyfreedom.org/watch-heckler-at-clinton-event-tells-crooked-hillary-that…
https://hotair.com/…/2019/05/05/evening-clintons-tour-ends-ticket-prices-plummet-2-00
Yup she was robbed
@Deplorable Me, #92:
Who needs to look? Mueller’s supporting evidence has already been collected. But the consummate jackass you voted for claims Congress has no right to see it. He claims that Congress, which has legal oversight powers, has no right to see the full report in closed session, and has no right to talk to witness who talked to Mueller’s investigative team.
Anyone who doesn’t see that something is very seriously wrong here has got to be a bit challenged in the sound judgement or common sense department. This is not some partisan political game. Virtually all of the top level people involved in this investigation have been life-long republicans. They are not the problem.
@Greg: Congress has no legal right to see it that is why Mueller redacted it genius.
Has no right to see the full report in closed session,
something Pelosi flat out rejected.
@Greg:
The whining, crybaby idiots YOU support already have it; they just haven’t bothered to look at it yet. Does it surprise you that Nadler has not bothered to read the 99% of the report he HAS while he threatens to disrupt the entire government to see the 1% is not allowed, BY LAW, to see? I really give you more credit that being THAT stupid.
WRONG. That’s all it is. That’s all the surveillance was, that’s all the FBI investigation was, that’s all Mueller’s “investigation” was and that’s all Nadler’s constant theatrics is: partisan, sore loser, whining politics. Thanks for the 2020 campaign assistance, though.
@Greg:
To you, it most certainly is. You only post on articles that seem are hand-picked by your organization and the media talking points already in play.
No thoughts on the Mifsud developments?
This article, about charging Barr, is what you were assigned to post propaganda on.
Hillary got caught, but your party and their owned MSM made it about the leak itself, about Russia, to obscure things to the electorate.
That’s all you and your party are doing now: making this about Barr supposedly “lying”. It’s complete desperation, because the counter-investigation is under way and you need to control the public quickly, feeding them some new criminal hoax in the way of Barr, or just saying everyone is partisan and should be locked up (even when the Dems are far, far more partisan in everything they do).
You’ll be surprised, again, by how many people aren’t buying the Democratic kool-aid any more.
@Nathan Blue, #97:
None whatsoever, but I have some about what Nunes’ current function in the Trump cover-up effort is. He’s not so effective a tool as he used to be, now that the GOP has lost control of the House, but he’s still a tool.
@Nathan Blue: Yeah, none whatsoever. Whatever the liberal police state decides to do to maintain or grasp power is just fine with their minions. Fabricating evidence to use to begin a pretend “investigation” is just business as usual for police state advocates.
@Nathan Blue:
This is so stupid that it defies description.