The more I listen to Robert Mueller, the less respect I have for him. He has become a corrupt politician and has disgraced his career. There has been talk of Mueller being subpoenaed to testify before Congress. Nadler insists that Mueller wants to testify- privately.
“He is willing to make an opening statement, but he wants to testify in private,” Nadler said. “We’re saying we think it’s important for the American people to hear from him and to hear his answers to questions about the report.”
So do I. More than ever.
It is said that Barr and Mueller are old friends. If so, it is a curious relationship. Mueller has crossed Barr multiple times now.
Mueller apparently had discussions with Barr prior to the release of the report. Barr issued a statement about the report summarizing the findings. Barr was under no obligation to release the report but release it he did, with minor redactions. Once the report was released Barr was assailed non-stop by democrats as a liar. Pressure built on Mueller to make a statement. He did that the other day and went out before the press and lied.
But Mueller did not mince words on his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”
Mueller explained longstanding Justice Department policy, which states that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.
“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider,” Mueller explained, adding that “it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”
Swiftly a statement was issued jointly by Barr and Mueller spokespersons disagreeing with what Mueller has said in his statement.
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,” a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said.
Then Barr calmly added that Mueller could indeed have brought charges if he had a case.
Mueller is peddling bullsh*t and Barr is having none of it. But here’s a really critical point, and it’s a point that has long irritated the living crap out of me:
“The use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed,” Barr said in an interview with CBS.
Russian disinformation paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC was used to mobilize America’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies against an American Presidential candidate. Let’s remember that when FBI lawyer Lisa Page feared that Trump might be elected, disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok said
“No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it”
Denying that there was a conspiracy against Trump is laughable, and Barr is on it despite plodding into headwinds:
But Barr, in an interview with CBS News that aired Friday, said he has more questions than answers at this point in the probe.
“Like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on,” Barr said, referring to the origins of the Russia probe. “And I assumed I’d get answers when I went in, and I have not gotten answers that are at all satisfactory.”
He added: “In fact, I probably have more questions and some of the facts that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”
Barr did not elaborate further on his findings, but added: “Things are just not jibing.”
Let’s get some answers. By all means let’s get some answers. Let’s start with Robert Mueller. Make him testify. Part 1 of the Mueller Report dealt with Russian collusion and conspiracy. Mueller concluded there realistically was none of either. Part 2 dealt with the possibility of obstruction of justice by Donald Trump over a crime he did not commit. So let’s have Muller answer some questions:
“Mr. Mueller, when did you determine there was no collusion or conspiracy?”
“Mr. Mueller, if you were operating under the presumption that you could not indict a sitting President for collusion what was the point of undertaking Part 2 of your investigation? Was it to provide democrats with a road map for impeachment?”
“Mr. Mueller, was a road map for impeachment to aid democrats part of your directive from Mr. Rosenstein in the Scope Memo?”
“Mr. Mueller, can you please explain how you came to choose so many ardent Trump haters to be on your team? Can you explain the justification for adding a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation to your team?”
“Mr. Mueller, why would you choose someone with such a dodgy past as Andrew Weissman to be on your team?”
“Mr. Mueller, you said in your statement that you could not indict the President based on the OLC opinion but AG Barr said you did not reach a conclusion irrespective of the OLC opinion. Who is lying?”
When Mueller wrote
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
It may be that Mueller knew that his potential obstruction case is garbage. Devin Nunes is pushing for release of all background source information, and it is well wort noting that at least some of the information has been altered:
The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee sent out a tweet critical of Mueller after federal prosecutors, in compliance with an order from a federal judge, released the transcript of a voicemail former Trump lawyer John Dowd left for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s lawyer Rob Kelner shortly after he agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
Mueller referenced parts of the Nov. 22, 2017, voicemail in his final report about how Dowd asks for a “heads up” if Flynn knew information that “implicates” Trump after Flynn dropped from a joint defense agreement with the president. But, as a Twitter user points out, parts of the transcript that were left out, including Dowd saying his request was “not only for the president, but for the country,” he was not asking for confidential information, and he did not appear to be certain that Flynn had decided to cooperate with Mueller’s team.
“This is why we need all backup and source documentation for the #muellerdossier released publicly. It’s all a fraud…,” Nunes tweeted in reply.
Barr had asserted that the DOJ had a different take on the analysis than did Mueller:
Barr told CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford that the Department of Justice determined “many of the instances” Mueller found “would not amount to obstruction” as a matter of law.
“[W]e didn’t agree with … a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the Department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers, and so we applied what we thought was the right law,” he explained.
“The bottom line was that Bob Mueller identified some episodes,” Barr added. “He did not reach a conclusion. He provided both sides of the issue, and his conclusion was he wasn’t exonerating the president, but he wasn’t finding a crime either.”
Barr went on to say it is up to Mueller if he wants to testify before Congress, but he did say he does not think the line Mueller drew about sticking to his report is “the proper line.”
Inquiring minds want to know. No wonder Mueller doesn’t want to testify in public. Let Mueller testify.
In public.
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.
@Greg:
Nah, I’d rather see the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee’s tax returns. Elijah Cummings seems to think he, and his wife, are above the law, so let’s see his tax returns.
https://ijr.com/cummings-wife-may-have-benefitted-from-his-committee-role/
But I’m sure you don’t want to talk about crooked, lying dishonest Democrats.
@retire05, #101:
I notice you edited out AS IS REQUIRED BY LAW, most likely because Trump is misusing his powers of office when he orders his subordinates to knowingly break the law in question—a direct violation of the Faithful Execution Clause of Article Two, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
This can’t be defended as an Executive Office decision to refrain from enforcing a law, as it’s an instruction to actually break the law, not to refrain from enforcement; further, it’s being ordered as a means of protecting himself from lawful congressional oversight authority. There’s nothing even remotely acceptable about this behavior.
You may see this point made again in Trump’s Articles of Impeachment.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/16/news-in-flynn-case-documents-released-and-judge-sullivan-has-well-founded-suspicions/
If one transcript is edited……Judge doesnt trust Weissman and Mueller he must be racist, or something.
@Greg:
Elijah Cummings’ wife is refusing to hand over documents on her (their?) 501(c)3 charity, AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
But then, as I said; you don’t want to talk about crooked, lying dishonest Democrats
@retire05, #104:
Elijah Cummings’s wife is not the President of the United States. She’s not the one who is entrusted with faithful execution of the nation’s laws in accordance with its Constitution. She didn’t take an oath swearing that she would do so, and then have the enormous powers of the presidency placed in her hands.
@Greg:
Want to see someone’s private tax returns? Provide a valid reason. (Note: “I am a whiny crybaby, I lost an election and all my candidates are loser pieces of shit, so I need ammunition to try and unseat Trump” does not qualify as a valid reason.
Um… no. I think you yourself surpassed that by claiming that no one has been allowed to see the report. Also, your claim that what Mueller secretly deleted from testimony in his report for “brevity”. But, beyond any debate, the weak, lame, crybaby claims that Democrats had “mountains” of evidence proving Trump colluded with Russians to win his election and it just disappeared is definitely THE lamest, THE least believable excuse for conducting an illegal investigation, including illegal spying, on a duly elected President of the United States.
4th Amendment. It is still in effect.
Um… but she is a US citizen that laws apply to and there is a VALID reason to see hers and old Elijah’s tax records. Because, you know… thievery. Not, “I wonder if they did anything wrong?” Thievery. Though I’ve never seen a liberal that minds another liberal stealing from a charity.
@Greg:
Elijah Cummings is a senior Congressman and is demanding President Trump’s tax returns. His committee is very powerful and I think Americans have the right to know if there was any quid pro quo from Cummings to these companies he dealt with on his committee that involved regulations. Was any of that money that went into his wife’s (their?) 501(c)3 used for personal/campaign use?
There is no doubt Elijah Cummings is guilty and should be impeached. He’s the one who is entrusted with faithful execution of the nation’s laws in accordance with its Constitution. Elijah Cummings should be forced to release his tax returns. President Trump should demand them under the same law that Cummings is using.
Once again, you’ll support a crooked, lying dishonest Democrat.
@Deplorable Me:
Nah, Greggie Goebbels is not remotely concerned that Elijah Cummings used his position to line his own pockets via his wife’s (their?) charity. That’s par for the course.
@Greg: hahahaha…I see the resident Democratic Employee was ordered to keep barking about this one, and hence continues to bark without any real justification.
All Greg’s statements boil down to partisan blathering. If we followed his sudden ethical approach in litigating everything Trump did (because he’s a president not on Greg’s team), we’d of course have to hold that standard to everyone, including Democrats. So legally we could charge Obama and Clinton and Comey and the rest with all kinds of things, just because.
“AS REQUIRED BY LAW”
Funny how that only applies to Greg and his party’s enemies, and not to their own.
Some info, Greg: Trump won. The sleazy way the Democrats are trying to nullify the election and/or win the next election have pitted them against the average American (the majority). More and more the talk show people, who have historically worked directly for the Democratic Party to gain votes from the ignorant, are not buying it. They are less and less complicit with the Dem party’s aims, and you’ll see just how hard it is to win an election when you don’t cheat by using the entertainment industry to prey on the weak. The Leftist treat is shrinking by the day, thank God.
Trump wins the EC and popular vote in 2020, easily.
@Nathan Blue:
The problem is that Republicans don’t play those silly, stupid games with government. Sure, they could play the same tricks and it would be devastating to Democrats, but Republicans simply do no know how.
@kitt: It seems with all the turmoil and accusations flying around the only truth tellers are little rocket man and his beloved con Don—
Don said he was ecstatic about the massive display of support shown him by Londoners—I wonder if Parisians will do the same—Don will let us know. Why bother to even watch the news when President Trump will tell us all we really need to know—what a guy!.
@Richard Wheeler: They certainly were let down with the protest turn out, seems there were plenty of Trump supporters in the crowd but out numbered by protestors. Are we suppose to care what they think of our President? Do you really care what they think?
Kims nuclear guy isnt in a workcamp either.
@Deplorable Me, #106:
The valid reason is that there’s a LAW that says when the Congressional Ways and Means Committee requests it, THE IRS MUST COMPLY. The law IS the goddamn reason. No other is required. It’s an intentional oversight power.
What do you not understand about this being a nation ruled by laws, and not by the whims of a petulant child-president?
@Richard Wheeler: Speaking of telling the truth, I wonder what happened to all that evidence all you Democrats were so certain proved definitively that Trump colluded with Russians to win his election. Where’d all that go? Or, were all your Democrats and liberal media mouths simply LYING? Care to address that? No one else will.
@Greg:
That’s not a valid reason because it is TRUMPED by the 4th Amendment. So, guess again, Chester.
It’s a nation ruled by the Constitution.
@Deplorable Me: You will never be able to get it through the leftist heads the Constitution limits government tyranny it does not enable it.
@Deplorable Me: I’m good with the Mueller report as presented—no collusion but many examples of obstruction.
Barr’s analysis of the report was CLEARLY bogus.
See no need for Mueller to testify further —Congress
has every right to oversight.
DT should release tax returns as PROMISED months ago.
Kitt The Constitution grants powers to Congress that the POTUS can not over ride—he has become the problem. Is it any wonder he respects strong men dictators. Not how it’s done in The USA Trump.
Kitt#117—Barr said Mueller found no obstruction—wrong Did you not hear Mueller’s testimony?
@Richard Wheeler: Why do you think Barrs decision was wrong? Do you think he should have found something that those that were actually investigating could not find?
@Richard Wheeler:
It was clearly precise. There were no examples of obstruction; had there been and had they been supported with evidence, Mueller would have surely said so. He didn’t, so there wasn’t.
I see no reason for Mueller to testify, either. He’s a despicable, corrupt liar.
Why should Barr be held in contempt for following the law?
I also see no address of the disappearance of all that sound, available evidence of Trump colluding. It has vanished along with the credibility of all that promoted it.
@Deplorable Me, #114:
It’s not the place of the bumptious gas bag in the White House or his fawning sycophants and enablers to make such a pronouncement. The law in question has been the law of the land since 1924, and it remains the law of the land. A president’s constitutional powers DO NOT include an ability to nullify laws at will because they have become personally or politically inconvenient.
Trump should be impeached forthwith. In ordering his subordinates to openly break multiple laws he has willfully and knowingly failed to uphold his oath of office. He’s in direct violation of the Faithful Execution Clause of Article Two, Section 3 of the Constitution. You can add that to Obstruction of Justice.
Turning the GOP stupid seems to have been a gradual process, like heating a frog’s water so slowly that he doesn’t notice until he’s being boiled. This all started long before Trump whipped out a chef’s hat and placed it on his head. He’s nothing more than a natural-born conman who saw an opportunity for the score of a lifetime and went for it.
@Deplorable Me: Mueller should testify. When did he know there was no Russian paddycake, I am betting because Weissman was briefed on the origin of the dossier, it was before they started the investigation, it was never about Trump and collusion, he should answer a few questions his report was deceptively edited for political theater. The hand delivered letter from Englands IC stating Steel could not be trusted, the dossier not mentioned in the report.
There are lots of questions for the SC Mueller. The FBIs activities in England during the Misfud meetings, Honeypots for Flynn and PoppaD, certainly he must have uncovered all of that.
Rosenstien should testify too.
Greg: When do you think these Trumpist frogs will realize they’re being boiled?
They’re deriding Mueller while praising they’re chef and head waiter Barr—ridiculous.
@Greg:
The 4th Amendment was ratified in 1791. The Constitution is superior to all laws passed by Congress. By the way, since you regard this 1924 law as such a routine gesture of “oversight”, you never provided me with the other Presidents it has been used against. Only Trump. Only now. Only now that all other options of defeating Trump are exhausted.
Well, what are you waiting for? Evidence? Proof? Facts? Basis? Grounds? Justification? Guts?
Where did all that mountain of evidence absolutely proving Trump colluded with Russians to win his election that you place such hope in? Why do you accept the fact that you have been lied to on a monumental extent, then blindly follow the same liars as they convince you of more false accusations? You wouldn’t do well in a maze that shocks you for going to wrong path, apparently.
@kitt:
Let Barr call him to testify. Bounce all his testimony against the written record and if he misses any answers by one hour, throw the book at him. If he offers one “I don’t know” or “I can’t remember”, throw him in solitary confinement until he does. Surely Mueller can appreciate such tactics; they’re his.
I notice NO liberal will even acknowledge the massive lie of “collusion”, from which their equally large lie of obstruction was born. Massive lies used to promote spying on the President and other innocent citizens and liberals have nothing to say about it. That speaks tremendous volumes.
@Richard Wheeler: Can you quote where I praised Barr? Where when? I asked you why you thought he made a wrong decision? you cant say why? Can you try?
@Richard Wheeler:
Remind us again how well those summits between Obama and Kim Jung Un went..
The British are just like the Americans. As New York and Los Angeles doesn’t represent the entirety of the U.S., Londoners don’t represent the entirety of Great Britain.
What do you expect the Parisians to do? Seems to me all the French know how to do is surrender to totalitarian forces.
Like Obama did with his Stimulus Bill, Obamacare and how he didn’t know about Fast and Furious until he read it in the newspaper? What a guy.
And those “examples” of obstruction meet with Anderson requirements how?
Oh, please do give us your expert legal analysis of Barr’s analysis of the Mueller report. We are all (not so) patiently waiting for that.
Why shouldn’t Mueller testify? Don’t you want to know when he knew there was no “collusion” by the Trump campaign? Don’t you want to know why he put one of the most disreputable men in America, Andrew Weissman, as his second in command?
Should Elijah Cummings be required to release his tax returns as well as his wife adhering to U.S. law by releasing the documents requested of her (their?) 501(c)3?
@kitt: Mueller laid out a number of places where Trump obstructed or attempted to obstruct the lawful investigation. Barr ignored this and deliberately mischaracterized Mueller’s report–obviously to curry favor with his-handler–Mueller set him straight in his testimony. nuf said—now let Congress do their work rather than CONTINUING to obstruct their lawful powers.
If you think Barr a buffoon I apologize for suggesting you favored him.
@Richard Wheeler:
As we eventually had confirmed, it was NOT a lawful investigation; it was based on lies, illegal spying and information fed Hillary, who fed it to the FBI, by the Russians.
How did Barr “mischaracterize” Mueller’s report? After Barr called Mueller out for his theatrics, Mueller contradicted himself.
@Richard Wheeler: They enumerated things they thought could be obstruction but came to no decision. Barr began his job as Mueller was closing shop, unlike Roddy who began the farce, he was not briefed and kept apprised of progress throughout the investigation, so he after talking with the team agreed with them he couldnt find a solid case either. Without a solid case or insufficient evidence of a solid case its just over.
I wont praise Barr til the agent that took bribes from the media is in a courtroom, til the agents that leaked classified information to the press are in a courtroom. If he finds the FISA court was lied to, the agents that signed off on it are in a courtroom.
Then I will praise Barr, if he cleans all politics out of the DOJ and FBI then I will praise Barr. On their own time they can chat politics all they want, leave it at the door.
https://www.facebook.com/jamesjohnson391/videos/2338234646199602/UzpfSTEwMDAwNzM2NTE2NjUxOToyMzU4MzE3NTY3NzU3MDU5/
@Deplorable Me: Hardly anyone there looks like a line to get into a Trump rally.
Britts hang in there.
@Richard Wheeler: everything you say is partisan slanted conjecture, and pretty much fed from your handlers at CNN. Sorry rich, but you add nothing to the table other than ridiculous names to call people who didn’t vote for your party. No one batted an eye when a g holder did something that one could say is similar to a g bar, nor did anybody on the left care when Comey said Hillary had broken the law but shouldn’t be charged. This issue is much less severe, and with much less evidence. If Trump truly did something wrong, we should charge him. There’s no real evidence to say that he did. Instead, your party has to formulate propaganda pieces and lies to make this into something it’s not. if you’re going to be stupid enough to call people who support the president because they voted for him trumpsters, then I’m sure we can come up with a name for you since you will defend the Democratic party no matter what, merely vomiting up whatever news bullet points you’ve been fed for the day. Oh wait, there already is one: Moonbat.
@Deplorable Me:
Do you really expect Wheeler to answer that question? Wheeler, like all left wingers, only knows what the lame stream media tell him what to think.
Post 124
I’m waiting for Wheeler to answer that question. Think he will?
@Nathan Blue:
Remember, Nathan Blue, this is the same guy who rails on Trump because Trump never wore the uniform of the U.S. military, yet voted for Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the California primary.
@retire05: He also would vote for Biden when Biden got 5 deferrals, played football with asthma, is Creeping hiding his inhaler in womens hair?
@kitt: Honestly I wish we could get to Nov. 2020 as quickly as possible—Trump, who got 46% of the popular vote and won the E.C with razor thin margins in Mich and Pa—should be easy to beat—He continues to poll nationwide as poorly as he did in 2016 and has little chance of holding traditionally blue Pa. and Mich–where he trails by substantially greater margins than the less than one percent margins he won by in 2016
@Richard Wheeler: After Os first 4 we never thought he would get re-elected, but Dems lost both houses and many seats at state level. The Dems need to develop a platform that is better than murder the babies,open the borders raise raise taxes. Tony Evers actions will get people to the booth for Trump here, his strongest issue was to legalize marijuana and cut taxes for the middle class, he has already told the middle class to stuff it. We held the assembly so he is controlled. Now they want to raise property taxes when we have a tax windfall they dont know how to spend.
Britain’s Conservative Party leader and favored to win P.M. has said DT “clearly out of his mind and unfit to hold office.” Declined to meet Trump.
DT is toxic in GB polling even worse than he does in U.S.
Nathan–My news comes from many sources–quite often Fox—yours seems to come directly from Trump.
@kitt:
I see Wheeler has returned to his M.O. of not answering questions.
I don’t find that surprising since he never really has any answers.
@Richard Wheeler:
So what or are the Democrats, who want illegals to be able to vote, now going to run on a platform of letting the Brits run, as well? It’s beginning to look like the Dems think they can’t win a presidential election unless they steal it.
@Deplorable Me, #122:
And? Obviously the 4th Amendment has never before been viewed as an issue with respect to the law Trump is breaking, and that law has been around since 1924. It obviously wasn’t viewed that way by its authors, by the House, by the Senate, nor by the president who signed the legislation into law.
Where was your concern about the 4th Amendment when republicans were demanding that all of Clinton’s emails be handed over so the GOP could decide what was personal or not?
Is somebody trying to illegally search Trump’s person, houses, papers, and effects, as described in the 4th Amendment protection? NO. In the case of the law Trump is violating, a specifically authorized congressional committee has requested information that is already in the possession of a specifically named department of the United States government that is required by a specific law to provide them. The records belong to the government. Neither Trump nor any other taxpayer has a right to demand such documents be returned to them. They’re government tax forms and schedules.
As for documents in the possession of his accountants, banks, etc… If you’ve got a warrant or subpoena, that makes the search, seizure, or request entirely lawful. Nobody is going to argue that the 4th Amendment forbids any of this. What the 4th Amendment guarantees is lawful due process.
@retire05: Liberals are desperate to find someone… ANYONE that will reinforce their bigoted prejudices. Many overseas LOVED running roughshod over the naive idiot Obama and can only dream of giving the same pooter-poking to whatever liberal can actually unseat Trump. Because that ain’t happening while Trump is President.
@Greg:
Need a JUSTIFICATION to invade someone’s privacy. Like, for instance, Cummings being suspected of using the money his wife stole from charities and non-profits to catch up on his back child support and enrich himself. All you have with Trump is a demented obsession with avoiding another defeat to Trump by violating his civil rights.
Those weren’t her emails; they were STATE DEPARTMENT emails… MY emails. So, my respect for the 4th Amendment was intact.
Yes. “papers” would be his IRS returns. Personal records.
Well, looks like you lose again.
@Greg:
The classified government property that was under subpoena …those emails? The ones she let her lawyers choose when they did not have the clearance? those emails? The work emails that were government property? The emails she was to transfer to a government server and did not? But were transferred in real time to China? those emails
The emails that Barry used an alias to contact her? those emails? Copies that were found on a pervs non secure laptop? just making sure, those emails?
@Richard Wheeler:
Here is Mueller’s statement. Point out where Mueller “set him straight” on obstruction. I want to see the words, “Bill Barr misrepresented my take on obstruction.” Anything less and you are once again stating your opinion as fact.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/29/mueller-read-his-comments-russia-trump-lack-charges/1270761001/
In fact, after Mueller’s presser, a joint statement was put out by his office claiming there was NO conflict on obstruction thus contradicting your assertion.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mueller-and-barr-blast-misinterpretations-no-conflict-on-obstruction
On the other thread where stated you agreed with Mueller on Trump obstructing justice, I challenged you provide evidence he said Trump obstructed justice and you failed to do so. Here we are again. Prove your comment or you lied just like before and just like when you told us Nathan Phillips was a VN Vet.
@Deplorable Me:Really? Back away from the big whoppers Mr. President—your tough guy image might be more believable.
AV Get real—You know damn well Mueller didn’t approve of Barr’s 4 page “synopsis” of his report or the conclusion he reached that no obstruction occurred.
Mueller said if he could definitively say no obstruction occurred–as Barr said–he would have done so.–did he not?
@Richard Wheeler: You see this is why he must testify, without this double speak pre written gobbledy gook written by Weissman, or Obamas fixer, his own words.
@Richard Wheeler:
And those “examples” of obstruction meet with Anderson requirements how?
@Richard Wheeler:
You know damn well he never said Trump obstructed. They reached “no conclusion”. We can add this to your lie that Nathan Phillips was a VN Vet etc., etc. Why don’t you lobby your party to impeach? I’m sure Maxine, Schiff, and Swalwell would love to hear from you. Time for you reactionaries and coupsters to put up or shut up.
@another vet: Im sure you read about what kind of witnesses Mueller protects with sealed indictments for over a year while, Obamas fixer steps up to be his attorney. Talk about desperate to make any Russian connection. Any testimony from that kind of slime with an indictment held over his head cant be taken seriously. It is certainly classic Mueller and Weissman behavior.
@Deplorable Me, #141:
No search or seizure is involved. The tax returns filed with the IRS are government records and already in the government’s custody. One part of the government—the IRS—is specifically required by law to provide those records for examination to another—the House Ways and Means Committee—based upon nothing more than their request. There is absolutely NO requirement that justification be provided. That is deliberate. Oversight involves monitoring. Knowing that such an examination can happen at any time is intended as a deterrent, and as a protection. There’s entirely too much power vested in the Office of the President and other high Executive Branch offices to trust without the power to verify. That realization is what led to the 1924 law.
Trump is breaking that law. In so doing, he’s failing in the matter of Faithful Execution in a very assertive way. This is a very serious thing to do, so there’s probably a very serious reason that he’s doing it. Were his reason trivial, his assertive disregard for the law and the power and authority of a co-equal branch of government would still be very serious. It’s how you break a constitutional government and the rule of law.
Congress as a whole has a moral and legal duty to challenge such behavior. It’s not just the business of the Democratic Party.
@Richard Wheeler:
Barr’s summary said Mueller neither charged or cleared Trump of obstruction (meaning there was no obstruction). So, tell me where Barr misrepresented Mueller’s findings? Or, is that simply too tough… again.
@another vet:
Now even bass-mouth Maxine is backing off of impeachment, demanding Trump resign instead. Democrats are such pathetic creatures.
Schiff needs to fork over all that “evidence” he pledged he had. Shocking that our liberals here don’t demand that. Why, it’s as if they knew he was lying all along and are not shocked at all that there never WAS any such “evidence”. It’s like they LIKE being lied to.
@Greg:
If they are not turned over voluntarily, how do you believe they get them? It is illegal for the IRS to divulge such private information, and for a reason. That reason is the 4th Amendment.
You can’t provide me with the other Presidents that this has been used against, for “oversight”, can you? Because it NEVER HAS. It is totally improper and illegal and it has never been used in such a situation. Only here. Only now. Only against Trump, because pathetic Democrats are so pathetically desperate for power. Well, it ain’t happening and once it goes to the Supreme Court and gets tossed, you’ll need another strategy. Better be working on that now.