Barr is Schooling Dem Senators on the Law

[RiverDog]

I see no reason why they can't make an offer similar to the one that Barr made on the less redacted version where they invited 5 Dems and 5 R's.

The "reason" would be the same one that applies to all classified information. You don't just divulge CI to people who don't need it and have no right to it just because they don't trust a Special Investigator to have done his job.

Who says Congress doesn't need the information? Congress is charged with oversight of the Executive Branch. How can they not do their job if they don't have access to all relevant information in an investigation of the Administration?

It's not the special investigator that isn't trustworthy, it's the AG. Had Trump not removed Sessions after constantly whining for a year about his recusing himself from the investigation and replaced him with a man that has been openly critical of the investigation it might not be as big of an issue, at least not with me.

[burrrton]

It's not the special investigator that isn't trustworthy, it's the AG.

No, it's the SI- he prepared the report, he was in on the redacting, he brought the indictments where they were warranted.

But either way, that doesn't change the rules on classified information.

[RiverDog]

This is a circular argument. I give up.

[burrrton]

This is a circular argument. I give up.

It's not a circular argument at all- you just think they should divulge classified information to people who don't need it and have no right to see it and I'm telling you that never happens, and likely won't happen absent magnanimous action from Mueller because:

1. It's probably *can't*.

2. It's pointless.

[idhawkman]

Who says Congress doesn't need the information? Congress is charged with oversight of the Executive Branch. How can they not do their job if they don't have access to all relevant information in an investigation of the Administration?

Maybe, if the Dems could articulate exactly what they are "Investigating" they would be able to get the information they need. Instead, the Dems are fishing which is a whole different thing than investigating. Fishing - no predicate. INvestigating - a Defined predicate.

[/quote]It's not the special investigator that isn't trustworthy, it's the AG. Had Trump not removed Sessions after constantly whining for a year about his recusing himself from the investigation and replaced him with a man that has been openly critical of the investigation it might not be as big of an issue, at least not with me.[/quote]
So in other words, you are upset that the President picked his own AG? I'm pretty sure every president in history has done this so I'm not sure exactly what it is you don't like about it. At least Barr uses the law unlike Holder who just said, "I'm his wingman."

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not going to argue this trash any more. I'm on a cut and my mood is on the edge. I'll summarize as I see it:

1. The 2 year investigation is complete. I see nothing that will cause the Senate to remove Trump. Thus further investigations and impeachment is pointless. If this is the Dems strategy for beating Trump, it will be about as effective as the Republican strategy for impeaching Clinton.

2. Dems did not flip the Senate. Dems will not be able to flip the Senate before 2020. Dems in fact lost power in the Senate last election. They may even lose the House again if they continue along the lines they are right now. I think this endless investigation strategy is interesting only to those like Hawktawk and I guess Riverdog who despise Trump. It's not interesting to Americans who know all these politicians are liars and would likely find similar crap were they investigated as deeply as Trump, especially scumbags like the Clintons.

3. I'm not sure how you sell obstruction when the investigation was completed, all witnesses interviewed, people charged, and the circus ran. This is about as one Dem put it finding more information for the liberal media to use against Trump. In essence a fishing expedition for media grist to use against Trump.

3. At this point I'm not even sure they'll find financial issues with Trump. He pays accountants and lawyers a lot of money to do his taxes and like many business owners, isn't even in the room when it's all done. He probably gets some summation from his lead accountant when everything is done. At best they'll get his tax returns, find some detail of his dealings with foreign countries, and spin it into something nefarious that only those who already hate him will care about. Just another rabbit hole waste of time.

4. If the Dems can't find a real issue of importance to attack Trump on and a candidate to push that issue in direct debate and competition with Trump, not sure how they beat him. Right now they look weak and impotent, more interested in endless investigations than any kind of issue that might win them the election. Trump's going to sell the witch hunt narrative to his followers with the Dems helping him sell it.

It's about 18 months until 2020 election time. 18 more months of wasting time on investigations that lead to nothing that we don't already know: Trump's a lying, womanizing, super rich businessman who makes money all over the world. He's already been publically tried for those "crimes" and survived. Dems have already shown they need some other ways to beat him than this "Hate the Rich Jerk" campaign they're pushing.

That's how I see it. These investigations are a giant waste of time. I see no reason to change my prediction. This would have mattered had the Democrats won the Senate, but they didn't. Contrary to the liberal media narrative, Trump isn't some Mafia Don personally directing his accountants and lawyers to commit crimes. He's just some narcissistic rich businessman who pays tons of professionals to do his taxes, run his businesses, and the like. If they best they got is Trump paying off some women and asking people to get control of a questionable investigation, they don't have near enough to take him down absent Senate support.

I'll leave it to the Trump haters and supporters to argue among themselves. I'll wander off and try not to lose my fricking mind over the next 2 to 6 years given the brazen hypocrisy, lying, and general scumbaggery of current American politics. The absolute worst I've ever seen it.

[Aseahawkfan]

So in other words, you are upset that the President picked his own AG? I'm pretty sure every president in history has done this so I'm not sure exactly what it is you don't like about it. At least Barr uses the law unlike Holder who just said, "I'm his wingman."

I'm wondering who Riverdog finds trustworthy in DC. Which one of these politicians seems particularly trustworthy. I can't name one. Maybe Largent when he was in office. He didn't last long.

Just more hypocrisy. When the Clintons have a bulldog like Reno managing their investigation, it's all good with the Dems, even when Bill directly lies on the witness stand supported by his lying wife. But Trump gets a bulldog attorney general and suddenly there are questions. I stated a while back that Trump needed a Reno-type attorney general to handle Congress like Clinton had. He got one. Smart move. You get in a political dog right in D.C., you need a pitbull to fight for you, not someone like Sessions.

Riverdog let himself get caught up in this BS game for some reason.

[burrrton]

Sorry, RD- I missed this:

Who says Congress doesn't need the information?

The law.

[idhawkman]

I'm wondering who Riverdog finds trustworthy in DC. Which one of these politicians seems particularly trustworthy. I can't name one. Maybe Largent when he was in office. He didn't last long.

Just more hypocrisy. When the Clintons have a bulldog like Reno managing their investigation, it's all good with the Dems, even when Bill directly lies on the witness stand supported by his lying wife. But Trump gets a bulldog attorney general and suddenly there are questions. I stated a while back that Trump needed a Reno-type attorney general to handle Congress like Clinton had. He got one. Smart move. You get in a political dog right in D.C., you need a pitbull to fight for you, not someone like Sessions.

Riverdog let himself get caught up in this BS game for some reason.

Just remember a couple things as you fade into the background.

1. The dems are about to get shaken to their core with Barr uncovering all the corruption and tyranny the dems have allowed to fester in the permanent bureaucracy in D.C. under Obama and Clinton (Hilliary as SoS). Biden and their hopes of recapturing the presidency will suffer from the revelations that are coming out in the next 12-18 months because of this.

2. To try and stop this, they are going to go even further off the rails with TDS and BDS to try and impeach either of them. At minimum they have to destroy a very good attorney and AG in order to try and discredit the corruption and tyranny that he is going to uncover.

Just keep that in mind when you see the dems coming after Trump or Barr and that the real reason is they are doing a CYA move.

[burrrton]

RD, you may get your wish:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... e-democrat

[idhawkman]

RD, you may get your wish:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... e-democrat

I think it's wishful thinking by Mueller's representative. Mueller isn't going to want to answer two basic questions by Republicans.
1. When did you know there was no collusion and why did you wait over a year to tell the American people that there was no collusion?

2. Did AG Barr lie about your report or redact anything that should not have been redacted?

[burrrton]

Yeah, I don't know if it's likely or not- the article reads much, much differently than the headline, more like a rumor.

[idhawkman]

Yeah, I don't know if it's likely or not- the article reads much, much differently than the headline, more like a rumor.

They are now reporting that it was just that Democrat RI congressman wishing he shows. Mueller hasn't agreed and most likely won't agree to cross examination by republicans. This would only end badly for the dems if he did appear.

1. Why didn't you bring charges against the president for obstruction?

2. Why did you smear a person that you did not charge?

3. Why did you say you could not exhonerate the president when in the United States innocence is presumed and investigations are not used to determine innocence.

4. Why would you be upset with the AG's assessment of your report when you left it up to him to make the decision?

5. Why didn't you investigate the Clinton campaign when searching for Russian collusion in our election (Now that we know it happened on the Dems side).

There's too many questions he doesn't want to answer. He'd be much better off just slipping back into retirement and saving what little is left of his once good name.

[burrrton]

FYI, reading law Twitter it looks like I was *probably* right about the "probably can't" part about Barr releasing a fully unredacted report.

It sounds like there are some cases going back to Nixon that might complicate it a little, generally speaking, Barr is forbidden from releasing Grand Jury information period full stop, especially when the House Judiciary committee is so obviously acting in bad faith.

[idhawkman]

FYI, reading law Twitter it looks like I was *probably* right about the "probably can't" part about Barr releasing a fully unredacted report.

It sounds like there are some cases going back to Nixon that might complicate it a little, generally speaking, Barr is forbidden from releasing Grand Jury information period full stop, especially when the House Judiciary committee is so obviously acting in bad faith.

I find it funny the house voted today to hold Barr in contempt because he refuses to break the law and release an unredacted version of the report. A court could order him to release the full report but only in the scenario that there is a judicial proceeding needing it. So if the Dems don't charge "impeachment" and start those proceedings, they won't get the judge to order the full report released. Still a nothing burger for the dems who have absolutely gone off the rails.

[burrrton]

Presented without comment:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/ ... democrats/

[idhawkman]

From Burrton's article link:

As of this writing, not one of the six Democrats granted access to what amounts to 99.9 percent of volume II of the Mueller report, which details the president’s behavior as it relates to obstruction of justice, have taken the opportunity to examine it. If they had, they could have viewed the entirety of Mueller’s obstruction case against Trump except for the following seven redactions, two of which are applied to footnotes.

There's only one reason they want it released to all congressmen and that is because if something leaks out it is easier to hide amonth 535 members than it is 6 members. Investigating the 6 would be easy, quick and lead to a criminal indictment.

As River pointed out in other threads, this means there is only 1 word out of every 1,000 words that is hidden. I think that should be good enough for them to understand what happened and draw their conclusions from.

[Hawktawk]

Barr should resign for having written a false 4 page political document and then giving a false totally political speech using Trumps own talking points speech ahead of the actual release of the redacted document after sitting on it for 3 weeks to let the fake 4 page document have its intended effect on public perception. The guy is a total partisan hack.Oh well 401 K is good so who gives a damn right?

[burrrton]

The guy is a total partisan hack.

"I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy." -Eric Holder

[I-5]

"I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy." -Eric Holder

Does that necessarily imply that he'll cirumvent the law on behalf of the president, or that he'll stick around as long as the president wants him to? I know what a wingman is, and it's not a negative term unless you do something bad.

[idhawkman]

Does that necessarily imply that he'll cirumvent the law on behalf of the president, or that he'll stick around as long as the president wants him to? I know what a wingman is, and it's not a negative term unless you do something bad.

It doesn't necessarily mean it but its what he did in the Fast and Furious case, the IRS case, Benghazi, and so many other scandals.

[I-5]

So those cases were proven with evidence and people convicted, right?

[Hawktawk]

"I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy." -Eric Holder

No disagreement here. I detested Holder and his boss. Hindsight is 20-20 though. Holder obstructed the investigation into fast and furious, Barr is obstructing the investigation into cooperation with our greatest geopolitical foe and clear obstruction of justice by our president. Not to mention Obama was funny, could laugh at himself at the press correspondents dinner and talked into the teleprompter without sounding like a retarded 5th grader. Oh and he had the respect for the office to serve our national and world champions a black tie feast, not fast food. I disagreed with most of his politics but Id take him back right now, Carter, anyone......

[burrrton]

Does that necessarily imply that he'll cirumvent the law on behalf of the president, or that he'll stick around as long as the president wants him to? I know what a wingman is, and it's not a negative term unless you do something bad.

He explicitly states he's there to protect the President and you twist yourself to avoid admitting that? C'mon.

So those cases were proven with evidence and people convicted, right?

Just as many as were convicted of collusion here.

[burrrton]

Barr is obstructing the investigation into cooperation with our greatest geopolitical foe and clear obstruction of justice by our president.

He just released an almost *completely* unredacted report. Time to charge someone or STFU- there's no room for any more excuses.

[idhawkman]

So those cases were proven with evidence and people convicted, right?

Just this week the files sought by congress in 2012 were released so the obstruction was effective in running out statutes of limitations only if anything. You may or may not see the result still to bome.

[idhawkman]

No disagreement here. I detested Holder and his boss. Hindsight is 20-20 though. Holder obstructed the investigation into fast and furious, Barr is obstructing the investigation into cooperation with our greatest geopolitical foe and clear obstruction of justice by our president. Not to mention Obama was funny, could laugh at himself at the press correspondents dinner and talked into the teleprompter without sounding like a retarded 5th grader. Oh and he had the respect for the office to serve our national and world champions a black tie feast, not fast food. I disagreed with most of his politics but Id take him back right now, Carter, anyone......

Well at least I know what attributes you look for in a president. No wonder we have screwed up trade deals, crazy global climate agreements designed to gut the US economy, ISIS, Iran on a path to nuclear weapons, a more and more beligerant N. Korea, being ripped off by NATO, Russia hacking our elections (YES, THAT WAS ON OBAMA), IRS scandals, dead ambassadors, Rouge Secretary of States, etc, etc, etc. I'm glad he had time for basketball, golf and black tie dinners with athletes but I'd rather he spent his time doing his job!

[idhawkman]

He just released an almost *completely* unredacted report. Time to charge someone or STFU- there's no room for any more excuses.

Just to expand on this, he did that a while ago and even put it in the Senate so they didn't have to go to DOJ, but lo and behold, not one democrat has gone to look at it. Amazing isn't it.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

No disagreement here. I detested Holder and his boss. Hindsight is 20-20 though. Holder obstructed the investigation into fast and furious, Barr is obstructing the investigation into cooperation with our greatest geopolitical foe and clear obstruction of justice by our president. Not to mention Obama was funny, could laugh at himself at the press correspondents dinner and talked into the teleprompter without sounding like a retarded 5th grader. Oh and he had the respect for the office to serve our national and world champions a black tie feast, not fast food. I disagreed with most of his politics but Id take him back right now, Carter, anyone......

Well at least I know what attributes you look for in a president. No wonder we have screwed up trade deals, crazy global climate agreements designed to gut the US economy, ISIS, Iran on a path to nuclear weapons, a more and more beligerant N. Korea, being ripped off by NATO, Russia hacking our elections (YES, THAT WAS ON OBAMA), IRS scandals, dead ambassadors, Rouge Secretary of States, etc, etc, etc. I'm glad he had time for basketball, golf and black tie dinners with athletes but I'd rather he spent his time doing his job!

I do agree with this. I would like the President of The United States of America to present himself well and not be abrasive and combative, but I don't require it. Much more concerned with what is getting done than how the person looks or acts in front of the cameras. Now, if he's an ass and not getting anything done, then that's a problem.

[idhawkman]

I don't think enough consideration is taken into account about whether Trump would have to act this way if the left wasn't so devisive and would actually want to work together to solve a problem. I also think that the world had gotten used to the US being slapped around like we were. Remember the first UN meeting where the PM of like Copenhagen or some small place purposely walked in front of Trump and Trump quickly put him in his place. I think they were testing if they could get away with stuff and all of the rest of the leaders took notice when Trump wasn't having any of it.

As the saying goes, "WE'RE BACK BABY!"