Barr Senate Hearing Live

Ha ha you don't know the difference between a trial and a senate hearing, that explains a lot. Good grief you make me laugh at least 10 times a day.

 

Sure.

I mean you can say whatever you want and believe whatever you want.

That you don't recognize how badly you are losing is something I don't really care about.

 

I have. Mueller found no collusion or conspiracy and nothing actionable on obstruction. What Barr outlines and the report says.

 

"Testifying" makes him a "witness", and he's full of ****. Probably from the copious amounts of food that he shovels into that lying mouth.

It's astonishing that Mueller took the step of memorializing his objections to the manner in which Porky Pig "summarized" the Mueller Report. That tells me that Mueller's testimony (yep--there's that word again) is going to be quite interesting.

 

Mueller said Barr did not misrepresent his conclusion in the summary.

 

I'm not at all surprised Mueller and his team memorialized their frustration with how the spin doctors in the media where mischaracterizing their conclusions. I can appreciate after discovering the Russians were behind a campaign to spread misinformation, that they wouldn't want the leftist propaganda machines doing their bidding.

 

This is my thoughts as well

 

(there's no reference to the media in the letter).

(Mueller still hasn't said Barr's summary was inaccurate or misleading, that letter concluded just two things; that Mueller didn't find collusion and didn't reach a conclusion on obstruction -that's what it says in the Report)

(should they subpoena Barr's notes on the call)?

(maybe written by one of those who complained about Barr's interpretations to "associates" who anonymously told reporters)?

So what's next?

[/quote]

 

Oh no! I'm "losing"! Face the truth, my frightened chum---Bonespurs continues to circle the wagons, the number of which keep diminishing.

As an aside, you really think that the way you post is provocative, don't you?

Newsflash: It's about as provocative as an angry old poodle growling at me from inside some crazy lady's bag.

 

Try this on for size... lets see if we can make 1 sentence we can agree on...

Mueller found no tacit agreements to make a conspiracy and nothing currently legally actionable on obstruction.

 

Part of the problem is that it's seen as slightly vague language(not in meaning no, but in practicality.) So it's up to the individual. Hence, these clowns could do so, if they want to. It'd just undermine every other impeachment proceeding in the future lol.

But for me, it's a clear case of the President(or said official) clearly engaging in proven criminal or unethical activities. To so clarify it for you(and the rest of your Democratic friends), a WP, NYT article, etc doesn't count. I want demonstrable, proven proof. However, we don't go searching for proof as Nadler/Pelosi have done(and thus undermined the AG. If not for Nadler/Pelosi, the summary doesn't exist and we all know it.)

In the ideal world, the proof of a crime is easily proven and witnessed. You know, like any other crime in any other case.

 

^^^ First legit laugh I've had all day....

 

For purposes of impeachment, they are whatever congress alleges they are. That's how we know this is all just theatre. The House could vote to impeach today, but (D)'s need the free publicity. And most of the free publicity they're getting for their delusional platform, is publicity they could live without. ::

 

Yeah the walls are closing in yadda yadda.

As I said, you can believe whatever you want.

 

Correct, he found Trump and his campaign committed no crimes. We knew that awhile ago when Barr sent his summary to Congress

 

This is a nice middle ground that we can both accept, sure. But because this case has been tried in the public(in violation of our norms and standards ironically), I sincerely doubt Trump will be tried. Because a mistrial is always gonna be in Trump's backpocket. If the DOJ wanted to prosecute this, it should wait for a few years.

 

What are you babbling about with this "witnesses notes" You don't even know what Blumenthal was referring to. He wanted the notes taken (by a DOJ staff member) when Barr was on the phone with Mueller discussing Mueller's letter. Nothing more, nothing less. Blumenthal demanded to see the recorded transcript. Barr said no, why?,you don't need them.

You really should pay more attention to details.

 

If your goal is impeachment ya your losing.........

“Fifty-three percent of U.S. adults in the poll, which was conducted as Attorney General William Barr's prepared to testify before the House and Senate about Mueller's investigation, said the report should not lead to impeachment hearings against Trump. Thirty-nine percent said Congress should begin impeachment hearings, and 8 percent were unsure.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pb...ngs-after-mueller-report-but-questions-remain

 

Wasn't talking to you... I'm convinced there is not a single sentence in the English language you and I could agree on...

 

I just agreed with your prior sentence...so, apparently, like usual, you are wrong

 

Trump show "leadership"?

You would have a better chance of Bibi Netanyahu hosting an Omar Fundraiser.

Just saying.

 

No ... he ain't a witness. He gave a sworn statement about his own actions.

 

Well, to try and compare criminal to criminal, attached is the 9 specific counts of OOJ against Nixon..

http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

I think it would cause you ZERO amount of perspiration to make the claims that Trump is guilty of items 2, 4, 8 and 9 from this list... with a coin toss on 3....

 

I heard Bibi had a video of Omar driving a car while sitting in the passenger side of the van, all while filming herself....

She's a rare talent

 

Those were only brought up after attorneys recommended criminal charges....not the case here...so not even close