Mueller report: Barr lied! There was was obstruction... and... surprise surprise...

So, it's a go?

 

Go for it, Sparky!

 

Curious how Nadler wanted to prevent all of the Starr report from being released, and now he wants even the grand jury material released in the Mueller report.

This is all one big partisan Democrat kabuki dance.

 

It sure does appear that way. There is absolutely no excuse for Nadler not viewing the 99% of the Muellers report that has been made available to him.

 

How do you know that considering that:

???????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

Yeah, so how did Barr NOT make Mueller's comments public when he released the report? And why can't you say what it was that was "contrary" to Barr's statement?

And exactly how do you know for a fact?

If Barr testified that Muller said something that Mueller didn't actually say, do you think that Mueller would stay silent? This really is so utterly pathetic of you! Talk about clutching at straws!

 

Because if they read it, it would be illegal to comment on it since it is classified. They would rather make assumptions, not know what they are talking about, and rail against Barr. Pretty obvious.

 

It is all about their attempt to discredit Barr at this point. They could have sought out a change in rule 6E, which they have made no attempt to do. The report is out there for all to see, and they know its not the smoking gun they promised the world.

 

Pretty clear to me. What is your question?

 

First question, I don't understand. Second... I already answered multiple times, including on the OP.

Because he lied.

He didn't.

 

RUSSIA RUSSIA … oh wait. nope

COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION... COLLUS... oh wait... nope..

MUELLER REPORT GONNA GET YA!!! JUST U WAIT... U... oh wait..

Okay,, BARR... CONTEMPT CONTEMPT…



Cuckoo Bird Dem Party

 

Don't you accept that Mueller's comments WERE made public when his report was released to the public?

So you are saying that in Barr's summary letter, he specifically referred to the OLC opinion as NOT having anything to do with Trump not being indicted?

So you are saying that in his summary letter, Barr didn't present Muller's positions below?

1. No conspiracy with Russia

2. Did not come to a conclusion on whether to indict for obstruction.

He didn't stay silent? Well I have to assume that you are talking about his letter to Barr,
but where in that letter does Mueller say that Barr misquoted him during testimony? Here, I'll even link you to it: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/01/letter.32719.pdf

 

You said that "Mueller didn't investigate any type of collusion." So then how can you know that "there was collusion. Not criminal collusion?"

Where in Barr's letter does he say ANYTHING about collusion?

 

How did the electoral system fail?

 

It isn't 99%, it doesn't include the grand jury material, and therefore the offer is unacceptable. If Barr wanted to release the grand jury material he could go to the grand jury. But, as he has from the beginning, he wants to protect Individual 1 and thus wants to keep as much of the report as possible from being seen by Congress. The House needs to see the whole report so they can make a fully informed determination on impeachment.

“Given the comprehensive factual findings presented by the special counsel’s report, some of which will only be fully understood with access to the redacted material, we cannot agree to the conditions you are placing on our access to the full report,” Pelosi, Schumer and other House and Senate Democratic committee chairs wrote in a letter to Barr on Friday.

 

Bwaaak!

Cover up!

 

That's not obstruction, that's someone involved in a conspiracy to hijack a plane.

 

Have any field a motion in a Federal Court to unseal the Grand Jury proceeding as the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require? If not, then it's all huff and puff and they aren't really interested

 

You apparently didn't actually read the Mueller Report...he and his team looked into ten publicly known events, and outlined the elements showing obstruction, but also showing why it wouldn't be obstruction...and thus said he could conclude there was a crime.

 

Of course not. That's why Mueller complained!

Where did Mueller say what?

 

Because it's in the report

I don't know. I don't know why you're so focused on the letter. The letter wasn't done under oath. His Congressional appearances were. But if you have questions about those starting with "where", please do your own "search"

 

And I would agree. However it was determined that it would be difficult to prove that Trump was involved in conspiracy to hijack our elections. But the role he played in obstructing the investigation is clear and will land him in jail.

 

Wrong! In some of those ten cases he outlined alternative explanations. And explained how they could be confirmed or discarded In four of them, all three elements: Act, Nexus and Intent, were unequivocal.

It is interesting, BTW, that in all those four cases, McGhan is one of the main witnesses.

 

Where he couldn’t determine a crime