Tsa ran like a when i asked him about the trump call to his master
lol
Tsa ran like a when i asked him about the trump call to his master
lol
“many of Barr’s actions are informed by his belief that the special counsel’s analysis related to obstruction was legally wrong and a dangerous precedent for the executive branch.”
https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts...mueller-report
vy65 spurraider21 thoughts when you have time
The Special Counsel’s Cons utional Analysis: The Clear Statement Rule
https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-...statement-rule
The Special Counsel’s Cons utional Analysis: Corrupt Intent and the Take Care Clause
https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-...ke-care-clause
The Special Counsel’s Cons utional Analysis: Chilling Effects
https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-...illing-effects
Now the story is "OK, Barr lied about the report but only because he didn't like it."
lol
why would an innocent person bury any evidence that exonerates him?
why is comrade tsa so invested in hiding all the evidence?
What evidence are you claiming is being buried? The public received a report with less than 9% redacted. A select group of congress has been offered the unredacted version and last I read not a single Dem went to the SCIF to view it. The Dems are throwing are doing nothing but throwing a tantrum right now because the report didn’t turn out how they hoped it would for 2 years.
no. in response to their request for the unredacted version to be made available to congress, the DOJ instead offered to allow certain members of congress to view a "less redacted" version. democrats argued that it would be insufficient and therefore refused to accept that as a solution. their choices were effectively to accept that solution and drop their demands for the full version to be released to congress, or to reject that half measure and carry on with their demand
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.f9783f91b714
pro tip: use google chrome's incognito mode instead of mentioning paywalls
It’s nothing more than a political tantrum
TSA ends up lying EVERY TIME.
so they werent offered the unredacted version
barr can simply request permission from the appropriate district court judge to release the grand jury information. he has stated that he will not make such request
Last edited by spurraider21; 05-06-2019 at 03:08 PM.
You and I both knew it was unredacted minus Grand Jury info I don’t need to type that each time when referring to what they were offered. The lengths some of you will go to try and score a point
Let me know when you have time to read the articles I linked in #361 concerning obstruction. Much more interested in your take on that than discussing the political stunts the Dems are trying to pull.
we dont know that. all i know from the descriptions i have read was that it was a "less redacted version"
When Barr released the public version of Mueller’s report earlier this month, he withheld four categories of material: classified information, material related to ongoing investigations, information that could damage the reputation of “peripheral third parties” and evidence collected by Mueller’s grand jury. Barr’s less-redacted report for the 12 lawmakers allowed them access to each category except grand jury material.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...dacted-1295105
ALL of the evidence
100 percent should be released - at least to congress
anything less is a cover up
now
answer my questions;
are you ok with trump calling putin and saying exactly what putin told him to say
that it was all a hoax - and that it was a mountain that ended up as a mouse?
are you ok that your president is on the side of the criminal who ordered an attack on our country?
or run like a little and repost your ty list of made up “tough” actions by the traitor
Over 400 prosecutors submitted a signed letter saying that trump committed at least several obstruction FELONIES
were it not for the OLC policy
Barr is following the laws as written. Should he not follow the law because the Dems are having tantrums?
Well it was all a hoax, what else is Trump supposed to say? There was no conspiracy with Trump’s campaign and Russia during the election.
does the mueller report say it was a hoax?
no
it says
russia attacked in a systematic fashion to help trump and expected something in return
trump and team were receptive and expected to benefit - and did
show me what page mueller concluded it was a hoax
or
tell me why it is ok for your president to side with the criminal who ordered it
but but but obama said otherwise during the run up to the presidency in 2016. your golden god was nothing more than a used car sales man.
lose your mind some more bonerchamp because we need some more humorous material to laugh at like your faux intellect and faux outrage.
yeah
his people said russia was interfering with vz
trump says “putin says he is not involved with vz”
why tsa?
just like your ty list
the govt says one thing
trump is ordered by putin to personally say the opposite
tell my why the white house personally had mcconnell kill the bill this past week to protect the 2020 elections?
you wont
You missed answering this question. I’m not going to continue to answer yours if you continue to do such.
Barr is following the laws as written. Should he not follow the law because the Dems are having tantrums?
For over two years the MSM reported that Trump and his campaign were illegally conspiring and coordinating with Russia.
Mueller’s report stated there wasn’t evidence found showing a single American illegally conspired or coordinated with Russia.
Trump is correct in calling it a hoax.
you are lying
show anyone where mueller says “ no evidence”
barr is legally able to request a judge to release grand jury info
he wont
congress will take months to be able to do likewise
but barr does not want “full transparency”
cover up
my bad, you're right
thanks for info
"Notably, Trump himself has said nothing this week about Russia’s role in Venezuela."
Your defense of Trump is that he's just a pussy when it comes to Putin. Who am I to argue?
This doesn't seem well thought out to me. Where's the specific statutory text and an explanation of how Mueller's inconsistent actions. Note that he's pussyfooting around here by a) using the word seems -- you either violate a statute or you don't, you can't be half-pregnant and b) acknowledges that Mueller "followed the regulations" but somehow made a referral beyond the statute's contemplation. He's talking out of both ends of his mouth.
If this is all try, what's the point in writing the letter in the first place? Why was that necessary - other than to get out the claim that Barr/Rosenstein decided not to prosecute? Again, more talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
Blatantly dishonest. The SC statute contemplates that congress - not Justice - has ultimate decision making on whether or not there is a crime. See, 28 CFR 600.9 (AG notifies chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action ...). Again, for being a lawyer, Fat Harvard prof sure is afraid to talk about what the terms of the actual law says.
More dishonesty. Why is he getting out in front of the report with a letter saying Justice won't prosecute? Why didn't he just release the executive summaries prepared by Mueller? For someone who wants the Congress and American people to be the judges, why is he crafting opinion/saying anything at all?
I'll also leave this here. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/u...-excerpts.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)