Trump's Russian Collusion

[dislaxxic]

Your quoted text from Rule 6 says "may disclose" GJ testimony...

How is this quote from you relevant to the release of he Mueller Report again?

..

[jhu72]

Still have seen nothing in Barr's behavior or testimony that leads me to any conclusion other than he is a lying POS scum bag mob consigliere. Delay and obstruct as long as he can is the game plan. He will be successful in delaying but will ultimately lose to the house democrats. Law and precedent is on the house democrats' side.

Love the fact that he is taking all this time color coding the redacted report. It will be really pretty I am sure. Maybe the Treasury Dept. can color code Agent Orange's tax returns.

[youthathletics]

Your quoted text from Rule 6 says "may disclose" GJ testimony...

How is this quote from you relevant to the release of he Mueller Report again?

..

There are many qualifiers for doing so...maybe you and JHU72 should argue your Rule 6 issues with your gov't attorneys. I would suppose legal understanding is required, for that I will defer to those in position. But just chuckling emojis and parsing 2 words of a sentence do not make it accurate.

[jhu72]

Rule 6 in the past has not stood in the way of house committees getting access to grand jury testimony. Look it up. It's a delaying tactic.

[youthathletics]

In more related news....from the NYT found via Twitter via Twitter.

William Barr Testimony Updates: ‘Spying Did Occur’ on Trump Campaign

• Attorney General William P. Barr, appearing before Congress for a second straight day on Wednesday, said the government spied on the Trump campaign and said he would look into whether any rules were violated.

[jhu72]

In more related news....from the NYT found via Twitter via Twitter.

William Barr Testimony Updates: ‘Spying Did Occur’ on Trump Campaign

• Attorney General William P. Barr, appearing before Congress for a second straight day on Wednesday, said the government spied on the Trump campaign and said he would look into whether any rules were violated.

Saw it in real time. Theatrical distraction. Of course its what Agent Orange wants.

[old salt]

Rule 6 in the past has not stood in the way of house committees getting access to grand jury testimony. Look it up. It's a delaying tactic.

Re. precedent -- this is governed by a Special Counsel law that is different from the Special Prosecutor law it replaced.

There's also a recent DC District Court decision which could come into play.

Barr's on solid ground.

[jhu72]

Rule 6 in the past has not stood in the way of house committees getting access to grand jury testimony. Look it up. It's a delaying tactic.

Re. precedent -- this is governed by a Special Counsel law that is different from the Special Prosecutor law it replaced.

There's also a recent DC District Court decision which could come into play.

Barr's on solid ground.

The recent district court decision argues for the House of Representatives. The two Special x cases both resulted in the House getting the information. I recognize those laws are not applicable today, but there are only two cases (ever) no matter the law. If this goes to the Supremes I know which way I am betting Roberts will vote. He is not going to vote given those precedents to ignore them making the court look more partisan.

None of this even considers the situation if the House declares they are opening an impeachment investigation.

Barr is not stupid, he is a scum bag, not acting on the behalf of the people of the US but rather his mob boss.

[MDlaxfan76]

Rule 6 in the past has not stood in the way of house committees getting access to grand jury testimony. Look it up. It's a delaying tactic.

Re. precedent -- this is governed by a Special Counsel law that is different from the Special Prosecutor law it replaced.

There's also a recent DC District Court decision which could come into play.

Barr's on solid ground.

I think it's fair to say that he has a legal basis for not disclosing grand jury testimony. Indeed, he definitely should not do so without approval from the court first.

But he does not have a basis for not pursuing, to his best effort, a request to the judge to allow information to be released.

I'm 'done' with Barr. He said point blank today that he would not make such a request to the court, despite his confirmation promises to provide as much transparency to the America public as possible. Nope, he's not going to even try.

I'd previously argued that we'd eventually be able to judge Barr by whether he would make such a request, and whether he'd provide classified material in a controlled environment, similarly information related to ongoing investigations. On the latter, don't trust those in Congress with clearances? Tough, Barr doesn't get that call.

He's failed that test on grand jury testimony. He appears to be failing the test on the rest as well.

Instead, he's playing politics with all of his answers, whether ACA, or immigration, or corruption at the highest level.
Delay, hide, obfuscate, shape the narrative.
And, above all, do as the boss wants. Protect the boss.
Threaten political 'enemies'.

Another building block of the authoritarian.

[old salt]

FTR -- before everyone gets spooled up about what Barr said re. "spying" -- he said : "Yes, I think spying did occur. ...The question was whether it was predicated. ...adequately predicated." He later backed off to "unauthorized surveillance."

He's leaving an open field for all concerned to explain their actions, ...which is all I ever hoped for.

[Chips O'Toole]

FTR -- before everyone gets spooled up about what Barr said re. "spying" -- he said : "Yes, I think spying did occur. ...The question was whether it was predicated. ...adequately predicated." He later backed off to "unauthorized surveillance."

Yeah, no need to get all spooled up about the AG using divisive political rhetoric to incite further mistrust about his own Justice Department, with, as he admits, no evidence whatsoever. That's just part of his job as the highest law enforcement official in the country. He's just protecting the Constitution, as his oath requires, right? Give him a mulligan, he backed off. You're ridiculous.

[jhu72]

Barr knew exactly what he was doing when he made the statement about spying. He was playing to his boss. His intent was to be controversial. He is a toady and a scum bag.

[a fan]

FTR -- before everyone gets spooled up about what Barr said re. "spying" -- he said : "Yes, I think spying did occur. ...The question was whether it was predicated. ...adequately predicated." He later backed off to "unauthorized surveillance."

So now he's accusing someone of working without a warrant? That's a pretty big bomb to drop, particularly when the details about this accusation are obviously going to get redacted in what he gives to the public.

Political nonsense that fans the tinfoil hat flames. Great. Just what we needed.

He's leaving an open field for all concerned to explain their actions, ...which is all I ever hoped for.

He did nothing of the sort, and you know it. He made a vague accusation with no details----no names, and no specific instances. That's intentional, and helps no one.

FoxNation got their tinfoil hat soundbyte. They're doing the EXACT same thing you've complained about for two years: make wild, vague accusations with zero supporting evidence. And, of course, you're thrilled.

Little D's and R's......

[cradleandshoot]

FTR -- before everyone gets spooled up about what Barr said re. "spying" -- he said : "Yes, I think spying did occur. ...The question was whether it was predicated. ...adequately predicated." He later backed off to "unauthorized surveillance."

So now he's accusing someone of working without a warrant? That's a pretty big bomb to drop, particularly when the details about this accusation are obviously going to get redacted in what he gives to the public.

Political nonsense that fans the tinfoil hat flames. Great. Just what we needed.

He's leaving an open field for all concerned to explain their actions, ...which is all I ever hoped for.

He did nothing of the sort, and you know it. He made a vague accusation with no details----no names, and no specific instances. That's intentional, and helps no one.

FoxNation got their tinfoil hat soundbyte. They're doing the EXACT same thing you've complained about for two years: make wild, vague accusations with zero supporting evidence. And, of course, you're thrilled.

Little D's and R's......

Wow a Fan... Fox is now doing the exact thing MSNBC has been doing for 2 years. Funny how you NEVER criticize the other network for their political bias. Those blinders you wear sure work really well. They only see things in one direction. To quote triple r... TAATS. Pick your poison but both networks are playing the same f***ing game. At least have the integrity to admit it. I understand your contempt for Fox. I do not understand why you give the other FLP networks a pass. The networks are sitting on the sidelines cheering for their team. From your constant whining about it, I guess Fox is better at the media propaganda war being raged in this country. To the victor goes the spoils. At this particular point in time the Fox people have outfoxed the FLP media. The other side needs to get up off the canvass and decide how they counterpunch... or they lose the fight by a TKO. Capich my friend.

[youthathletics]

Barr knew exactly what he was doing when he made the statement about spying. He was playing to his boss. His intent was to be controversial. He is a toady and a scum bag.

Why are you comfortable calling people names but not when DJT does it?

BTW you eat waffles for breakfast today?

[jhu72]

Barr knew exactly what he was doing when he made the statement about spying. He was playing to his boss. His intent was to be controversial. He is a toady and a scum bag.

Why are you comfortable calling people names but not when DJT does it?

BTW you eat waffles for breakfast today?

I am just getting with the new American program as espoused by fearless leader. He doesn't have a filter, why should I, or you or anyone? It's the new American way. MAGA Enjoy!

[get it to x]

Barr knew exactly what he was doing when he made the statement about spying. He was playing to his boss. His intent was to be controversial. He is a toady and a scum bag.

Why are you comfortable calling people names but not when DJT does it?

BTW you eat waffles for breakfast today?

I am just getting with the new American program as espoused by fearless leader. He doesn't have a filter, why should I, or you or anyone? It's the new American way. MAGA Enjoy!

Trump is a communications genius. He understands marketing and branding as well as any Madison Avenue exec. Sure, his audience was the "non-elite". That's why he didn't speak to them in wonky terms. He used a 7th grade vocabulary and spoke to their hopes and aspirations. Trouble for Dems this time is there are a lot of Black and Hispanic "non-elites" whose lives have been markedly improved under this President. He will figure out how to bring them over and likely win a few states he lost last time while keeping most, if not all, of his 2016 wins.

[cradleandshoot]

Barr knew exactly what he was doing when he made the statement about spying. He was playing to his boss. His intent was to be controversial. He is a toady and a scum bag.

Why are you comfortable calling people names but not when DJT does it?

BTW you eat waffles for breakfast today?

I am just getting with the new American program as espoused by fearless leader. He doesn't have a filter, why should I, or you or anyone? It's the new American way. MAGA Enjoy!

You make a very good point 72. FYI... never refer to RBG as Buzzi because MD lax will lose his freaking mind and go into his lecture about decency. If we are really lucky, MD lax will drop his hypocrisy shield and define for all of us how you define what a slur is. It lies somewhere between SCUMBAG and BUZZI... help us out here MD. Only the Charlie Brown wishy washy republican brain of your can give us the proper definition... In case you are confused... that was not a SLUR against you... it was sarcasm. Just a personal observation MD... why not become a Democrat?... they really, truly and honestly deserve you...

[a fan]

Wow a Fan... Fox is now doing the exact thing MSNBC has been doing for 2 years. Funny how you NEVER criticize the other network for their political bias. Those blinders you wear sure work really well. They only see things in one direction. To quote triple r... TAATS. Pick your poison but both networks are playing the same f***ing game. At least have the integrity to admit it. I understand your contempt for Fox. I do not understand why you give the other FLP networks a pass.

I don't. Do a forum search on Maddow and "a fan". I haves said multiple times that Maddow has gone totally off the deep end with Trump...and has been rewarded financially for doing so.

And as you know, I didn't believe there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russians because I didn't see evidence that affirmed that. All I'm doing here is calling balls and strikes.

I'm not criticizing Fox in this post. I'm criticizing Barr and Old Salt. Barr for making the same wild unsubstantiated charges that so offended Republicans over the past two years.....and Old Salt for not getting mad at Barr for making the same wild charges that Maddow et al leveled at Trump.

If it's not ok to do this, then we listened to two years of whining by American Republicans over nothing. Turns out that wild unsubstantiated charges are fine, if you're saying these things about people who were mean to Trump.

Pick a lane, is my point here.

At this particular point in time the Fox people have outfoxed the FLP media. The other side needs to get up off the canvass and decide how they counterpunch... or they lose the fight by a TKO. Capich my friend.

Doesn't matter which media company "wins". They're both winning, my friend....making more money than they ever have.

As for Trump voters? Get ready for a rough ride. They're acting like they "won" because of the Mueller report...that no one has read yet.

What did they win? Expired tax cuts? How are the Trump fans on the East Coast enjoying their inability to deduct SALT?

[Chips O'Toole]

And as you know, I didn't believe there was a conspiracy between Trump and Russians because I didn't see evidence that affirmed that.

Just curious -- you "didn't see evidence" affirming conspiracy. Does this mean you saw:

(a) No evidence whatsoever.
(b) Some evidence, but not enough even for probable cause.
(c) Substantial evidence, but less than enough for a "more likely than not" (51%) threshold.
(d) Enough to win a hypothetical civil case.
(e) Substantial evidence, all circumstantial and no smoking gun, so the glove don't fit you must acquit.
(f) (I know this isn't you, just completing the options) A mountain of circumstantial evidence, plenty to convict.

Also, A&B are incorrect.