BARR

[tech37]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... -the-case/

"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/

"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."

Ah, so now Barr's the good guy for letting us see the redacted report...

"cleared the President of the vacant collusion allegation"...really? He's "cleared" of "collusion"?
Mueller flat said that "collusion" was not the bar. He provides tremendous amounts of evidence of "collusion"...but not to the level of being able to prove criminal conspiracy. Huge difference. Bottom line, most voters (beyond the sad "resistance") don't/won't wallow in the subjectively tedious bubble you wallow in and will accept the rational interpretation of "no collusion"...period.

The stupidity being peddled by the Trumpists is really disgraceful. Right, the opinions from McCarthy I posted are disgraceful. Keep on resisting mdlax!

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... -the-case/

"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/

"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."

Ah, so now Barr's the good guy for letting us see the redacted report...

"cleared the President of the vacant collusion allegation"...really? He's "cleared" of "collusion"?
Mueller flat said that "collusion" was not the bar. He provides tremendous amounts of evidence of "collusion"...but not to the level of being able to prove criminal conspiracy. Huge difference. Bottom line, most voters (beyond the sad "resistance") don't/won't wallow in the subjectively tedious bubble you wallow in and will accept the rational interpretation of "no collusion"...period.

The stupidity being peddled by the Trumpists is really disgraceful. Right, the opinions from McCarthy I posted are disgraceful. Keep on resisting mdlax!

Andrew McCarthy? sheesh, yes disgraceful.
I don't think he's a stupid guy, so that means he knows he's grossly misrepresenting.
So...disgraceful...but that's what the Trumpists want.

Yes, as I said on another thread 35% of American is locked in as Trumpist.
They actually want an authoritarian liar as POTUS...as long as he tells them he's 'protecting' them from the Other.
They want the lies, they want the 'strong man'.

But 35% isn't "most voters".

I'd also written that there's another 10% of potential support for Trump that may be persuadable either way.
3 days after Mueller report, Trump's approval has dropped to 37%.
"Most voters" see Trump for the liar he is.

[6ftstick]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... -the-case/

"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/

"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."

Ah, so now Barr's the good guy for letting us see the redacted report...

"cleared the President of the vacant collusion allegation"...really? He's "cleared" of "collusion"?
Mueller flat said that "collusion" was not the bar. He provides tremendous amounts of evidence of "collusion"...but not to the level of being able to prove criminal conspiracy. Huge difference. Bottom line, most voters (beyond the sad "resistance") don't/won't wallow in the subjectively tedious bubble you wallow in and will accept the rational interpretation of "no collusion"...period.

The stupidity being peddled by the Trumpists is really disgraceful. Right, the opinions from McCarthy I posted are disgraceful. Keep on resisting mdlax!

Andrew McCarthy? sheesh, yes disgraceful.
I don't think he's a stupid guy, so that means he knows he's grossly misrepresenting.
So...disgraceful...but that's what the Trumpists want.

Yes, as I said on another thread 35% of American is locked in as Trumpist.
They actually want an authoritarian liar as POTUS...as long as he tells them he's 'protecting' them from the Other.
They want the lies, they want the 'strong man'.

But 35% isn't "most voters".

I'd also written that there's another 10% of potential support for Trump that may be persuadable either way.
3 days after Mueller report, Trump's approval has dropped to 37%.
"Most voters" see Trump for the liar he is.

You guys will Sh*t on anybodys career who thinks outside the liberal box.

Its amazing. He was the premier prosecutor in the District your all hoping will convict Trump on any nebulous crime sent over by Mueller.

Barr McCarthy Better get ready to trash the Justice department IC.

Most people see all the private conversations Trump never thought would see the light of day that Mueller has now spread to everyone.

Contrary to Justice department ethics and practices.

Could you stand every conversation you had to be publicized.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... -the-case/

"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/

"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."

Ah, so now Barr's the good guy for letting us see the redacted report...

"cleared the President of the vacant collusion allegation"...really? He's "cleared" of "collusion"?
Mueller flat said that "collusion" was not the bar. He provides tremendous amounts of evidence of "collusion"...but not to the level of being able to prove criminal conspiracy. Huge difference. Bottom line, most voters (beyond the sad "resistance") don't/won't wallow in the subjectively tedious bubble you wallow in and will accept the rational interpretation of "no collusion"...period.

The stupidity being peddled by the Trumpists is really disgraceful. Right, the opinions from McCarthy I posted are disgraceful. Keep on resisting mdlax!

Andrew McCarthy? sheesh, yes disgraceful.
I don't think he's a stupid guy, so that means he knows he's grossly misrepresenting.
So...disgraceful...but that's what the Trumpists want.

Yes, as I said on another thread 35% of American is locked in as Trumpist.
They actually want an authoritarian liar as POTUS...as long as he tells them he's 'protecting' them from the Other.
They want the lies, they want the 'strong man'.

But 35% isn't "most voters".

I'd also written that there's another 10% of potential support for Trump that may be persuadable either way.
3 days after Mueller report, Trump's approval has dropped to 37%.
"Most voters" see Trump for the liar he is.

You guys will Sh*t on anybodys career who thinks outside the liberal box.

Its amazing. He was the premier prosecutor in the District your all hoping will convict Trump on any nebulous crime sent over by Mueller.

Barr McCarthy Better get ready to trash the Justice department IC.

Most people see all the private conversations Trump never thought would see the light of day that Mueller has now spread to everyone.

Contrary to Justice department ethics and practices.

Could you stand every conversation you had to be publicized.

Yup, Nixon never thought his tapes would become public.

See, here's the thing, he's President of the United States.
"Privately" telling people to lie or telling people to fire people or any other breach of trust or abuse of power... is not going to stay "private" forever.

On McCarthy, it was a very long time ago that he was a prosecutor (2003). Same for Giuliani.

At some point, they decided to make a living a different way.

I find McCarthy's credibility to be limited to when he discusses the battle against terror networks during the 90's and early 2000's. He was there and is credible on what they were doing during his tenure.

I can't get fully inside his head, but it seems like his experience led him to equate the terrorists he was fighting with the religion of Islam as a whole, kinda like fighting La Cost Nostra and that becoming hatred of Italians.

That Islamaphobia appears to have led to being all in hard right wing advocate and apologist. But that's just arm chair psychology.

What I do know is that he became a false conspiracy monger and has a consistent pattern of misrepresenting others.

This is a quite good example of the latter.

[tech37]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... -the-case/

"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/

"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."

Ah, so now Barr's the good guy for letting us see the redacted report...

"cleared the President of the vacant collusion allegation"...really? He's "cleared" of "collusion"?
Mueller flat said that "collusion" was not the bar. He provides tremendous amounts of evidence of "collusion"...but not to the level of being able to prove criminal conspiracy. Huge difference. Bottom line, most voters (beyond the sad "resistance") don't/won't wallow in the subjectively tedious bubble you wallow in and will accept the rational interpretation of "no collusion"...period.

The stupidity being peddled by the Trumpists is really disgraceful. Right, the opinions from McCarthy I posted are disgraceful. Keep on resisting mdlax!

Andrew McCarthy? sheesh, yes disgraceful.
I don't think he's a stupid guy, so that means he knows he's grossly misrepresenting.
So...disgraceful...but that's what the Trumpists want.

Yes, as I said on another thread 35% of American is locked in as Trumpist.
They actually want an authoritarian liar as POTUS...as long as he tells them he's 'protecting' them from the Other.
They want the lies, they want the 'strong man'. You're so wrong it's hilarious...I'm not referring to Trump's base (that's just sooo obvious, why mention?), but many moderates/centrists who are exhausted by the progressive resistance and Ds insistent scheme to nullify Trump's presidency. Go ahead and impeach Trump...that'll be the ticket. Talk about "stupidity."

But 35% isn't "most voters".

I'd also written that there's another 10% of potential support for Trump that may be persuadable either way.
3 days after Mueller report, Trump's approval has dropped to 37%.
"Most voters" see Trump for the liar he is.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... -the-case/

"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/

"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."

Ah, so now Barr's the good guy for letting us see the redacted report...

"cleared the President of the vacant collusion allegation"...really? He's "cleared" of "collusion"?
Mueller flat said that "collusion" was not the bar. He provides tremendous amounts of evidence of "collusion"...but not to the level of being able to prove criminal conspiracy. Huge difference. Bottom line, most voters (beyond the sad "resistance") don't/won't wallow in the subjectively tedious bubble you wallow in and will accept the rational interpretation of "no collusion"...period.

The stupidity being peddled by the Trumpists is really disgraceful. Right, the opinions from McCarthy I posted are disgraceful. Keep on resisting mdlax!

Andrew McCarthy? sheesh, yes disgraceful.
I don't think he's a stupid guy, so that means he knows he's grossly misrepresenting.
So...disgraceful...but that's what the Trumpists want.

Yes, as I said on another thread 35% of American is locked in as Trumpist.
They actually want an authoritarian liar as POTUS...as long as he tells them he's 'protecting' them from the Other.
They want the lies, they want the 'strong man'. You're so wrong it's hilarious...I'm not referring to Trump's base (that's just sooo obvious, why mention?), but many moderates/centrists who are exhausted by the progressive resistance and Ds insistent scheme to nullify Trump's presidency. Go ahead and impeach Trump...that'll be the ticket. Talk about "stupidity."

But 35% isn't "most voters".

I'd also written that there's another 10% of potential support for Trump that may be persuadable either way.
3 days after Mueller report, Trump's approval has dropped to 37%.
"Most voters" see Trump for the liar he is.

So, you're claiming to not be in the Trump 35% base???
You're in the next 10% I describe?
Trump voters (or anti-HRC voters) who may be persuadable either way?

Glad to hear it, but over the years of LP and FL I haven't detected any sense that you are a moderate/centrist or would even actually have a clue about what a moderate/centrist would think. At least that's the impression you've given.

On impeachment, there's no doubt in my mind, based on Mueller's report, that Trump deserves to be impeached for 'high crimes and misdemeanors". I'd vote yes to impeachment and yes to conviction.

But then again, I'm on the conservative side of "moderate/centrist", and am not dependent upon the Trump base for my reelection. I do understand how this vote would be hard for an R...but I'd take my lumps politically and vote yes.

From a political strategy perspective, though, I agree that an impeachment vote in the House, while amply justified, presents peril politically given that the GOP Senate appears to be quaking in their boots at incurring the wrath of the Trump base.

I tend to come down on the side of 'do your job, do your Constitutional duty' to do oversight and provide accountability, and let the political chips fall where they may.

My best guess is that, prior to deciding on whether to do impeachment, the Dems will do a bunch of hearings that illuminate the corruption in the White House. Not just related to Russia, but across the board.

Meanwhile, in addition to the 2 we know about, there are 14 other ongoing investigations that were handed off, presumably to SDNY and/or DC. Those will continue, unless Barr tries to squash all of that and is successful in doing so (which is unlikely and would undoubtedly become public).

Again just a hunch, but as Mueller doesn't delve into Trump's finances in his report, it's sure suggests that those matters got handed off to SDNY. That's always been Trump's greatest fear, that his financial activities would be found criminal.

Trump's down to 37% approval. I think the floor is 35%.
Until he loses in the election and gets indicted and convicted post presidency.
Even then, it won't go below about 20-25%.

But it wouldn't surprise me if the 35% floor maintains, no matter what.

[dislaxxic]

...but many moderates/centrists who are exhausted by the progressive resistance and Ds insistent scheme to nullify Trump's presidency. Go ahead and impeach Trump...that'll be the ticket. Talk about "stupidity."

There you go again, "moderate"...just laughable on its face. I'm sure you were out in the street with your pitchfork over the fringe right's effort to "nullify" the Clinton presidency over perjury.

So sad. So obvious...

..

[cradleandshoot]

...but many moderates/centrists who are exhausted by the progressive resistance and Ds insistent scheme to nullify Trump's presidency. Go ahead and impeach Trump...that'll be the ticket. Talk about "stupidity."

There you go again, "moderate"...just laughable on its face. I'm sure you were out in the street with your pitchfork over the fringe right's effort to "nullify" the Clinton presidency over perjury.

So sad. So obvious...

..

Well if Bill had kept his dingus in his britches and had not left the evidence all over that blue dress the entire sordid affair would have never happened. I have always wondered why Bill never responded to the accusations of his rendezvous with the young lady with a standard reply of I won't dignify that question with an answer.

[MDlaxfan76]

...but many moderates/centrists who are exhausted by the progressive resistance and Ds insistent scheme to nullify Trump's presidency. Go ahead and impeach Trump...that'll be the ticket. Talk about "stupidity."

There you go again, "moderate"...just laughable on its face. I'm sure you were out in the street with your pitchfork over the fringe right's effort to "nullify" the Clinton presidency over perjury.

So sad. So obvious...

..

Well if Bill had kept his dingus in his britches and had not left the evidence all over that blue dress the entire sordid affair would have never happened. I have always wondered why Bill never responded to the accusations of his rendezvous with the young lady with a standard reply of I won't dignify that question with an answer.

I was among those who felt that Clinton's impeachment was well deserved. Both on the fundamental character question, certainly on the perjury and obstruction.

I did understand the counter-argument that his basic transgression, the sex and the lie about the sex, had little to do with the fundamental duties of POTUS. But to me, an act that would/should have led (even then) to the firing of a public company CEO surely was not ok for someone who holds the public trust and who is supposed to be an exemplar for kids.

I was concerned that not impeaching him would be very detrimental to the standards we should hold.

So...Trump...

[calourie]

My analysis tells me impact on the public of the Mueller report and how it was rolled out by Barr will be revealed by the presidential favorability polls over the next couple of weeks, and the movement of the polls will have a great deal of influence on how many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will jump on or off the impeachment bandwagon. A 3% or greater drop to below a 39% accumulative favorabilty rating would begin to put Trump in the "politically toxic with an election beginning to loom" position which might cause a few GOP lawmakers' knees to buckle regarding their mind numbing support of all things Trump. Little change in the polls would keep Trump's GOP legislative support intact, and expose the Dems to cries of "overreach". A rise in Trump's popularity would make Democratic impeachment zeal look like a kamikazee mission. It seems evident no one in these forums has had their position regarding the matter changed one iota by the report, so we will just have to patiently wait and see if that is true of the general public as well. I tend to view the pool of Laxpower Back-Up Stick "all things political" posters as an insignificant sample size.

[cradleandshoot]

...but many moderates/centrists who are exhausted by the progressive resistance and Ds insistent scheme to nullify Trump's presidency. Go ahead and impeach Trump...that'll be the ticket. Talk about "stupidity."

There you go again, "moderate"...just laughable on its face. I'm sure you were out in the street with your pitchfork over the fringe right's effort to "nullify" the Clinton presidency over perjury.

So sad. So obvious...

..

Well if Bill had kept his dingus in his britches and had not left the evidence all over that blue dress the entire sordid affair would have never happened. I have always wondered why Bill never responded to the accusations of his rendezvous with the young lady with a standard reply of I won't dignify that question with an answer.

I was among those who felt that Clinton's impeachment was well deserved. Both on the fundamental character question, certainly on the perjury and obstruction.

I did understand the counter-argument that his basic transgression, the sex and the lie about the sex, had little to do with the fundamental duties of POTUS. But to me, an act that would/should have led (even then) to the firing of a public company CEO surely was not ok for someone who holds the public trust and who is supposed to be an exemplar for kids.

I was concerned that not impeaching him would be very detrimental to the standards we should hold.

So...Trump...

If the standard is that a sitting POTUS lying under oath should be impeached that becomes a complicated issue. In the case of Bill it was a lie about sex. It was probably the only time in his political career that Bill screwed the pooch in how he replied to the accusation. If they can ever get DJT to testify under oath... well he has already proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he doesn't know when to shut up, doesn't know how to shut up and doesn't know why he should shut up. There is not a lawyer in the world with the stones to stand by Trump while he is testifying under oath. Unless he/she cashed the retainer check beforehand.

[tech37]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... -the-case/

"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/

"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."

Ah, so now Barr's the good guy for letting us see the redacted report...

"cleared the President of the vacant collusion allegation"...really? He's "cleared" of "collusion"?
Mueller flat said that "collusion" was not the bar. He provides tremendous amounts of evidence of "collusion"...but not to the level of being able to prove criminal conspiracy. Huge difference. Bottom line, most voters (beyond the sad "resistance") don't/won't wallow in the subjectively tedious bubble you wallow in and will accept the rational interpretation of "no collusion"...period.

The stupidity being peddled by the Trumpists is really disgraceful. Right, the opinions from McCarthy I posted are disgraceful. Keep on resisting mdlax!

Andrew McCarthy? sheesh, yes disgraceful.
I don't think he's a stupid guy, so that means he knows he's grossly misrepresenting.
So...disgraceful...but that's what the Trumpists want.

Yes, as I said on another thread 35% of American is locked in as Trumpist.
They actually want an authoritarian liar as POTUS...as long as he tells them he's 'protecting' them from the Other.
They want the lies, they want the 'strong man'. You're so wrong it's hilarious...I'm not referring to Trump's base (that's just sooo obvious, why mention?), but many moderates/centrists who are exhausted by the progressive resistance and Ds insistent scheme to nullify Trump's presidency. Go ahead and impeach Trump...that'll be the ticket. Talk about "stupidity."

But 35% isn't "most voters".

I'd also written that there's another 10% of potential support for Trump that may be persuadable either way.
3 days after Mueller report, Trump's approval has dropped to 37%.
"Most voters" see Trump for the liar he is.

So, you're claiming to not be in the Trump 35% base???
You're in the next 10% I describe?
Trump voters (or anti-HRC voters) who may be persuadable either way?

As stated many times on here and to you specifically more than once, I'm not a Trumpist. I am very much anti-"resistance" and that's a big difference. I am anti- the concerted effort to undermine/nullify a duly-elected presidency through abuse of powers in our institutions and subterfuge in the resistance media (CNN, MSNBC, et al).

Being pro-business I've stated before, what this country needs are business people running things, not ideologues/politicians/lawyers. I've also said, it needs to be the right business people and that ain't Trump. But given the alternative, especially with the new-left crazies crashing the D party, socialist tendencies, and an anachronism in Biden (who will be eaten alive by his own party), right now there's no choice but to live with "the devil we know."

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and I probably won't vote at all in 2020, given the current prospective choices.

Try to remember some of this mdlax next time you wish to slap your Trumpist label on anyone who disagrees with the idiot "resistance" or agrees with any Trump administration policy. It will take nuance though and I'm not sure you're up to it.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... -the-case/

"What Barr is saying is that he and Mueller did not agree, with respect to all ten incidents, on whether the incident could legally amount to obstruction. What the attorney general therefore did was assume, for argument’s sake, that Mueller was correct on the law (i.e., that the incident could theoretically amount to obstruction), and then move on to the second phase of the analysis: Assuming this could be an obstruction offense as a matter of law, could we prove obstruction as a matter of fact? This requires an assessment of whether the evidence of each element of an obstruction offense – most significantly, corrupt intent – could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ ... liam-barr/

"Under no legal compulsion to do so, Attorney General Barr has provided Congress with the full, at times gory details drawn from Mueller’s aggressive investigation. Though it cleared the president of the vacant collusion allegation that Democrats peddled for two years, the report could be grist for a House impeachment push on the issue of obstruction. Some cover-up."

Ah, so now Barr's the good guy for letting us see the redacted report...

"cleared the President of the vacant collusion allegation"...really? He's "cleared" of "collusion"?
Mueller flat said that "collusion" was not the bar. He provides tremendous amounts of evidence of "collusion"...but not to the level of being able to prove criminal conspiracy. Huge difference. Bottom line, most voters (beyond the sad "resistance") don't/won't wallow in the subjectively tedious bubble you wallow in and will accept the rational interpretation of "no collusion"...period.

The stupidity being peddled by the Trumpists is really disgraceful. Right, the opinions from McCarthy I posted are disgraceful. Keep on resisting mdlax!

Andrew McCarthy? sheesh, yes disgraceful.
I don't think he's a stupid guy, so that means he knows he's grossly misrepresenting.
So...disgraceful...but that's what the Trumpists want.

Yes, as I said on another thread 35% of American is locked in as Trumpist.
They actually want an authoritarian liar as POTUS...as long as he tells them he's 'protecting' them from the Other.
They want the lies, they want the 'strong man'. You're so wrong it's hilarious...I'm not referring to Trump's base (that's just sooo obvious, why mention?), but many moderates/centrists who are exhausted by the progressive resistance and Ds insistent scheme to nullify Trump's presidency. Go ahead and impeach Trump...that'll be the ticket. Talk about "stupidity."

But 35% isn't "most voters".

I'd also written that there's another 10% of potential support for Trump that may be persuadable either way.
3 days after Mueller report, Trump's approval has dropped to 37%.
"Most voters" see Trump for the liar he is.

So, you're claiming to not be in the Trump 35% base???
You're in the next 10% I describe?
Trump voters (or anti-HRC voters) who may be persuadable either way?

As stated many times on here and to you specifically more than once, I'm not a Trumpist. I am very much anti-"resistance" and that's a big difference. I am anti- the concerted effort to undermine/nullify a duly-elected presidency through abuse of powers in our institutions and subterfuge in the resistance media (CNN, MSNBC, et al).

Being pro-business I've stated before, what this country needs are business people running things, not ideologues/politicians/lawyers. I've also said, it needs to be the right business people and that ain't Trump. But given the alternative, especially with the new-left crazies crashing the D party, socialist tendencies, and an anachronism in Biden (who will be eaten alive by his own party), right now there's no choice but to live with "the devil we know."

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and I probably won't vote at all in 2020, given the current prospective choices.

Try to remember some of this mdlax next time you wish to slap your Trumpist label on anyone who disagrees with the idiot "resistance" or agrees with any Trump administration policy. It will take nuance though and I'm not sure you're up to it.

Ok, so you're in the 10%. Except you say you didn't vote for him in 2016.
Did you vote?

You are buying in wholesale the right wing BS about "undermine/nullify a duly-elected presidency through abuse of powers in our institutions and subterfuge in the resistance media". But you're not a "Trumpist". You actually think you're a "moderate/centrist".

Sure, there are many who think Trump is a disgrace and the sooner he's out of office the better, but there's a huge difference between feeling that and the right wing BS.

I'm watching Giuliani right now on CNN...hoo boy, disgusting performance.

[Chips O'Toole]

I'm not a Trumpist. I probably won't vote at all in 2020.

Then you're a Trumpist.

[tech37]

I'm not a Trumpist. I probably won't vote at all in 2020.

Then you're a Trumpist.

Wrong chips. I'm a disenfranchised voter based upon awful to worse choices.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not a Trumpist. I probably won't vote at all in 2020.

Then you're a Trumpist.

He says he didn't vote for Trump (though clearly not HRC)...and won't likely vote in 2020.
That's why I asked whether he even voted in 2016.

A lot of folks in America don't bother to vote.
Some think their vote doesn't matter, that they're outvoted in their district, in their state, anyway.
And/or see no civic duty in voting.

Doesn't mean they don't have rabid opinions, blindly support one side or the other.

My original response, though, was focused on his assertion about "most voters". He did have the caveat that by "most" he meant other than "the resistance". He wasn't clear how large that group is, but maybe he means the Dems plus the Never Trumpers (~55%), and he's just talking about the rest...but then he wants me to exclude the Trumpist base, roughly 35%.

That leaves that 10%. Right now, the approval rating of that 10% splits 2% for Trump, 8% against.

He's at 37% support right now.
That's pre-Mueller testifying, pre-McGahn testifying, etc.

I'd be very, very surprised to see it go below the floor of 35%.
The only way that happens would be for the GOP to lose ignominiously in 2020, including the Senate, and for Fox to blame Trump (and those awful Dems and mainstream media). But blame Trump.

[Brooklyn]

Evidently, Barr has done his homework.

[Chips O'Toole]

I'm not a Trumpist. I probably won't vote at all in 2020.

Then you're a Trumpist.

Wrong chips. I'm a disenfranchised voter based upon awful to worse choices.

Since 1996, I have voted for Clinton, Bush, Kerry, Obama, Romney, and Clinton. Every vote required holding my nose and voting for the least bad candidate; I have never voted for POTUS with enthusiasm, not once. All of those were pretty close calls, with one exception, which was 2016.

We are not living in the realm of a highly complex debate, one on which reasonable minds can differ. This is a stark choice between supporting a criminal who seeks to do us harm -- and opposing that person. It's not a grey, wishy-washy, good people on both sides situation. You either support Trump and everything he stands for, or you get out and vote in 2020 for the candidate most likely to beat him. A vote for Schultz, or some other idiot with no shot, or a decision to stay at home, is a vote for Trump. Any attempt to characterize such a vote as anything else is cowardly. You want to vote for this POS, vote for him and own it. Be part of that 30% or whatever it is, and wear a t-shirt so we know who you are. Your 2016 vote was a complete disgrace. You own a piece of where we are now. I hope you can do better in 2020, but I have low expectations.

[seacoaster]

“We are not living in the realm of a highly complex debate, one on which reasonable minds can differ. This is a stark choice between supporting a criminal who seeks to do us harm -- and opposing that person. It's not a grey, wishy-washy, good people on both sides situation.”

Nailed it.

[old salt]

That's right. Reasonable minds can't differ.
If you don't vigorously oppose, you are a complicit enabler.
Can't dispute interweb logic like that.