BARR

[RedFromMI]

Nonsense. I haven't read this article, don't have to, the title says it all. Long title when "Nonsense" would have gotten the point across more effectively. No surprise that the scum bag POS AG authored it. The wheels on the bus go round and round ….

I read enough of it to see that it is the same old weak tea - mischaracterize the lack of Mueller prosecution as because of lack of evidence, rather than the longstanding no prosecute policy of the Justice Department vis-a-vis the President, and claim that the impeachment case against Clinton was far more serious.

Takeaway - it is actually pretty much nonsense...

[tech37]

Nonsense. I haven't read this article, don't have to, the title says it all. Long title when "Nonsense" would have gotten the point across more effectively. No surprise that the scum bag POS AG authored it. The wheels on the bus go round and round ….

I read enough of it to see that it is the same old weak tea - mischaracterize the lack of Mueller prosecution as because of lack of evidence, rather than the longstanding no prosecute policy of the Justice Department vis-a-vis the President, and claim that the impeachment case against Clinton was far more serious.

Takeaway - it is actually pretty much nonsense...

Nonsense is right.... "the longstanding no prosecute policy of the Justice Department vis-a-vis the President" has simply become an excuse. If there was sufficient evidence to win in court, do you honestly believe that Mueller and his gang of D prosecutors would not have found a way around that policy, at least with much stronger/clearer indictment language in the report?

Perhaps when Mueller testifies, we'll know more. My guess is he will discuss "intent" as Andrew McCarthy wrote in his article posted last week.

[Brooklyn]

Yup, right wing politricks have really lowered the bar ...

[holmes435]

Nonsense. I haven't read this article, don't have to, the title says it all. Long title when "Nonsense" would have gotten the point across more effectively. No surprise that the scum bag POS AG authored it. The wheels on the bus go round and round ….

I read enough of it to see that it is the same old weak tea - mischaracterize the lack of Mueller prosecution as because of lack of evidence, rather than the longstanding no prosecute policy of the Justice Department vis-a-vis the President, and claim that the impeachment case against Clinton was far more serious.

Takeaway - it is actually pretty much nonsense...

Nonsense is right.... "the longstanding no prosecute policy of the Justice Department vis-a-vis the President" has simply become an excuse. If there was sufficient evidence to win in court, do you honestly believe that Mueller and his gang of D prosecutors would not have found a way around that policy, at least with much stronger/clearer indictment language in the report?

Perhaps when Mueller testifies, we'll know more. My guess is he will discuss "intent" as Andrew McCarthy wrote in his article posted last week.

Uhhh, that's exactly what (R) appointed (R) Mueller did, was find a way around that policy. Basically: "Hey Congress, I can't legally indict or prosecute the president via the legal system because my department has a policy that says I can't, but here are a dozen counts of obstruction you can investigate to go ahead with an impeachment if you so choose". His way around the policy is to let Congress do it. Congressional charges and investigations are part of the Legislative branch of government and are different from that of the Department of Justice which is part of the Executive branch of our government.

[a fan]

do you honestly believe that Mueller and his gang of D prosecutors would not have found a way around that policy, at least with much stronger/clearer indictment language in the report?

Et tu? You've decided to reach for the tin foil, have ya?

Republicans. Gang of Republicans. Do you need a civics refresher?

Trump (R) is head of the executive branch. He personally selected Rosenstein (R), who appointed Mueller (R). All Republicans, top to bottom. All working for their boss, Trump (R).

Any more questions about how our government works, let me know.

In the meantime, here's a refresher on how a bill becomes a law.

[tech37]

do you honestly believe that Mueller and his gang of D prosecutors would not have found a way around that policy, at least with much stronger/clearer indictment language in the report?

Et tu? You've decided to reach for the tin foil, have ya?

Republicans. Gang of Republicans. Do you need a civics refresher?

Trump (R) is head of the executive branch. He personally selected Rosenstein (R), who appointed Mueller (R). All Republicans, top to bottom. All working for their boss, Trump (R).

Any more questions about how our government works, let me know.

In the meantime, here's a refresher on how a bill becomes a law.

By god a fan... please, get some new material

[jhu72]

Barr is back in the hot seat again. This time for not more forcefully attempting to keep the Trump enemies list pipe bomber in jail prior to his trial. Looks like this terrorist is going to get out on bail. Gee, you can almost see a pattern in Barr's behavior.

[tech37]

Nonsense. I haven't read this article, don't have to, the title says it all. Long title when "Nonsense" would have gotten the point across more effectively. No surprise that the scum bag POS AG authored it. The wheels on the bus go round and round ….

I read enough of it to see that it is the same old weak tea - mischaracterize the lack of Mueller prosecution as because of lack of evidence, rather than the longstanding no prosecute policy of the Justice Department vis-a-vis the President, and claim that the impeachment case against Clinton was far more serious.

Takeaway - it is actually pretty much nonsense...

Nonsense is right.... "the longstanding no prosecute policy of the Justice Department vis-a-vis the President" has simply become an excuse. If there was sufficient evidence to win in court, do you honestly believe that Mueller and his gang of D prosecutors would not have found a way around that policy, at least with much stronger/clearer indictment language in the report?

Perhaps when Mueller testifies, we'll know more. My guess is he will discuss "intent" as Andrew McCarthy wrote in his article posted last week.

Uhhh, that's exactly what (R) appointed (R) Mueller did, was find a way around that policy. Basically: "Hey Congress, I can't legally indict or prosecute the president via the legal system because my department has a policy that says I can't, but here are a dozen counts of obstruction you can investigate to go ahead with an impeachment if you so choose". His way around the policy is to let Congress do it. Congressional charges and investigations are part of the Legislative branch of government and are different from that of the Department of Justice which is part of the Executive branch of our government.

Uhhh, no actually. My point is, if "obstruction" is such a slam dunk, why didn't Mueller use stronger indictment language. Why the subjective legalese obfuscation leaving much to interpretation? Has nothing to do with DOJ policy but the "resistance' types are conflating the two as an excuse.

[dislaxxic]

Uhh, actually, yes. This is a shallow, fringe partisan view of the "subjective legalese obfuscation" you divine in this exhaustive, detailed Report. Labelling it your way is something that no reasonable person, especially a dedicated "moderate" would ever attempt in trying to describe Robert Mueller's work product. Now, there is plenty of this type of descriptor being used by Trumpists and other FauxNation devotees to point to ANYthing other than the consistent undercurrent of criminality found throughout the Report. Further, the use of the "angry Democrat" language once again belies the vacuous attempt to self-label as a "moderate". Being moderate on MaryJane and Abortion doesn't make someone a moderate when they turn around and parrot rightwingnut talking points. As SaltyRad succinctly noted earlier...this whole thing is about to get "much worse" ...for Don the Con and his apologists.

For a good analysis of the issues in Bobby 3-Sticks report, see what Judge Napolitano Has to Say

..

[a fan]

By god a fan... please, get some new material

So you rail on his "Gang of D prosecutors"....I point out , you know, the actual truth that they are all Republicans. Every one of them.

And you brush this off, and claim I'm the problem here?

Yeah, ok. Let me know when you want to come back to Earth with the rest of us.

[tech37]

Uhh, actually, yes. This is a shallow, fringe partisan view of the "subjective legalese obfuscation" you divine in this exhaustive, detailed Report. Labelling it your way is something that no reasonable person, especially a dedicated "moderate" would ever attempt in trying to describe Robert Mueller's work product. Now, there is plenty of this type of descriptor being used by Trumpists and other FauxNation devotees to point to ANYthing other than the consistent undercurrent of criminality found throughout the Report. Further, the use of the "angry Democrat" language once again belies the vacuous attempt to self-label as a "moderate". Being moderate on MaryJane and Abortion doesn't make someone a moderate when they turn around and parrot rightwingnut talking points. As SaltyRad succinctly noted earlier...this whole thing is about to get "much worse" ...for Don the Con and his apologists.

For a good analysis of the issues in Bobby 3-Sticks report, see what Judge Napolitano Has to Say

..

You pointing out "fringe partisan" anything is a laugh riot! Talk about lack of self awareness

And to use Judge Nap to now suit your needs is as hypocritical as it gets.

Not long ago, he was labeled FoxNews', Trumpster schill

Hypocrites!

[dislaxxic]

I own up to my partisanship...that's the yuge difference between me'n you my friend.

Explain what is hypocritical about pointing out that Judge N sees this whole episode for what it really is? ...or were you calling HIM a hypocrite? That would be much closer to the truth.

Maybe stick to tech issues...this politics thing is a little out of your element, as AF points out daily...

..

[runrussellrun]

Barr is back in the hot seat again. This time for not more forcefully attempting to keep the Trump enemies list pipe bomber in jail prior to his trial. Looks like this terrorist is going to get out on bail. Gee, you can almost see a pattern in Barr's behavior.

You blaming barr for this TAATS mindstruck? Hillaryous. What kind of activist judge let the pipe bomber out? shhh....sshhhh

[old salt]

By god a fan... please, get some new material

So you rail on his "Gang of D prosecutors"....I point out , you know, the actual truth that they are all Republicans. Every one of them.

And you brush this off, and claim I'm the problem here?

Yeah, ok. Let me know when you want to come back to Earth with the rest of us.

How many of Muellers team members were (D)'s & HRC supporters or contributors ?

Have you ever made the point that Trump is not actually an (R) ?
If yes, you are in a tedious circular argument with yourself.

Do you think Trump even knew Rosenstein before Sessions selected him as his Deputy ?
Do you think Trump would choose either of them again ?

[a fan]

Oh, that's irrefutable logic right there.

The world is out to get Trump. Even his handpicked appointees. What was I thinking in pointing out that he chose these people himself?

And you're calling ME out for circular logic?

You and tech37 are telling us that anything Mueller says or writes is invalid because----let's see if I have this right----- he has lawyers in his office who support Hillary. That's what you're going with?

And yet both of you, without hesitation, will cite the Mueller report as having cleared Trump's name. Wait, what? I thought what he said was invalidated because of the Dems working under him?

Oh yeah, you guys are just rock solid with this logic.

[old salt]

I ask again. Have you ever said that Trump is/was a (D) not an (R) ?
Have you ever mentioned Trump's contributions to (D) candidates ?

You can't seem to grasp that Trump is neither a (D) or a (R).
Your tedious (R) vs (D) rap doesn't apply to Trump.

Trump just managed to highjack the GOP & hold it hostage.
Witness the outrage of the NeverTrumper (R)'s who are still foaming at the mouth.

[tech37]

Oh, that's irrefutable logic right there.

The world is out to get Trump. Even his handpicked appointees. What was I thinking in pointing out that he chose these people himself?

And you're calling ME out for circular logic?

You and tech37 are telling us that anything Mueller says or writes is invalid because----let's see if I have this right----- he has lawyers in his office who support Hillary. That's what you're going with?

And yet both of you, without hesitation, will cite the Mueller report as having cleared Trump's name. Wait, what? I thought what he said was invalidated because of the Dems working under him?

Oh yeah, you guys are just rock solid with this logic.

Oh boy, once again caught in the a fan vortex...

First off...Where in hell did I ever say "anything Mueller says or writes is invalid"? Seriously, why do this? Just to be annoying?

Second, as far as I'm concerned, Trump has been cleared of "collusion" and "conspiracy" based on the Report and AG Barr's assessment, and you think so too, right. So what is your beef with that?

You're confused I'm afraid a fan. The "collusion" goal post has become the "obstruction" goal post and it's moving...don't mix the two up

[a fan]

If there was sufficient evidence to win in court, do you honestly believe that Mueller and his gang of D prosecutors would not have found a way around that policy, at least with much stronger/clearer indictment language in the report?

Ok. I'll play along.

You tell me what you meant by your derisive "Mueller and his gang of D prosecutors".

Take your time. Spin how you're not questioning their work, and then call me a vortex.

[old salt]

You tell me what you meant by your derisive "Mueller and his gang of D prosecutors".

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... ate-staff/

[a fan]

Right. So I was right about why tech37 wrote that.

So the two posters leading the charge in making fun of me telling you it all comes down to D's and R's in this country....point out that, shocker, Mueller has lawyers on the payroll who voted. Oh. My. G*d. Do you realize what this means?

The entire Mueller report is worthless. Because Democrats. Right?