# AG Barr testimone



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I watched the testimone for six hours. What a dog and poney show the democrats are putting on. They care nothing about truth, only political gain.

I am curiouse whether this Democrat dog and poney show is offence or defense. Barr is following up and investigating how they used the dossier to obtain the FISA warrant among other things. It will be interesting to learn how much Obama had his finger on the scale. For sure some heads will role, but how many, and who.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I don't even think the Dems know if it's offense or defense anymore. They are just riding this dead horse hoping it can take them somewhere.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I have watched some clips of it on you tube as well. It is sickening how they are attacking him personally instead of asking questions about the dossier, the report, evidence, etc.

The Rep from Hawaii spent 8 mins on character assassination of Barr and then asked 3 questions and wouldn't let him answer those questions and interrupted.

I thought he was there to answer questions?

It will be very interesting if Mueller testifies and how they treat him? Especially if they don't get the answers they want. :bop:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I guess I didn't watch the same thing you guys watched. I saw Barr stonewalling and basically not answering. So Crooked Trump has finally gotten his wall. It's called the BARR WALL. Crooked TRump....."No one testifies anymore. What a crock. What is he afraid of?

He basically was the new version of Sargent Schultz from Hogan's Hero's....." I saw Knoting.....I know Knoting" In fact put a German uniform on him and he could be Schultz. So from now on the Republican Party should be call....The Schultz Party :bop: :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

:rollin: Well again we can wait and see.

Now they threaten Barr if they don't have an unredacted copy of Muehlers report. Do they think we are that stupid? They do have it, but they have to sign in to read it and can't take it from the room. Barr is simply following the law. Two republicans have read it. No democrats have read it. They refuse to read it so they can attempt to kill it. :******:


----------



## ezzie77 (Mar 30, 2010)

The report is out, the dems don't like what it said so now lets attack again.. Get ready dems and Obama, the investigation is about ready to start going the right direction...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken,

How could he answer any questions when they didn't let him. They kept interrupting him while he was trying to answer the questions.

Koblachar kept going back and arguing with him when he said what she was referring too wasn't the case and how you do it. She kept going back saying the same thing over and over. He kept telling her how he looked at it and how it was supposed to be looked at in order to bring up charges. It wouldn't win in a criminal case. Which this is about "criminal case". To be fair to Koblachar&#8230; in a civil case there could possible be a "case" or chance for charges. But in a criminal their isn't. Remember criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt... civil not so much. All you have to do is look a the OJ trial. :bop:

But harris didn't allow him to answer anything, the lady from Hawaii didn't let him answer, etc.

Also like the others have stated. The full report is there to be read.... they are not doing it. Because they want to leak portions to the press. So if that doesn't tell you something that nobody but 2 people have read it. Yes this is a dig at the Republicans who haven't read it as well. All of the people who can read it should if they are an elected official. It is their Job to do so!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

There is now a Washington Post article that states 375 fed prosecutors would have brought up "charges" on trump for obstruction.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

But when you read that article it also states in the "petition" that all these guys signed it says:



> "Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice


So basically if he wasn't president and had the authority to do what he did. He would have been brought up charges.

Then it goes on to say this.....



> "Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice - the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution


Now it I would like to know what the . . . . and ---- Means or what the post omitted from the quote.

But it basically states what I was saying and what Barr was saying with there is evidence to bring up a charge but not enough to convict. Or like what I was also stating about Civil vs Criminal cases.

So Trump stating he is "free and clear" isn't the total truth. But is there enough to win a case against him..... nope.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The only reason CROOKED TRUMP isn't being indicted is because it looks like a sitting president can't be indicted.

370 federal prosecutors signed a letter saying their was evidence to indict Crooked Trump for collusion. But Barr would not do it....

Like I said above.....Trumps new BARR WALL. uke: uke: uke:

Time to hold BARR in contempt if he doesn't go before the house.....LOCK HIM UP. :bop: :bop:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Lock him up for what????

Not reading the mueller report to the dumbocraps so they could understand it??


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> 370 federal prosecutors signed a letter saying their was evidence to indict Crooked Trump for collusion. But Barr would not do it....


Wow 370 people so partison they are willing to sacrifice their integrity. The entire Muehler team was made up of liberal attorneys scouring every nook and cranny to link Trump to collusion could NOT do it,but 370 idiots on the sidelines know better. I have some swamp land for sale.

You may be confused Ken. The report said there was no evidence of collusion. The report did say Trump expressed a desire that could have been construed as obstruction, but he didn't carry through. I think the law is messed up when an innocent man (no collusion) could be prosecuted for defending himself. As a matter of fact that idea was expressed as a defence had they tried to prosecute.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

speckline said:


> Lock him up for what????
> 
> Not reading the mueller report to the dumbocraps so they could understand it??


How about this.....Maybe the dumbpcraps in the White House can even figure this out?????

"Under their inherent power, the House can order its own sergeant-at-arms to arrest an offender for ignoring a subpoena, subject him to a trial before the full House, and, if judged to be in contempt, jail that person until he appears before the House and brings whatever documentation the House has subpoenaed."

When President Richard Nixon tried to stop key aides from testifying in the Senate Watergate hearings, in 1973, Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the Watergate select committee, threatened to jail anyone who refused to appear. Like Bill Barr. Lock him up....oke: oke: oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

ken...

You didn't read the article I posted did you about the 370 people. BTW... they were some people who were republican on that list.

But it didn't say "collusion" it was with the obstruction charge. But like they also stated was that there is enough evidence to bring charges. But not enough to prosecute. Which again means it would go to trial and would lose. Because there was not enough evidence for BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Because they said that there was arguments for what he did. IE: what barr talked about with the "firing of mueller order" that Trump wanted it done because of conflict of interest. Plus other things.

So again.... there is enough evidence to bring up charges but not enough to convict. Plus the sitting president thing.

I can't believe the hatred for trump has made so many people blind to facts and procedure. I will agree that Barr is a great stone wall for Trump. But he is also for the people. He is showing that what has gone on for over 2 years needs to stop. I know one side of the isle wants this to last another 2 years until election time. :bop: Because as of now they are not looking good with the economy doing great, the border issue is getting worse and worse, anything leaning towards socialism is getting a black eye or worse because of what is happening in Ven., plus three of the newly elected Dem's keep putting their feet in their mouths on a weekly basis (AOC, Ohmar, Tlaid)&#8230;. So they are trying to grasp at straws...IMHO. Right now is a total political stunt. Because like mentioned they can read the report if they sign in, they were or hammering Barr because he didn't "release" the 19 pages of summaries after Mueller wrote him a letter asking him to... well he released those 19 pages and the redacted report about 10 days later. Yet that is what the Dem's are grilling him about... 10 fricken days. You see.... grasping at straws.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Also here is another thing that Dem's especially need to look out for.

If they keep crying obstruction on Trump.... What is destroying servers? Is that obstruction by destroying evidence??? Which is worse telling someone you want them fired because of conflict of interest (which Trump could have done if there was conflict of interest) or destroying evidence? Let me break it down for you... One of those two things actually happened.... All you have to do is ask yourself did Mueller ever get fired??? Or did the servers get destroyed? Which one happened????

If Mueller was fired then the cry for obstruction would be very much warranted.

The other aspect many dems in the testimony were saying trump ordered people to not co-operate. Well they all co-operated.... so again... Obstruction??

I don't know if I stated this before... but the report shows Trump did or said some shady things.... like mentioned above... he asked people to not co-operate... yet they did. He asked about the firing of Mueller... but never did fire him. So it looks bad but he never followed thru on anything.... much like the BORDER WALL. Also the report shows that some of the people he hired had issues (hence all the charges on Tax frauds, cheats, and what not) But again nothing shows evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he did anything.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

The problems is the Dems don't want to hear there is not enough for a conviction. They want to hear that it's a slam dunk and won't be happy with any other answer. Anyone that won't give them that answer is in their eyes as guilty as Trump. I'm not sure Trump is guilty of anything more than the NORMAL dirty politics. They are trying to leverage the answer they want. If in fact Trump did obstruct I'm not sure this whole circus act being put on is any less offensive. IF....... by chance their was any Russian interference I highly doubt it was significant enough to swing the election. As a matter of fact it more likely would have balanced out the illegal votes the Dems benefited from. And I still contend that there was likely more collusion between Hillary and the Russians than Trump and the Russians and that they screwed her over.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dakota....

Look at what is coming to light with Bieden and his son with Ukraine. :eyeroll: Yet alone what was on Hillary's servers that were destroyed.... which to some isn't obstruction of justice...BTW. uke: Or all the FBI stuff coming out with Storkza and Page, etc....

I was talking with a friend the other day (he is a dem) and we got talking about how this whole Russian thing is crazy. Because look how the USA sticks its nose into every other election in the world. Yet now it has come back at us and we are all up in arms.

But now you will hear even more screaming because the Sec of Treasury isn't going to hand over Trumps taxes.... now we will have a legal battle for 2 years.

Now CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc... will all go crazy about this... even more. uke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Look what Ken Starr has stated about this whole issue....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ken-st ... ivable-sin

Again... he is slanting Right big time. But it shows you how "leaks" are what is hurting this whole thing on both sides. That letter and phone convo should have never been Leaked between Barr and Mueller. But again it is showing how Mueller wanted 19 pages of Summaries by his team to be released but wasn't until the redacted report was released. Those summaries were included with them. So they were released just 2 weeks or so later after Barr gave his opinion on the report.

Again lets say Barr wouldn't have done his letter..... the left would have gone nuts because he didn't say anything and was "sitting" on the report. Then he does his letter... the left goes nuts because it didn't get what it wanted. Barr was doomed from the get go. But he is handling it very good if you ask me. :bop:


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Ukrainian Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... -democrats

"In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump's campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.

In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.

Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said."

Not only did Killary's dumbocraps collude against Bernie in the 2016 election, but also colluded with the russians.... I mean the ukranians against trump... hmmmmm.... :bop: :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No surprise there. Have you noticed that democrats accuse others of what they are actually doing? I would bet dollars against dimes you have noticed that for years.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Nadler is on right now and trying to decieve the mentally challenged. They will vote on contempt charges against Barr. I would like to see this in the supreme court. Barr followed the law. A completely unredacted copy is available, but no Democrat has gone to read it. The really don't want to read it because they would have nothing left. Further they changed form of house questioning in a manner they knew Barr would not accept. Poor losers. If they can't win they will break your toys.
IT IS. AGAINST THE LAW TO DIVULGE MUCH OF WHAT HAPPENS IN GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, BUT HOUSE DEMOCRATS DEMAND BARR BREAK THE LAW TO MEET THEIR DEMANDS. Republicans are making that point that democrats are asking Barr to commit a crime, but democrats don't care. They will loose.

There is no precedent for staff to question Barr. So they had an empty chair displayed a plastic chicken, and ate chicken. Not the behavior of people who we should be able to see as respectible.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

What is funny is that they are not learning from the mistakes that the Republicans did. Remember they tried to subpoena stuff for the fast and furious issues.... and then lost the house come voting time. :bop:

History Repeats itself if people don't learn from the past. This goes for both parties.... and I am very cautious because some think Trump will win in a landslide in 2020..... I just warn don't get too cocky.... look how Trump got into office. :thumb:

It will be interesting the vote and how it plays out. I am sure it will be on party lines, then go to court where it is a Trump appointed judge is now sitting... then it will try to go to the Supreme Court and well... it will lose because of what has already been stated on grand jury info. Plus a judge should look at the evidence that it is open for full viewing by people but they haven't done it. So again people have a chance to see it. So it isn't getting suppressed at all. :beer:

So please nobody say "what is Trump hiding"... he isn't hiding anything... it can be read.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So the Committee along party lines found Barr in contempt of Congress for not releasing Grand jury info or the full mueller report... or they are finding him in contempt for not breaking a law passed by congress. :eyeroll:

That is what the report is so far on the "contempt" issue. It could be for other things but it hasn't been stated yet. The only thing I have found so far is because he hasn't released the "whole" report un redacted. Yet some of the committee has been offered to read it at a certain area with out talking note and what not. But only 2 Reps have taken Barr up on the offer and no Dem's.

So who is grandstanding????? :eyeroll:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Exactly.. They are citing him for contempt for NOT breaking the law. I wanna see how a court addresses this. I was laughing when Nadler was complaining that Barr would not let them take notes on the redacted information. Everyone knows congress leaks information like a sieve. Why would one even question Barrs's decision on this. That information would have been public within days. I loved his statement on constitutional crisis. The constitutional crisis is that the judiciary committee thinks they are above the law and have carte blanc. They keep spouting off about oversight but forget it is the president who is there to control THEIR power.

They are grasping. I'm guessing legal council advised against it but they are trying to bluff their way to get Barr to testify and Barr is calling their bluffs. Honestly I'm guessing some of them had seen the full report before it was even brought out. They know there is nothing in it and are grandstanding. they make themselves look good demanding it knowing it will never happen.

Now they are trying to use his past business losses against him but I just read where Trump had revealed that information years ago on his show the Apprentice....LOL...old new guys....


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> But now you will hear even more screaming because the Sec of Treasury isn't going to hand over Trumps taxes.... now we will have a legal battle for 2 years.


There will be a lot of screaming from both the liberal media and the Dems in Washington, but I doubt there will be much of a legal battle. There is no law or legal precedent that requires a President to turn their tax info over to Congress. It is simply a voluntary act that most Presidents have complied with in recent years, but it is NOT a requirement. The whiners on the left can stammer all they want, but if President Trump does not want to turn over his tax info, there is nothing they can do about it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Do any of you remember Congress sobpeana to Eric Holder? It was to answer questions about Fast and Furious. He ignored them and never did testify. Another double standard in the minds of some liberals.

Unlike Barr he had no legal reason not to comply.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I hope it does go to court and gets shot down ASAP... not drawn out for 2 years. Because on a positive note for all of this.... this is why we have these systems in place.

1. The President or Congress can take each other to court. 
2. Our court system looks at it and then makes a decision.

It is a check and balance. So we are witnessing why our system is good. :beer: It will show that moving towards socialism could kill this type of checks and balance we have.

Now again on Trumps losses and taxes. Yep he did mention that on his TV show and he wrote two books... The Art of a Comeback and Never give up. So those two outline his losses. Also if anyone was alive back then they knew he filed for bankruptcy a few times. :bop: I was only 7 back in 85 and I knew that.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Right Chuck......but our system also protects against a Dictatorship. Just have to wonder what else in in the report that the Schultz Party doesn't want us to see.

I can hardly wait until next November when Crooked Trump loses a close election. Then says it was rigged, and refuses to leave office. It will be one of the biggest crisis in our history. oke: oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

That was my point. Granted is the subpoena worthy or is it a political stunt is debatable. Just like when Holder and congress ignored the Fast and Furious subpoena. But this whole thing going on now is showing that the system has in place checks and balances. It is a good system. Now is it being used correctly the past few years (yes I am going back to Obama years and Republicans in congress) is also debatable.&#8230; but it is in place so we don't have a dictatorship and can reign in people in power.

The only thing people cant see is the "grand jury" stuff. Which is protected by law. They are trying to keep leaks from happening. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Little wonder democrats love welfare, they are to lazy to walk across the isle and read the entire report. Only .05% is redacted anyway so don't expect anything juicy. Remember Mueller doesn't disagree with Barrs analysis of his report, he was only concerned the media would interpret it wrong because Barr didn't give enough information on his first report. Barr first report was short because people were wanting everything so fast. He followed up with a complete report.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.


----------

