If I am Trump I put heavy security around Bill Barr

Loading


 
democrats are getting frantic and truly desperate and I really fear for the physical safety of Attorney General Bill Barr. Just now Maria Bartiromo said that her sources tell her that Nadler will introduce a contempt of Congress resolution on Wednesday.

Eric Holder has taught us that such charges may be dismissed summarily and they have no meaning. Obama appointee Judge Amy Berman Jackson declined to hold Holder in contempt. Ater all, Holder was Obama’s wing man.

You will remember that no democrat had objections to Holder as Attorney General was acting as Obama’s personal attorney but now are offended by such accusations against Barr.



democrats are settting one trap after another for Barr. First they used Barr’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary committee to assail him, insult him and impugn his integrity. It was shameful. Then Jerry Nadler demanded that Barr appear before the House Judiciary Committee and Barr agreed. Then after Barr agreed to appear, Nadler changed the rules to allow staff members to put Barr on trial-something entirely unprecedented. Barr then decided against appearing.

Nadler no doubt has calculated Barr would refuse and then started barking about Contempt charges.

Bill Barr is going to unravel the conspiracy against Donald Trump and democrats know it. They know he will expose the false premises upon which the investigations are premised. They know he will get to the bottom of the obama administration spying on Trump and the obama FBI opening a counter intelligence investigation on Americans.

And let’s be clear- Barr did not lie.

The mindless, no-need-to-check-the-record allegation against Barr goes like this: The AG testified on April 9 that he had no idea why Special Counsel Mueller was upset over the way Barr’s March 24 letter described Mueller’s report; but, in fact, Barr knew exactly why Mueller was upset because he had received the latter’s March 27 letter complaining about Barr’s missive.

Now, here is the exchange on which the perjury allegation is based, with my italics highlighting key portions:

CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they’re referencing with that?

BARR: No, I don’t. I think — I think . . . I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but, in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report. . . . I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller’s own language in doing that.

When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr’s testimony is clearly accurate. And I don’t mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque “depends on what the definition of is is” sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to volunteer information beyond what the question sought.

Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller’s reaction to Barr’s letter; he asked a specific question about the reaction of Mueller’s “team” to the Barr letter’s description of “the report’s findings.” Regarding the March 24 letter’s rendering of this bottom line — namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction question — Barr said he did not know what Mueller’s staff was complaining about.

CNN even went so far as to deceptively alter a video to make Barr appear dishonest.

It is highly unlikely that any judge would grant a Contempt citation and if necessary SCOTUS would put an end to it, especially as all of this is based on lies and deceit.

Nadler now demands that Barr hand over the entire Mueller report in an unredacted fashion.

In a letter to Barr on Friday, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler gave the Justice Department a 9 a.m. Monday deadline to respond to his letter affirming that it will comply with the subpoena — which called for Barr to supply the full Mueller report and underlying evidence to Congress by May 1 — or negotiate in good faith with the committee to reach a “reasonable accommodation.”

So far, DOJ has stiffed the committee, citing legal statutes that restrict the attorney general from handing over some information underlying the Mueller report to Congress and claiming the committee does not have a “legitimate” reason to demand such information.

By law, grand jury testimony is not to be made public. The Mueller team made its own redactions. So here’s the deal- if Barr releases the information, Nadler impeaches him for violating the law. If he doesn’t, Nadler hits Barr with a contempt charge.

democrats are demanding that Barr resign especially now that Barr is over the target.

None of this is likely to succeed and that brings us to a very dark place. When all of the legal avenues are exhausted, it leaves only the illicit ones.

Do I think that democrats will grow so desperate that they would resort to physically harm Barr?

You bet I do.

democrats are talking of “jail time” for Barr.

They’re talking about putting Barr in handcuffs.

Colbert threatens to “wring his (Barr’s) neck”.

They’re deranged and they have everything to lose.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
189 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Michael: Did you bother to click the link in another vets post? Do try to keep up.

The powers of some people to figure out everything but the obvious never cease to amaze me.

@kitt:

Did you bother to click the link in another vets post? Do try to keep up.

I read a story about the topic at another site. The fact that he’s not testifying next week does not mean that he’s never testifying.

@Greg: @kitt:

Comrade Nadler is now threatening to subpoena him. He best think twice because while him and his comrades expect Mueller to be a friendly witness, it would be very easy for the R’s to turn him into a hostile one.

@another vet:

Comrade Nadler is now threatening to subpoena him. He best think twice because while him and his comrades expect Mueller to be a friendly witness, it would be very easy for the R’s to turn him into a hostile one.

I’m guessing the Democrats are already aware that Republicans also sit on the committee.

The fact that the Democrats are eager for Mueller to testify suggests that the pitfalls and traps you guys see might not be as serious as you think they’ll be — or they might not even exist at all. Certainly the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee are as up on the latest Mueller gossip as you people are.

@Michael: Silly goose they are way ahead of us, they have seen stuff that wont be declassified for 50 years. It is why they are in such a panic saying its a constitutional crisis.

@kitt: So if Mueller’s testimony risks bringing down the entire evil Democratic house of cards, why do they want him to testify?

@kitt:

It is why they are in such a panic saying its a constitutional crisis.

I think they’re saying it’s a constitutional crisis because the traditional system of checks and balances appears to be breaking down.

@Michael:

: So if Mueller’s testimony risks bringing down the entire evil Democratic house of cards, why do they want him to testify?

Because the liberal media will do everything they can to suppress anything bad for Democrats that comes out of it and promote anything bad for Republicans. It’s called propaganda and the liberal media works hand in glove with Democrats to promote the liberal agenda.

I think they’re saying it’s a constitutional crisis because the traditional system of checks and balances appears to be breaking down.

It is a crisis because the left is weaponizing the system of checks and balance. They have no reason to be investigating Trump’s personal life yet the Democrats are trying to find weapons to use against him.

@Michael: 157 no one accused the Dems of being smart the media will be left to try to spin them out .
158 Wrong the Dems have been using the government to gain power for so long the little things no one notices is stealing power and money.
All the fines from the banks going to far left NGOs. ect.
Housing subsidies meant for our poor filled with border Jumpers, Ben says there will be an end to that.
Pelosi and Feinstein super rich on a government salary, seems the hubbtys get some financial perks that are closely tied to federal money going back to the state, or trade agreements not exactly favorable to the USA.
You notice Pelosi looking kinda rough she cant even brush her hair anymore.

@Deplorable Me:

Because the liberal media will do everything they can to suppress anything bad for Democrats that comes out of it and promote anything bad for Republicans. It’s called propaganda and the liberal media works hand in glove with Democrats to promote the liberal agenda.

That’s weird. You totally scoffed at the idea that controlling the news cycle meant anything at all when it came to Barr’s deceptive gloss of Mueller’s report weeks before the document was actually released.

Releasing only Barr’s opinion of the document was the functional equivalent of having the media suppress one side of the discussion.

@kitt:

You notice Pelosi looking kinda rough she cant even brush her hair anymore.

That’s some incisive political analysis!

@Michael:

That’s weird. You totally scoffed at the idea that controlling the news cycle meant anything at all when it came to Barr’s deceptive gloss of Mueller’s report weeks before the document was actually released.

First, Barr nor any other Republican has the benefit of media alliance, so thinking Barr thought he would gain anything by misrepresenting the report is the acme of stupidity. Second, Barr was not deceptive in any way, form or fashion. Mueller was supposed to flag and redact any of the Grand Jury testimony to aid in a rapid release of the report; he didn’t. So, it was going to require weeks to sort through it and make sure he complied with the law. Kind of important. So, Barr released a short, concise and ACCURATE summation; even Mueller did not assert it was inaccurate. Mueller’s complaint was all the editorializing was left out of the summation… which is sort of what a summary is.

However, in contrast, the media is cheering on Nadler as he finds Barr in contempt for following the law.

So, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.

Releasing only Barr’s opinion of the document was the functional equivalent of having the media suppress one side of the discussion.

Explain what part of Barr’s summation was inaccurate.

@Deplorable Me:

Explain what part of Barr’s summation was inaccurate.

“Incomplete,” rather than inaccurate , leaving the distinct impression that “not exonerated” was the sum of Mueller’s findings when it came to obstruction. But surprise! He’d actually compiled 182 pages in which he laid out ten instances of obstruction by Trump & Co.

By the time the redacted report was released, the Rightwingosphere had been hermetically sealed into the reality Barr had wanted to create.

@Deplorable Me:

However, in contrast, the media is cheering on Nadler as he finds Barr in contempt for following the law.

“Reporting” is not the same thing as “cheering on.”

@Michael:

“Incomplete,” rather than inaccurate

Incomplete, as opposed to the complete report? Did you not read why he could not immediately release the complete report? And, how did “incomplete” become “deceptive”? Did Barr ever intimate that his 4 page summary was the complete report?

He’d actually compiled 182 pages in which he laid out ten instances of obstruction by Trump & Co.

Yet he could not bring himself to SAY Trump obstructed justice. The one and only conclusion to be drawn there is that there was NOT substantive proof Trump obstructed anything. Someone that provides 1.4 million documents… ALL that was requested… is not in the obstruction business.

“Reporting” is not the same thing as “cheering on.”

Have you heard any of the liberal media reporting that Barr is following the law and Nadler is holding him in contempt for following the law? If they are suppressing that pretty important fact, they are supporting Nadler’s illegal action.

@Michael:

“Incomplete,” rather than inaccurate , leaving the distinct impression that “not exonerated” was the sum of Mueller’s findings when it came to obstruction.

That, Michael, was not Mueller’s job. His job was to report if there was any prosecutorial obstruction by the President into his fact finding. He would be laughed out of any court room in the nation if he was a prosecuting attorney who said he could “not exonerate” the defendant but could not prosecute on the facts revealed.

But surprise! He’d actually compiled 182 pages in which he laid out ten instances of obstruction by Trump & Co.

That was nothing but fodder for the Democrats. And Barr could have refused to make it public or even give it to Congress. Yet Barr, who went against rules that Congress (held by Democrats) put into place after the Clinton impeachment process, released the entire report.

Why won’t any Democrats go read the redacted report? Not one of them have and the only remaining redaction, in their copy, is the FISC records which they are not entitled to, by law. Remember how the Democrats all bloviated how they would accept the Mueller report? They lied.

“Reporting” is not the same thing as “cheering on.”

Two months ago, not 1% of American voters knew who Jerry Nadler is. Now Nadler is seeking his 15 minutes of fame. Pure Napoleon complex crap. And as far as the entire left wing media repeating the “Constitutional crisis” bull crap, seems Media Matters sent out those taking points to its select email recipients yesterday morning. That is why they all sound like parrots. And yes, the left wingers are “cheering on” Nadler who is an idiot.

@retire05:

Remember how the Democrats all bloviated how they would accept the Mueller report? They lied.

Well, to be fair, that was back when the mountain of absolute, definitive, positive, irrefutable PROOF, readily on hand, existed. Based on the belief that all that proof was going to be included in Mueller’s report, Democrats were happy to accept the report. However, when all that proof vanished and the report reflected the finding that there was no collusion, never was, then the report became a little more difficult to accept.

In other words, the report they wanted was S T O L E N from them.

@retire05: They offered to bring the report to capitol hill to them, with only 1% redacted just the grand jury stuff redacted and the democrats said no. they want to expose Grand Jury testimony to the public, where the MSM can ruin peoples life over accusations that the jury did not see cause to prosecute. Lets have a trial by MSM like with that Covington kid.

@Deplorable Me:

Incomplete, as opposed to the complete report?

No. As Mueller said in his letter to Barr, the facts he wrote were correct, but the facts he didn’t write allowed Barr to misrepresent the substance of the report.

Did you not read why he could not immediately release the complete report?

Irrelevant, since that’s not what I’m saying needed to happen.

And, how did “incomplete” become “deceptive”?

Answered above.

Did Barr ever intimate that his 4 page summary was the complete report?

No, but he definitely led everyone to believe that he’d shared the substance of the report.

Yet he could not bring himself to SAY Trump obstructed justice.

He did really follow the DoJ’s rules, didn’t he?

The one and only conclusion to be drawn there is that there was NOT substantive proof Trump obstructed anything

That’s patently incorrect, as we are right now arguing over another conclusion held by many, many people, including the guy who wrote the report and many hundred professionals in the same line of work as the guy who wrote the report.

Someone that provides 1.4 million documents… ALL that was requested… is not in the obstruction business.

If providing or withholding documents were the only way that Trump could affect the investigation, you might have a point, but such is not the case. Also: a president who directs his underlings to ignore all Congressional subpoenas appears to be very enthusiastically in the obstruction business — in a big way.

@retire05:

He would be laughed out of any court room in the nation if he was a prosecuting attorney who said he could “not exonerate” the defendant but could not prosecute on the facts revealed.

Unless the subject of the investigation was a sitting President. Spoiler alert! He was!

If Mueller can’t indict, then he’s not going to say that Trump should have been indicted, because Trump would be unable to fight the accusation in a court of law — a situation which would be inherently unfair to Trump.

On the other hand, Mueller very definitely could lay out the case and call for someone to deal with it who didn’t have to operate within the same proscriptions — “someone”, in this case, being Congress.

@kitt:

they want to expose Grand Jury testimony to the public, where the MSM can ruin peoples life over accusations that the jury did not see cause to prosecute.

Likely they simply want to create a crisis. Just as they assumed Barr would not show up to be grilled by some glory-hog leftist staffers, they knew Barr would abide by the law and refuse them the illegal, unredacted version of the report. Games. Games instead of acting like adults.

@Michael:

No. As Mueller said in his letter to Barr, the facts he wrote were correct, but the facts he didn’t write allowed Barr to misrepresent the substance of the report.

All of which, less the legally mandated redactions, would be included in the full report. So, Barr misrepresented nothing, was in no way inaccurate, was not pulling any tricks and was going above and beyond anything he was required to do. Or, would you have preferred he simply said, “Wait for any information about the content of the report until I can release the full, redacted report. I wouldn’t want to hurt any sensitive feelings.”?

Irrelevant, since that’s not what I’m saying needed to happen.

No, totally relevant because he could either release a summary or nothing and his summary was 100% accurate.

Answered above.

Not answered. His summary was accurate and, being a summary, was not all the details.

No, but he definitely led everyone to believe that he’d shared the substance of the report.

It was a summary that was represented as nothing more than a summary. If you and the media don’t know what a summary is, that is YOUR problem, not Barr’s failure or misrepresentation.

He did really follow the DoJ’s rules, didn’t he?

No, because his job was to make a finding. I guess you don’t get as much for $35,000,000 as you used to.

That’s patently incorrect

No, it isn’t, which is why Mueller did not conclude Trump obstructed anything.

Also: a president who directs his underlings to ignore all Congressional subpoenas appears to be very enthusiastically in the obstruction business

Like Obama did, with Fast and Furious… or with refusing to fulfill FOIA requests for information about government use of private email? Trump is using his executive privilege rights and protecting his right to privacy, depending upon which Democrat crybaby fit you are referencing.

@Michael: Didnt I tell you to look up special prosecutor?
Mueller never had the power to indict Trump. It was his job to report his conclusions and legal arguments for any charges he deemed his investigation warranted.

That’s patently incorrect, as we are right now arguing over another conclusion held by many, many people, including the guy who wrote the report and many hundred professionals in the same line of work as the guy who wrote the report.

No it wasnt he made no conclusions that were not in the report.
He listed 10 items he investigated, investigated but made no definite conclusions.

How is this so hard for you to comprehend?
Unethical morons are grabbing the 10 items and trying to second guess the investigators that had millions of documents and 2 years to investigate them.
A million lawyers could say they would indict who really cares.

@Deplorable Me:

Like Obama did, with Fast and Furious… or with refusing to fulfill FOIA requests for information about government use of private email?

The facts of what Obama did do not change the facts of what Trump is doing.

@kitt:

No it wasnt he made no conclusions that were not in the report.
He listed 10 items he investigated, investigated but made no definite conclusions.

Sure, but I’m referring to conclusions we as a society could come to upon reading the report.

@Michael:

As Mueller said in his letter to Barr, the facts he wrote were correct, but the facts he didn’t write allowed Barr to misrepresent the substance of the report.

Once Mueller handed his report over to AG Barr, who he worked for, he was done with it. What happens after that is AG Barr’s call, not Muellers. Mueller was upset because a) Barr refused to include 19 pages with his summary that was written by Mueller and b) the press was hammering Mueller for his report. It was the tail trying to wag the dog.

If Mueller can’t indict, then he’s not going to say that Trump should have been indicted, because Trump would be unable to fight the accusation in a court of law — a situation which would be inherently unfair to Trump.

Mueller clearly violated Bar Association rules. Perhaps that doesn’t mean much to you who seems illiterate when it comes to things like that, but it does to Mueller. He should be held responsible to the Bar and should lose his license to practice law.

News flash, Michael; there was no evidentiary predicate to open the investigation in the first place and that is ALL going to come out and then what will the Democrats do? They been harping for two years that Trump “colluded” with the Russians and now, they have a lot of egg on their faces. Their only option is to continue the Clown Show. Meanwhile, there is no legislation being passed that would benefit the American public. None. I ask Greggie Goebbels to list the Democrats legislative achievements since they took control and in response, I got crickets.

You really should stop trying to argue things you are so illiterate on.

@kitt:

A million lawyers could say they would indict who really cares.

It wouldn’t affect the outcome, of course, but it would be a pretty clear indication that you are seriously misunderstanding what Mueller is saying in his report. Which you are.

@Michael:

Sure, but I’m referring to conclusions we as a society could come to upon reading the report.

You, as a society, should stop trying to opine on law since you seem to lack even a rudimentary knowledge of it.

@Michael:

The facts of what Obama did do not change the facts of what Trump is doing.

But it is context. Obama and Holder actually ignored subpoenas and obstructed justice in a case involving MURDERS and gun violence. Trump has, in reality, obstructed NOTHING, proving you liberals have no interest in justice, truth or the law but only want absolute power.

Obama and Holder DID it, Trump didn’t.

Sure, but I’m referring to conclusions we as a society could come to upon reading the report

We as a society do not determine what is illegal. The laws do. Therefore, if Mueller could have possibly supported a conclusion, based on those laws, that Trump committed any crimes, HE would have made that conclusion. That’s his JOB; the opinion of society is expressed through their vote.

It wouldn’t affect the outcome, of course, but it would be a pretty clear indication that you are seriously misunderstanding what Mueller is saying in his report. Which you are.

As a gauge of the value of these prosecutor’s credibility, I would like to know how they regarded all that absolute proof that the Democrats had that Trump was positively guilty of colluding with the Russians. If they believed that crap, then their opinions now are less than worthless.

@Michael: No I am not misunderstanding,

Sure, but I’m referring to conclusions we as a society could come to upon reading the report.

I know once that report is handed in it is the AGs, Mueller failed to make a legal argument to charge obstruction, the AG agreed there was insufficent legal basis for obstruction charges.
Investigation was over the second that report was given to Barr.
Mueller said Barrs assessment was not inaccurate.

@retire05:

that is ALL going to come out and then what will the Democrats do?

You guys keep saying that kind of thing, but I notice that the Democrats are the ones asking for more information and more testimony — even information and testimony that you feel will be damaging to their cause — and it’s the Republicans who continue to block testimony and the release of information.

How do those facts square with your theory?

@Deplorable Me:

If they believed that crap, then their opinions now are less than worthless.

Whether they believed it or not would have no bearing on the question at hand. They’re saying that, speaking from their experience as Federal prosecutors, they would indict based on the evidence of obstruction (not of conspiracy) laid out in the Mueller report.

The decision, in other words, is not predicated on the information you say would disqualify them; it’s based on Volume II information.

@kitt:

Mueller said Barrs assessment was not inaccurate.

But he did say that Barr’s assessment did not convey the substance of the report.

That’s the problem.

@Michael: There are 2 seperate investigations, 1 was Investigating Trump, The investigation we are hinting at is the illegal investigation of Trump, by trying to discredit Barr and keep him busy with a closed investigation, they are obstructing Justice.
Well the 4 pages did not convey the substance, it was shit should Barr have said the report is brown not fully solid and smells bad?

@kitt: A parable:

Johnny comes into class and tells me that Jimmy hit Billy. In my investigation, I learned that Jimmy did hit Billy, but that was because Billy had Jimmy pinned to the ground and was pounding his head against the blacktop.

Was Johnny’s report inaccurate? No. Did it mischaracterize the substance of the interaction? Definitely.

If I then learn that the Johnny had previously declared that Billy shouldn’t get in trouble for beating Jimmy up, then I might begin to question Johnny’s role in this whole thing.

@Michael: That is a horrid parable for the situation.
Johnny is in love with Mary who wants to be president of student counsel.
Mary has been caught stealing from the bake sale funds,
Johnny says Mary didnt mean to steal the funds.
Johnny hates Donny who is also running for student counsel, Mary says Donny ate the items from the bake sale, Donny then tells teacher Mike donny is a thief, Mike puts cameras on Donny sees Mary taking the money but she isnt under investigation so ignores it, Johnny then puts it in the student paper that Donny is eating the bakery so as to hide the missing funds. Mike reads the paper and goes to the principal with that as evidence and Donny is supposed to be suspended?

@kitt:

That is a horrid parable for the situation.

Why? Simply writing your own tale doesn’t explain why the first one’s no good.

I’m referring to the “not inaccurate” versus “mischaracterizing the substance of the report” discussion. You appear to be dealing with something else.

@Michael: The case is closed the congress and its media whores want to keep it going.
We want the investigation as to why they felt it was okay to put spies into the campaign, why did they try to entrap the campaign by setting them up to meet with a Russian woman at Trump Tower? Just how large was the spy net of the Obama admin where are those spies now?
We never believed The Trump Russia conspiracy theory ever. Why did the MSM push that crap.

@Michael:

Whether they believed it or not would have no bearing on the question at hand.

No bearing on the question, but certainly on their opinion; belief in that “mountain” of garbage, then being able to suddenly forget how emphatically all the left believed it only to see it vanish over night indicates a deep-rooted and incurable stupidity, vastly discounting their opinion. Basically, they will believe and say anything if it is negative to the President.

But he did say that Barr’s assessment did not convey the substance of the report.

Summaries rarely do. It did convey the FACT that Trump committed no collusion nor obstruction. It could not convey more until the report was redacted. I thought that was clear to everyone. Apparently, some skull require extra velocity to penetrate.

Your parable describes the crime. The report describes conclusions. Barr summarized the conclusions. Your parable is a fail.

I’m referring to the “not inaccurate” versus “mischaracterizing the substance of the report” discussion.

Of course, your original point was “deceptive”. Once that was blown out of the water, it became “incomplete”, which, of course it was, it was a brief summary of a 440 page unredacted report.

But, the good part is no crimes by Trump, so there should be no “constitutional crisis” and wouldn’t be, but for Democrats creating one.