April 18, 2019

Barr is about to speak.

But it's time for my Pilates lesson, so you're on your own for now.

UPDATE: I'm back, but I've got a bunch of things to do. You'll have to enjoy/rail against the great Muellering on your own.

Here's the text. Search and you shall find!

UPDATE 2: Have you had a nice day? I spent some of it listening to the cable news channels on the satellite radio in the car, but it got repetitious and overemotional so I retreated to my audiobook. Do I have to blog about the Mueller report? Obviously, not.

723 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   601 – 723 of 723
Browndog said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Watching Tucker Carlson, Andrew McCarthy said you do not need a crime for impeachment because "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not in the penal code.”

Looks like Andrew McCarthy has seen the writing on the wall. He’s not going to sully his own reputation the way Barr has.


Care to expand?

Not sure what you mean.

Nobody said...

Glenn Greenwald Verified account @ggreenwald
10h10 hours ago

I'm almost feeling sorry for the CNN panel. They are really hurt and are not even hiding it. Just live up to what you've done.

BADuBois said...

Wow, that's some long Pilates lesson...

eddie willers said...

"Anonymous" reads alot like Chuck and Inga, LOL.

Without all the cussing.

Nobody said...

Well, let’s hear from the House leadership....

Dana Bash Verified account @DanaBashCNN 5h5 hours ago

House Majority @LeaderHoyer just told me : “Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement,”

mccullough said...

Steny can read a poll. Trump outplayed them, again.

Fen said...

"[W]e concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a president’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice"

Yawn. What specific action are talking about? The people that Trump didn't fire? The people that SCOTUS would rule the Chief Executive has the authority to fire?

And speaking of Justice, what's that part prohibting chargimg people for acts commited BEFORE new laws made those acts illegal?

Grasping at straws. Please do continue.




Humperdink said...

Hoyer will need to herd the cats. Good luck with that Steny.

Original Mike said...

OK, now I'm watching CNN congratulate themselves on the good job they did. And claim they entertain a wide difference of opinion.

And there's David Gergen: "Even though there was no criminality doesn't mean this wasn't a scandal."

Really? Trump didn't collude with Russia but it's still a scandal because.... What?

Nobody said...

What specific action are talking about? The people that Trump didn't fire? The people that SCOTUS would rule the Chief Executive has the authority to fire?

Well, they have a big problem with Trump the innocent man declaring his innocence,

Fen said...

"Care to expand? Not sure what you mean."

It's a Chuck Sockpuppet. Same writing style. Same vague innuendo, same habit of slimy assertions unsupported by fact.

You're not going to get an answer from a quisling who changes his handle to avoid having to eat crow.

Nobody said...

Trump didn't collude with Russia but it's still a scandal because.... What?

Because Hillary said so, and that’s good enough for Gergen! This all came out of a campaign smear where campaign money was paid for foreign spies, some of them working for Putin, to smear Trump.

mccullough said...

Steny knows the key to power is keeping the House seats they flipped Democrat.

The AOC, Omar, Nadler and Schiff for Brains districts are solid Dems, probably even half Communists districts.

Any Dem moron will get elected there.

And Nancy and Steny aren’t worried about an AOC r Omar idiot prinarying a purple district Dem since those Dem voters there aren’t anti-American scum.

Time to impeach Trump said...

“The Constitution commands the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It requires him to affirm that he will “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to promise to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” And as a result, by taking the presidential oath of office, a president assumes the duty not simply to obey the laws, civil and criminal, that all citizens must obey, but also to be subjected to higher duties — what some excellent recent legal scholarship has termed the “fiduciary obligations of the president.”

Fiduciaries are people who hold legal obligations of trust, like a trustee of a trust. A trustee must act in the beneficiary’s best interests and not his own. If the trustee fails to do that, the trustee can be removed, even if what the trustee has done is not a crime.

So too with a president. The Constitution provides for impeachment and removal from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” But the history and context of the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” makes clear that not every statutory crime is impeachable, and not every impeachable offense need be criminal. As Charles L. Black Jr. put it in a seminal pamphlet on impeachment in 1974, “assaults on the integrity of the processes of government” count as impeachable, even if they are not criminal.

And presidential attempts to abuse power by putting personal interests above the nation’s can surely be impeachable. The president may have the raw constitutional power to, say, squelch an investigation or to pardon a close associate. But if he does so not to serve the public interest, but to serve his own, he surely could be removed from office, even if he has not committed a criminal act.“

Washington Post

Original Mike said...

Maybe Gergen was referring to the scandal of our FBI and intelligence community running spies at a Presidential campaign.

Nobody said...

Brian Fallon Verified account @brianefallon

Even if Trump was not guilty of conspiracy due to lack of direct involvement in the Russian hack, how does Mueller characterize campaign's involvement in distribution of stolen emails?


Best reply: “I’m sorry for your loss Brian. Thoughts and prayers.”

mccullough said...

Bill Clinton told Monica to lie and to destroy evidence so the grand jury wouldn’t have it.

That’s a classic obstruction case.

Trump didn’t do that.

Fen said...

"Andrew McCarthy said you do not need a crime for impeachment because "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not in the penal code.”

Professor Althouse was one of a hundred legal scholars who signed a petition that Clinton's perjury and obstruction did not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The organizers also switched the cover-letter after the petition was signed.

Althouse, that's from memory, please correct me if I misrepresented anything.

Would be interesting to see her position on this.

Drago said...

Looks like Anonymous-Cut-and-paster-Inga has finally returned.

Not a moment too soon I'd say...

Original Mike said...

"And presidential attempts to abuse power by putting personal interests above the nation’s ..."

Such as?

Nobody said...

“The Constitution commands the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It requires him to affirm that he will “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to promise to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” And as a result, by taking the presidential oath of office, a president assumes the duty not simply to obey the laws, civil and criminal, that all citizens must obey, but also to be subjected to higher duties — what some excellent recent legal scholarship has termed the “fiduciary obligations of the president.”

That’s a pretty damning indictment of Obama. Wow.

Nobody said...

Such as?

Usurping the presidency from its rightful owner, Hillary.

Drago said...

The lefty lunatic/LLR-lunatic goalposts have not just moved, they have been sawed off, cut into pieces and dumped far out to sea.

Browndog said...

As Charles L. Black Jr. put it in a seminal pamphlet on impeachment in 1974, “assaults on the integrity of the processes of government” count as impeachable, even if they are not criminal.

That's like citing dicta in a dissenting opinion that 'proves the Constitution states you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater', from a case that had nothing to do with free speech.

Original Mike said...

"Looks like Anonymous-Cut-and-paster-Inga has finally returned."

Good, I'm still waiting for that face rubbing.

walter said...

"Time to impeach Trump",
I mean Inga..are you going to Green Bay on the 27th? Dust off the pussy hat and road trip? We could carpool.
Fun!

mccullough said...

Legal Scholar petitions are partisan documents. Like the NRA.

Tribe testified at Clinton’s trial in the Senate that Clinton telling Monica to lie and destroy evidence wasn’t an offense that deserved removal from office.

Trump didn’t tell anyone to lie or destroy evidence.

FullMoon said...

Posted a few times above but really worth repeating. Explains how Mueller tried to trap Trump and how Barr ,as a private citizen, saw the despicable behavior. Once Barr was appointed, investigation wrapped up in a hurry because Mueller knew him and his gang were busted.
Will Chamberlain

Nobody said...

Iran “Deal” never ratified by the Senate.
DACA spent money never appropriated by Congress.
Paris Accords never ratified by Congress.

Oh, and how many times did Obama claim executive privilege when under investigation? There was “not a smidgen of corruption” and yet his IRS head took the fifth before Congress, and Obama claimed executive privilege and refused to provide documents relating to the investigation. Oh yeah, and they took hammers to hard drives that bid fair to contain incriminating information.

I guess all of the Democrats walked down the road to Domascus, because suddenly they have religion on these things!

Nobody said...

Trump didn’t tell anyone to lie or destroy evidence

You mean he didn’t use BleachBit on any hard drives after deleting thousands of emails relating to a time. when he and his spouse doubled their net worth while he was in office? Oh wait, that was Hillary.

Original Mike said...

Clapper says the Trump campaign may not have actively colluded but they "passively" colluded.

What the hell does that mean?

He also said Russian interfence was responsible for Hillary's loss.

Fen said...

"And presidential attempts to -"

No. Whoever wrote that at WaPo is lying to you.

The Clinton Impeachment is still fresh in my head, there was much debate on the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The standard is much much higher than the hack at WaPo pretends.

What will actually happen: your side will talk talk talk ahout impeachment but never begin impeachment hearings. But your experts know it's a lost cause, there's nothing there. But you will dishonestly pretend he should have been impeached just to associate him with corruption in the public. It stand against principal Chuck and you should be ashamed for pimping here, even anonymously.

What is happening now The MSM sold you a lemon and now they are trying to cool the mark by claiming "No indictment but he should have been indicted so we didn't mislead you" to keep the pitchfork weilding mobs off their steps. Same reason they led you down the Mueller witch hunt, to divert your anger at how badly they miscalled Hillary's defeat. And you are falling for it all over again.


Nobody said...

Clapper said a lot things, many of them shown to be lies told for partisan purposes.

Can anybody explain why Putin wants Keystone approved and fracking to continue? Both policies Hillary opposed?

Kirk Parker said...

TJM,

"I wonder if Inga is on prozac today?"

Either that or suicide watch.

Birkel,

Pretty sure Fen means, if we were as wrong about something as ChInga are about this.

Fen said...

"Clapper says the Trump campaign may not have actively colluded but they "passively" colluded."

"What the hell does that mean?"

It's the media's new version of "there's a growing perception" they once used when they wanted to assert a narrative but had no sources.

Trump "has created an environment" for x to thrive.

Jordan Peterson "is responsible for emboldening the alt-right"

Are examples I've encountered recently.



narciso said...

General magoo who knows, we know general Hayden another member of the camarillo didnt forward the bin al shibh intercept in due time, the latters associate Chertoff was representing firtash in extradition proceedings

Chuck said...

wholelottasplainin', and iowan2:

No; the claim that Trump fully cooperated comes from Barr, not Trump.

Trump refused to testify or to submit for an interview. Trump might have claimed a Fifth Amendment privilege, but he didn't. He agreed to answer some written questions on some limited topics, but Trump's answers were insufficient and Mueller thought that they were insufficient.

Anyway, we will find out the answer to this dispute when Mueller testifies in front of Congress, and someone asks Mueller, "Stated simply, did Trump 'fully cooperate' in your investigation?" That will be like the time that I predicted that then-Judge Gorsuch would, in his confirmation hearing, confirm that he used the terms "disheartening" and "demoralizing" in discussing Trump's comments concerning federal judges in a discussion with Senator Blumenthal. Trump claimed in a Tweet that Blumenthal misquoted Gorsuch. Gorsuch testified and used the same words for the same question, under oath.

So I expect that Mueller will clearly and unequivocally say that Trump did not cooperate fully with his investigation.

Birkel said...

Kirk Parker,
That is a low standard that you, Fen, and I are unlikely to reach.

Let's talk more about how a statute can be misread for political purposes.

And let's talk about how Chuck is a smear merchant and a fopdoodle.
Give me that address for your gym and we can argue our points.

FullMoon said...

Looks like Anonymous-Cut-and-paster-Inga has finally returned.

Not a moment too soon I'd say...


She into the wine again.
Next, doughnuts and candy as comfort food, puttin' all the weight back on. SAD!

Fen said...

Kirk: "Birkel, pretty sure Fen means, if we were as wrong about something as ChInga are about this."

Huh? Sorry, that went over my head. And I scrolled back but couldn't find a post of Birkel responding to me. Please clarify? He's not someone I want to annoy.

Humperdink said...

Trivia question. Who was the first and only U.S. Attorney General in history to be held in both criminal and civil contempt?

A) Janet Reno
B) Edwin Meese
C) Ramsey Clark
D) Eric Holder

If you guessed D, you would be right!!!

FullMoon said...

Weekly clarification for new or occasional readers:

Chuck said...
"I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him."

3/4/16, 4:46 PM

Browndog said...

You mean he didn’t use BleachBit on any hard drives after deleting thousands of emails relating to a time. when he and his spouse doubled their net worth while he was in office? Oh wait, that was Hillary.

Oh, you mean the ones that were under FOIA, subpoena, and direct Congressional instructions to preserve due to an investigation, making that act alone a felony?

Kinda like how the DOJ actually assisted in destroying the computers of her lawyers (Cheryl Mills and others)?

Original Mike said...

I'm sure Chuck is equally upset that Steele won't talk to Horowitz.

Drago said...

I see the lefties like LLR Chuck have FINALLY received their new lefty talking points!!

That has to be of great comfort on this most disorienting to lefties/LLR-lefties day.

chickelit said...

Serious clinical delusion on steroids.

Yep. Inga is out on a rhetorical limb. Someone get the saw.

Birkel said...

No worries, Fen.
I was cracking wise.
It was a riff and Kirk was just playing along.

Something about taking medicine when wrong.
Eating crow and such.

But you and I apply common sense and are rarely crazily wrong.
(paraphrasing)

chickelit said...

Eric Holder drew a bright line between "we the people" and "his people." All of his legal problems stemmed from his racism.

Fen said...

"But you and I apply common sense and are rarely crazily wrong."

LOL okay sorry. I'm having a blonde moment and this tiny text is making me even more foggy.

Clear fields of fire to ya!

Birkel said...

In case you missed my intent, smear merchant Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, I mean I will come to your gym for a full contact sparring session at your convenience.

You brag on your undefeated record on bets.
I will record the event so you can brag to Royal ass Inga.
You can remain undefeated.

narciso said...

Much like uranium one, the computer of the CEO of the counterpart was destroyed, also see lois Lerner, whose legal team went to work for Greg craig.

Fen said...

"the lefties like LLR Chuck have FINALLY received their new lefty talking points!!"

Notice a difference? They are simply cut n pasting without commentary.

Feeling a lil impotent, Cuckie? Heh.

Breezy said...

My respect for Trump grew today. That he has accomplished anything after initially thinking his presidency is toast, is quite a feat !

FullMoon said...

Hate to be the one to kill the joy,, but let us not forget about Omarosa's tape and Tom Arnolds video.

Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer scheming when to release them , real soon.

Original Mike said...

Oh, Oh, Rachel Maddow talking to Andy McCabe. Can't wait for her to ask him about the insurance policy.

Michael K said...

He agreed to answer some written questions on some limited topics, but Trump's answers were insufficient and Mueller thought that they were insufficient.

Hall monitor and all around scold Chiuck weighs in. Chuck how did you make your first billion ?

Chuck, how many times did you take the Bar before you passed ?

Birkel said...

Michael K,
Your assumption that quasi-lawyer Chuck, smear merchant and fopdoodle extraordinaire, ever passed the bar is without basis.
Shame on you!!

Fen said...

"I'm sure Chuck is equally upset that Steele won't talk to Horowitz."

SO upset that he can't find the words.

Just like his silence about CIA getting British, French and Australian intelligence agencies to run spies at Trump to entrap him and report back to CIA, circumventing laws that forbid CIA from spying on America.

"Heads. Pikes. Walls." - Tyrion Lanister

Fen said...

And the Aussies have signaled they are willing to tell all.

"Pull up, Chuck, pull up!" - Red Leader

Fen said...

"He agreed to answer some written questions on some limited topics, but Trump's answers were insufficient and Mueller thought that they were insufficient."

Dear quasi-lawyer, smear merchant and fopdoodle extraordinaire:

That's not Obstruction of Justice.

Anonymous said...

OK, actual lawyers. Whycome 'c' in Rosenstein's appt of Mueller (page whatever--go look) gives him the authority to "prosecute crimes arising from this investigation"?

I don't get the "arising from." Is that just lawyerese for what normal folk would call "uncovered by" or "revealed by"? And then I hear about "process crimes," which I think I grasp.

Narr
Who didn't go to law school for a reason

Chuck said...

Fen said...
"He agreed to answer some written questions on some limited topics, but Trump's answers were insufficient and Mueller thought that they were insufficient."

Dear quasi-lawyer, smear merchant and fopdoodle extraordinaire:

That's not Obstruction of Justice.


I didn't say that it was. I said that it was not being "fully cooperative" with the OSC investigation.

I'm not sure that I am even interested in Obstruction of Justice. I am interested in Trump as "Individual 1" in the Cohen information.

Birkel said...

Anybody here willing to show up to videotape the full contact bet Chuck wants to make with me?
He is undefeated as a gambler and will be happy to gamble his physical health.
All his God damns mean he has great faith in the Lord.
And God wills that Chuck, smear merchant and fopdoodle extraordinaire, is favored by the gods.

Matt Sablan said...

The worst thing of this is the belief an accused needs to prove their innocence.

Brian said...

Chuck, Mueller won’t testify. He doesn’t want to answer questions about his investigation. Like, “When did you learn there was no collusion”.

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
Michael K,
Your assumption that quasi-lawyer Chuck, smear merchant and fopdoodle extraordinaire, ever passed the bar is without basis.
Shame on you!!


Let's you and I bet on that. Okay? It is going to have to be for a lot of money. Probably your entire net worth, and even that might not do it. But I am serious about it. For the right amount. For the right amount, guaranteed, you and I can go to Lansing, to the offices of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Supreme Court, and get the proof.

Are you on?

Birkel said...

Chuck, smear merchant and fopdoodle extraordinaire, is interested in another statute that 17 Angry Democrats read to mean Trump violates a law that was not written to include the contemplated behavior.

Imagine my surprise.

Chuck said...

Chuck, how many times did you take the Bar before you passed ?

First time for me.

Birkel said...

Yes, let's meet at your local gym and discuss the matter for your entire net health, I mean wealth.

Original Mike said...

"The worst thing of this is the belief an accused needs to prove their innocence."

Or, as Inga would say, "BOOM".

wholelottasplainin' said...

FullMoon said...
Weekly clarification for new or occasional readers:

Chuck said...
"I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him."

3/4/16, 4:46 PM

******************

There's yer problem, right there, Chuck.

You have soiled yourself in public, and no one here is going to give you a shoe horn to clean out your shorts.

You're fucked.

Matt Sablan said...

"Trump refused to testify or to submit for an interview. Trump might have claimed a Fifth Amendment privilege, but he didn't. He agreed to answer some written questions on some limited topics,"

-- So... did he or didn't he testify? If I remember, they never offered a compelling legal reason to interview him.

wildswan said...

Watch this explanation of the obstruction of justice part of the Mueller Report by Will Chamberlain, lawyer: https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1118921018343477248

This was video posted by another commenter and I am just pushing forward again this discussion of what Barr's theory of obstruction of justice was and what Mueller's theory was; and how Mueller was trying to corrupt the crime of obstruction into a unlimited government fishing license. The Periscope is 1/2 hour and it is very clear.

Summary
When Mueller saw there was no collusion then he began to use a novel theory of obstruction and thus he was able to continue and expand the investigation. Sessions wasn't up to analyzing and showing the flaws in Mueller's theory of obstruction of justice but Barr was. Apparently Mueller just took a clause in the obstruction statute out of context and then applied his own meanings to the clause. This allowed Mueller to more or less say that objecting to a witch hunt is obstruction of Justice or objecting to a pointless government intrusion into a citizen's life is obstruction of justice. And Barr was lawyer enough to see that a clause had been taken out of context and its meaning altered and he said so in June 2018 before he was Attorney General. Then, as Attorney General he explained the statute to his subordinates, Mueller and Weissman, and that ended the obstruction of justice investigation.

And that ends what Will Chamberlain said but I think his analysis implies that if Mueller had gotten his way as far as interpreting the statute then the investigation would probably have gone on forever and anyone who objected to the eternal investigation would be obstructing justice and drawn into the web which would then have a new line of investigation

FullMoon said...

Anybody here willing to show up to videotape the full contact bet Chuck wants to make with me?
He is undefeated as a gambler and will be happy to gamble his physical health.


Protect your chest. Chuck has a rep...and a "special twist"

Matt Sablan said...

How many times should you be compelled to answer questions from the authorities without any cause?

Birkel said...

Congressman Jordan on the AG Barr news:
"No sealed indictments."

Chuck, smear fopdoodle extraordinaire merchant, hardest hit.

Matt Sablan said...

Wait, people were still hoping for sealed indictments? Mueller said, what, months ago there were no more indictments coming?

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nichevo said...

Let's you and I bet on that. Okay? It is going to have to be for a lot of money. Probably your entire net worth, and even that might not do it. But I am serious about it. For the right amount. For the right amount, guaranteed, you and I can go to Lansing, to the offices of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Supreme Court, and get the proof.

Are you on?
4/18/19, 9:02 PM


Don't worry Birkel. I'll get it all back for you. Just get me his name and address.

Matt Sablan said...

Ok, only one month or so ago, not months. But still. I've given up on this story, but I remembered this. Anyone who has been seriously following it should have known that.

Chuck said...

Matt Sablan said...
Wait, people were still hoping for sealed indictments? Mueller said, what, months ago there were no more indictments coming?


Because, as I wrote some months ago, a large number of referrals have been made. We now learn that there were 14 in all. One was Cohen. Another was Greg Craig. 12 others have been redacted.

There are no more indictments coming out of the OSC. Other indictments may come out of other USA offices, such as SDNY or the DC District.

iowan2 said...

Trump refused to testify or to submit for an interview. Trump might have claimed a Fifth Amendment privilege, but he didn't. He agreed to answer some written questions on some limited topics, but Trump's answers were insufficient and Mueller thought that they were insufficient.

President Trump answered written questions for those he had answers. Mueller's report stated that while he was unsatisfied with the Presidents responses, all the information he sought was obtained through other paths of the investigation. AGAIN, Mueller could have subpoenaed the President. He did not. If a subpoena was issued, Mueller would be forced to tell the judge, President Trump had no information that Mueller did not already poses. So exactly how did President Trump's White House not cooperate?
Not a single instance of executive privilege was exercised. Mueller had ALL the information he sought.
You keep cherry picking your facts, they just fail to support your conclusions.
Stop lying that the President did not participate in his own prosecution.

Matt Sablan said...

Right; there might be mystery indictments coming from other mystery investigations. That's a red herring when discussing the Mueller probe though.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

Are you on?

Well, Hillary and even Biden finally passed, so no,.

I would be interested if somebody helped you but it's too late now.

Chuck, you and Patrick Frey are going to be the two last NeverTrumpers still holding out.

Even John Podhoretz' father has come around.

walter said...

You'd think that since this dragnet was started on unjust premises and oppo research, obstruction would be the "just" approach.
Instead, we have butt-hurt over mere wrong-think.

Matt Sablan said...

No. Obstruction is wrong, even if you're innocent. Maybe especially if you're innocent.

But, firing Comey isn't obstruction.

Birkel is getting hot over the thought of Chuck said...

“I will pound that pansy ass in a completely sexual way.
Also, bloody pulp.
And kind, gentle rubbing.
And brutality.”

Very revealing.

Birkel said...

The both of you.
Make it happen.
I swear I will give up fighting.
You will win, I promise.

walter said...

I agree Matt...technically. But the dragnet employed really puts the Clinton "bleach bit and hammers" episode in such bold contrast (with some of the same players), it suggests legal standards depend on what certain powerful folks want to get rid of.
The "obstruction" argument, at least politically, seems to have moved way outside of Comey's firing.
I mean..Trump got pissed he was getting the shaft. How dare he?

FullMoon said...

Reality shows use the bleep for dramatic effect.

About time for Maddow, Matthews and others to use it to retrieve their audience:

What the F(bleep)K was Barr thinking,?

Or, do they already do that? Haven't watched in quite awhile.

Rusty said...

"Let's you and I bet on that. Okay? It is going to have to be for a lot of money. Probably your entire net worth, and even that might not do it. But I am serious about it. For the right amount. For the right amount, guaranteed, you and I can go to Lansing, to the offices of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Supreme Court, and get the proof."
That you think anybody gives a shit.
That's funny.

FullMoon said...

"Let's you and I bet on that. Okay? It is going to have to be for a lot of money. Probably your entire net worth, and even that might not do it. But I am serious about it. For the right amount. For the right amount, guaranteed, you and I can go to Lansing, to the offices of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Supreme Court, and get the proof."

How is the parking situation ? Convenient?
Metal detectors? Full body pat down?

narciso said...

Norman podhoretz is still one of ths last clear speaking persons out there. He understands the stakes as with Netanyahu

Birkel said...

I can only imagine my surrender as sufficient.
Name a manly gym to satisfy your bloodlust and I will promise to succumb.
You will win definitively, smear merchant and fopdoodle extraordinaire, Chuck.

Name your price.

Francisco D said...

I wish you folks would just ignore Chuckles.

He is just a vulgar and nasty old drunk who desperately wants the attention.

He has likely been a great failure in life, but feels successful when he can annoy people here.

mccullough said...

Mueller didn’t need any information from Trump. Trump knew this. Mueller and Trump knew from the beginning the investigation was bullshit.

Trump is smarter than Mueller and his Team. That’s why Trump is president and Mueller is the guy who walked home with his duck in his hand.

Fen said...

Dear quasi-lawyer, smear merchant and fopdoodle extraordinaire:

That's not Obstruction of Justice.

Chuck: "I didn't say that it was. I said that it was not being "fully cooperative" with the OSC investigation."

Still wrong. Mueller's belief that Trump's answers were "not sufficient" still doesn't mean Trump wasn't "fully cooperative"

Even Mueller says Trump was fully cooperative in his report. Is he now part of the conspiracy?

I've interviewed dozens of Somalis and Iraqis who were fully cooperative and their answers were still not sufficient.

Your logic sucks.

Original Mike said...

"Mueller didn’t need any information from Trump. Trump knew this. Mueller and Trump knew from the beginning the investigation was bullshit."

Yeah, why should Trump agree to an interview? He knew Mueller had nothing, because there was nothing.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr. D said...

Matt Sablan said:

The worst thing of this is the belief an accused needs to prove their innocence.


Yes. Without question. Our entire system of justice is based on the presumption of innocence. It’s frankly terrifying that so many people are willing to toss that aside because Orange Man Bad.

Gk1 said...

I am buying more and more into the theory that the swamp was trying to gaslight Trump to fire Mueller and open up grounds for impeachment but Trump didn't take the bait so the thing dragged on as they squeezed Cohen,Flynn,Stormy Daniels, floated interviewing him etc. all in hopes of triggering a spectacular cause belli to remove the "unhinged-russian-collaborator- Trump". They miscalculated yet again. Why else do we have this anti-climatic "Oh, never mind" of a report? All of this could have been pulled together 6 months tops, but that was never the plan. I'm with some on the group Trump better double up Secret Service details and may hire a body double. Washington establishment is bat shiat crazy and scared shitless of what is to come.

Fen said...

Gk, it's looking that way to me too

Yancey Ward said...

Gk1,

Yes, that has been my theory for a long time- the entire investigation was run as a gaslighting operation, but for whatever reason, I don't care, Trump didn't fall into any of the traps and provocations. I went through the list of 11 possible obstruction theories, and really none of them could be proven even if you accepted that they were attempts at obstruction, which I don't. About the closest case I could see in that list was Trump's admonitions to Flynn and Manafort, but I remember the public communications- he literally asked them to tell the truth in regards to the Russian Collusion theory, and Mueller more or less proved that admonition to correct since there was no Collusion- he was telling them not to make up shit just get off, and they don't appear to have done so even though I sure they were offered plenty to do so, especially Manafort.

Drago said...

GK, there remain quite a few rumblings that Weissman wanted to manufacture indictments against Don Jr, Ivanka and Jared to force Trumps hand and it was only the appointment of Barr that stopped them.

Yancey Ward said...

Drago,

I think they really wanted to indict Trump Jr. for the Trump Tower meeting. If you read that section, they wanted to apply the theory that the meeting was a conspiracy to break the campaign finance laws against foreign contributions- they wanted to treat the proffered "Clinton Dirt" as a thing of value. It had to be a conspiracy charge because everyone at the meeting agrees that no dirt on Clinton was transferred transferred or even described by Veselniskaya. The meeting was over in 20 minutes with no followups. This is what they wanted to pursue, but there was just one very minor problem with applying this theory- Clinton had actively sought out and gotten the Steele Dossier from foreigners. To charge Trump Jr. with such a charge would require that Clinton and her team also be charged, and, of course, they were never going to do that. The Steele Dossier stymied the Mueller team, and in probably more ways than just that. That is some poetic justice.

Fen said...

Our entire system of justice is based on the presumption of innocence. It’s frankly terrifying that so many people are willing to toss that aside because Orange Man Bad

I know I'm a broken record but its the Marxism. The principles we hold dear are just a tool they will use against us and throw away once they are in power. We either exterminate every last one of them or we pass into History with our honour intact. And that history will be rewritten by them to portray us as monsters anyway.

This is our destiny

Its noble and courageous and principled. It also dooms millions to slavery, starvation, death camps.

How is that the lesser evil? And at what point does Principle become Vanity enabling such evil?

Kevin said...

Dear “fully cooperative” Chuck,

The standard has been set that perjury itself is not a high enough bar to impeach a President (see: Clinton, Bubba).

Trump didn’t have to respond to Mueller at all, yet he chose to do so.

Mueller’s own report said he was not denied anything needed to finish the job.

Any half-competent attorney not infected with TDS wouldn’t need someone to point out these facts.

I leave it to you to diagnose which is reason for your continuing assertions.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Most Powerful Essay

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273526/bill-dnc-mueller-report-daniel-greenfield

iowan2 said...

Any half-competent attorney not infected with TDS wouldn’t need someone to point out these facts.

Assumes facts not in evidence. On a regular postings here, the lack of understanding of law and the constitution is displayed. I have never interacted with a lawyer that fails so spectacularly to know and practice the simplest concepts of law and the constitution in their communication.

Innocent until proven guilty, v. we can not exonerate the President.

Yea, I believe some anonymous NPC claims to a law degree.

Rusty said...


"Blogger FullMoon said...
Weekly clarification for new or occasional readers:

Chuck said...
"I am afraid you are mistaking me for someone who has an interest in fair treatment of Donald Trump. I'm not your guy. I am interested in smearing him, hurting him and prejudicing people against him."

3/4/16, 4:46 PM"
And if he does that to one person he'll do it to anybody. This is what someone with no honor does. There is no line he will not cross to achieve his ends.
He had his chance.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Matthew Sablan said..

"The worst thing of this is the belief an accused needs to prove their innocence."

Indeed. That's where we are in corrupt leftwing totalitarian America.

Chuck said...

Kevin said...
Dear “fully cooperative” Chuck,
...
Trump didn’t have to respond to Mueller at all, yet he chose to do so.


Kevin, you can say that if you want. I disagree with you, but I don't think you understand how you are missing the point.

Trump can plead the Fifth. Trump can claim "executive privilege." Trump can claim "innocent until proven guilty." Trump can claim, "perjury trap!" Trump can do all of those things. He might be right, at least on some.

But what Trump cannot do, and what Barr should not do, is say that Trump "fully cooperated" in the Mueller investigation when he didn't.

That is all that I was arguing and if you want to stick to that point, that's better for our discussion.

Chuck said...

Even Mueller says Trump was fully cooperative in his report. Is he now part of the conspiracy?


Barr said that. Mueller didn't say that.

Rusty said...

No. Barr said that Mueller said it. It is not the same as saying Mueller didn't say it. Your phrasing is an attempt to say that Barr lied about what Mueller said. Barr has no reason to mischaracterize what Muelleer said. He went out of his way to place Mueller in a positive light until it came to his-Muellers- attempt to use legal legerdemain to paint Trump as obstructionist.
I think I'll agree that it is highly unlikely that Mueller will agree to appear anywhere under oath. Unless the venue can be guaranteed to have only sympathetic opertives. There was and is no collusion and no corruption.
To a rational mind this raises some questions. Who was behind the Russian fraud? I think we have a good idea, but I'd like to see them testify. And to what purpose. Again I think I know why but would like to have it on record.
I'm not comfortable with people who reap my tax dollars being under the impression that they are above the law.

Karen of Texas said...

I respectfully submit that my understanding is full cooperation means giving everything needed to carry out a sham investigation. Stipulating the terms of how one is to cooperate and then crying fowl when one refuses to stand naked in a room full of hostile interrogators to simply assert "I plead the fifth" is not not fully cooperating. It is denying a cudgel to be used by a hostile interrogator who is seeking to entrap one or create talking points to be disseminated in the furtherance of a narrative.

Of course you may disagree, Chuck, but that's how these things work. Your interpretation is no more valid than mine. You get your opinion. I get mine.

walter said...

IOS, he cooperated to the extent required.
I.e didn't "obstruct".

FullMoon said...

Dear “fully cooperative” Chuck,

The standard has been set that perjury itself is not a high enough bar to impeach a President (see: Clinton, Bubba).

Trump didn’t have to respond to Mueller at all, yet he chose to do so.

Mueller’s own report said he was not denied anything needed to finish the job.

Any half-competent attorney not infected with TDS wouldn’t need someone to point out these facts.

I leave it to you to diagnose which is reason for your continuing assertions.


Chuck said...

I was diagnosed, after extensive testing by medical professionals, in Nov. 2014.Among the #actuallyautistic, you see a range of intellect and social abilities. It is not possible to lump us into one or two categories.

Many of us may appear boorish or rude in our interactions with neurotypical (NT) people. As a generality, we are weak at recognizing non-verbal social cues. Autism, however, is not an excuse for being a jerk. And it is possible for us to be both, as it is for NTs.

Diagnosing yourself is a facile way to find an excuse for behaviors and feelings that may have nothing to do with autism. It's not a fad that you can just buy in to. It is a difference in the hardwiring of the rain. We are not handicapped, just different.
11/22/17, 10:40 AM

Yancey Ward said...

Not a good day for Chuck at all, was it?

Fen said...

Barr was quoting the report, you idiot.

FullMoon said...

Barr said that. Mueller didn't say that.

Doesn't matter who said it. Trump and Juliani confirmed it , so it must be true.

Birkel said...

When a smear merchant types easily disproven things nobody cares.
That lesson remains unlearned.

Kevin said...

But what Trump cannot do, and what Barr should not do, is say that Trump "fully cooperated" in the Mueller investigation when he didn't.

There was not one witness that Trump held back from Mueller. At no point did he claim executive privilege to deny Mueller answers to his questions. He turned over every document that was asked of him.

He went beyond that and answered questions in an investigation that put his freedom and Presidency in danger. The questions that Mueller asked him were answered.

His lawyer's offices were ransacked and he did nothing. His attorney-client privilege was violated and he did nothing.

He asked that nothing be redacted from a report that clearly contained material protected by executive privilege. It was all released to Congress and the American people.

And you're clinging to the idea that Mueller somehow hasn't uttered the words "fully cooperate" at the right time at the right place?

What more do you want him to do to "fully cooperate"? And where does this definition of "fully cooperate" come from if not the subjective definition of the very people committed to do him harm?

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 723 of 723   Newer› Newest»