Barr to testify before House Judiciary Committee

[Judy Johnstone]

Barr is not Trump 's personal lawyer!

[Truth Detector]

Barr is not Trump 's personal lawyer!

Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

[Grokmaster]

The arrangement comes as Democrats have demanded answers about Barr's apparent intervention in the sentencing of President Donald Trump’s longtime ally Roger Stone, who was convicted last year on charges that he lied to congressional investigators and threatened a witness.

On Wednesday morning, Trump hailed Barr for "taking charge" of the matter, confirming suggestions that it was the attorney general himself who intervened.

Barr's appearance before the committee will bring him face to face with some of Trump's fiercest political adversaries, including Chairman Jerry Nadler, who subpoenaed the Justice Department last year to obtain Mueller's underlying evidence and has gone to court to overrule Barr's refusal to share the grand jury evidence Mueller collected.

Democrats have a long list of issues they're likely to press Barr on, including his involvement in decisions surrounding Trump's decision to withhold military funds from Ukraine last year, and his handling of a whistleblower complaint about the episode that DOJ determined should be withheld from Congress, overruling an intelligence community inspector general.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...mmittee-114601

Hope it's televised. It'd be a hoot watching Barr BITCH SLAP THE POLITBURO....

[archives]

Your first paragraph describes the Mullet investigation lol.

Never could quite find that collusion in spite of the endless innuendos.

I’ll stop short of predictions, but there’s enough ‘there, there’ that it should give Democrats at least some pause. Maybe not with the rank and file that tune into Maddow but I’m confident the big wigs see a potential train wreck coming in the Durham report.

For example, Mullet uncovered no underlying crime in his investigation. It’s plausible the whole thing was a ruse intended to provoke Trump into an obstruction trap. What did House Democrats hope to hang on Trump at the conclusion of the Mullet investigation? It wasn’t a criminal conspiracy with the Russians—they wanted to charge him with obstruction.

Barr gives the appearance of ‘being on to it’. Maybe it’s a dry hole—but if it’s not, it’s going to get very ugly. Historically, ugly.

There’s an explanation for Mullet’s bizarre behavior that has nothing to do with his brain slowing down or whatever: Mullet may be a man who knows he’s been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Recall that he seemed to ‘not know’ what was in his own report.

Did he know Russian collision was a dry hole when he signed on? Maybe Durham will want to see ‘the state of the evidence’ the day Mullet was appointed. Probably a dumb question, actually.

Democrats, their media arm and some other people are watching this very carefully. Stone is the sideshow. Nadler wants rid of Barr to either get control of Durham or even better, get rid of him.

Of course, they are going to investigate Barr. They have nothing to lose.

Mueller didn't prosecute what he found cause of the nebulous legal understanding of what is collusion and the fact that Dept of Justice guidelines said you couldn't indite a sitting President

None of it is going to effect the Democrats, it wasn't the Democrats who appointed Mueller, rather Trump's own Justice Department, how is this going to touch the Democrats, and why would any care given it has little relevance in 2020

And given the Judiciary Committee's responsibility is to oversee the Justice Dept questioning Barr is normal, it has been requested before but Billy declined citing the whole executive privilege stuff

[Grokmaster]

Makes one wonder why, everybody knows Barr will lie his ass off to cover Trump, you are going to see a lot of Barr's usual, "repeat the question," "I don't understand the question," "what does suggest mean," "I don't remember," and of course the predictable Executive privilege catch all, waste of time

Also, don't be suprised if Trump kills his appearance, from experience, the last thing Trump wants is any of his ass kissers taking questions under oath, even Barr

THE WITCH HUNT HAS BEEN DEXPOSED AS ILLEGAL ALREADY....THIS IS ITS DYING BREATH..UNTIL WEISSMAN GETS HIS ASS HANDED TO HIM IN APRIL, by CONCORD...

[Grokmaster]

Barr is not Trump 's personal lawyer!

HOLDER WAS OBAMA'S "WING MAN"....ASK HIM.

THE USAG IS THE LEAD ATTORNEY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION...TAKE CIVICS CLASS.

[archives]

Eric Holder: “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done,” I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”

Haven't been thru this before, yet you still can not produce one example where Holder ever acted as Obama's personal attorney, with Barr, the same isn't true as I showed you previously with the New York case, meaning you are just running with cliches

[Truth Detector]

Hope it's televised. It'd be a hoot watching Barr BITCH SLAP THE POLITBURO....

So true.

[Truth Detector]

Mueller didn't prosecute what he found cause of the nebulous legal understanding of what is collusion and the fact that Dept of Justice guidelines said you couldn't indite a sitting President

None of it is going to effect the Democrats, it wasn't the Democrats who appointed Mueller, rather Trump's own Justice Department, how is this going to touch the Democrats, and why would any care given it has little relevance in 2020

And given the Judiciary Committee's responsibility is to oversee the Justice Dept questioning Barr is normal, it has been requested before but Billy declined citing the whole executive privilege stuff

There is nothing nebulous about collusion. WTF are you bloviating about? The rest of your drivel is the usual MSNBC bullshit.

[archives]

Why would Barr have to lie?



I am never surprised by how wrong you always are and a shitty speller too.

"Why does Barr have to lie," let's see, that is a tough one, ah, probably to cover Trump's ass, what in the hell did you think Trump appointed him to do

And yeah, I don't worry about spelling, never was that anal retentive, besides, the keyboard is too small

[Truth Detector]

Haven't been thru this before, yet you still can not produce one example where Holder ever acted as Obama's personal attorney, with Barr, the same isn't true as I showed you previously with the New York case, meaning you are just running with cliches

Those are his very words you dumb, low IQ hack.

YOU can't produce one example where Barr is acting as Trump's personal attorney shit-for-brains.

[Truth Detector]

"Why does Barr have to lie," let's see, that is a tough one, ah, probably to cover Trump's ass, what in the hell did you think Trump appointed him to do

Name a lie then you clueless hack.

And yeah, I don't worry about spelling, never was that anal retentive, besides, the keyboard is too small

^Tranlsation; too stupid to use spell check.

[Grokmaster]

Haven't been thru this before, yet you still can not produce one example where Holder ever acted as Obama's personal attorney, with Barr, the same isn't true as I showed you previously with the New York case, meaning you are just running with cliches

OTHER THAN THE BLATANT COVERUPS of FAST N FURIOUS, URANIUM ONE, THE SUBSEQUENT ILLEGAL RUSSIAN EXPORTING OF YELLOWCAKE AFTER URANIUM ONE, THE IRS TARGTING, THE HILLARY CRIMES, BENGHAZI, , ETC., ETC.. YEAH, SURE...

[archives]

There is nothing nebulous about collusion. WTF are you bloviating about? The rest of your drivel is the usual MSNBC bullshit.

Why do I always have to explain the obvious to "truthie?"

"Allegations of “collusion” were not “proven false” in the Mueller investigation, nor was the issue of “collusion” addressed in the report.
The report makes clear the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term."
https://apnews.com/f9c0ab20229140f18ea34e1f15a9f597

"Trump critics pointed to multiple instances of those contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russia as evidence of “collusion,” a term that Mueller points out in his report has no legal application, but nevertheless colloquially encompasses the kinds of possible violations he examined."
https://www.rollcall.com/2019/04/18/...nd-doesnt-say/

"The term, “collusion” is not a legal term and the report made no finding on that issue, one way or the other"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede.../#18ff1e937836

Billy Barr lied, which is why he had to get out infront of the public review of the report

[Grokmaster]

Why do I always have to explain the obvious to "truthie?"

"Allegations of “collusion” were not “proven false” in the Mueller investigation, nor was the issue of “collusion” addressed in the report.
The report makes clear the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term."
https://apnews.com/f9c0ab20229140f18ea34e1f15a9f597

"Trump critics pointed to multiple instances of those contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russia as evidence of “collusion,” a term that Mueller points out in his report has no legal application, but nevertheless colloquially encompasses the kinds of possible violations he examined."
https://www.rollcall.com/2019/04/18/...nd-doesnt-say/

"The term, “collusion” is not a legal term and the report made no finding on that issue, one way or the other"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede.../#18ff1e937836

Billy Barr lied, which is why he had to get out infront of the public review of the report

TOTAL "WORD DANCE BULLSHIT.

MUELLER FOUND NO COOPERATION BETWEEN ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION and the RUSSIANS.

OF COURSE, HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHO "FUSION GPS" IS, OR HE SURE AS HELL WOULD HAVE FOUND SOME.

BARR WILL.