Barr Testimony: Mueller May Have Some ‘Splainin’ To Do

One of the big takeaways from the first day of the testimony of Bill Barr concerns a number of failures that may be attributed to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The most significant failure concerns his decision not to reach a conclusion on obstruction, as I discussed in today’s column. With an hour of the release of the Report, I criticized Mueller for his decision not to reach a conclusion which has no basis in law or policy. The only question was whether Mueller had been told not to reach such a conclusion. Barr answered that questions today in no uncertain terms. Not only could Mueller reach a conclusion, both Barr and Rosenstein pressed him to do so. Mueller’s decision remains both unsupported and incomprehensible. And that is not all that Mueller will have to explain.

Barr understandably said today that he still does not understand Mueller’s rationale for not reaching a decision and questioned what Mueller thought he was supposed to do as a special counsel. What is weird is that Barr and Rosenstein made clear that they did believe Mueller could and should reach a decision. That should have resolved any question as to DOJ policy.

Another glaring revelation from Barr was that he and Rosenstein expressly and repeatedly told Mueller to identify grand jury or Rule 6(e) material in his report to allow a rapid public release of the report. Barr said that he was surprised when Mueller simply ignored that request from his superiors. The result was a longer period for the public release of the report.

A third disclosure was that Mueller spoke to Barr and expressly said that he did not view the summary letter to be misleading or false. That is categorically in conflict with the media coverage over the last 24 hours claiming that Mueller believed Barr “lied” or “misled: the public. Barr said that Mueller stated clearly that he wanted the executive summaries released to help explain why he did not reach a conclusion.

Finally, Barr said that Mueller repeatedly told him and Rosenstein that his decision not to reach a conclusion on obstruction was not due to the Office of Legal Counsel memos barring the indictment of a sitting president. That is also in direct contradiction with ongoing coverage and runs contrary to the discussion of the OLC by the Special Counsel in his report. It also makes senses because, as I have written, there is nothing in those memos that even remotely suggests that a Special Counsel cannot reach a conclusion on criminal conduct.

If true, Barr is clearly more sinned against than sinner in all of this. Regardless, we have to hear from Mueller and he has much ‘splaining to do.

273 thoughts on “Barr Testimony: Mueller May Have Some ‘Splainin’ To Do”

  1. Excerpted from Page 2 of Volume II of The Mueller Report:

    We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:

    First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework ofthe Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. 515; 28 C.F.R. this Office accepted the legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from the constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 2

    Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. 3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if
    individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in . . . [sentence lost in page break]

    1. Completion of the previously interrupted sentence and then some from The Mueller Report:

      . . . safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

      Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in ajudgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled again st potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. 5

      The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
      concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium could imperil the President’s ability to
      govern.” 6 Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining “that the
      person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual 9-27.220.

      Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

      1. Now that you can read what Mueller wrote above, you can compare it to Turley wrote below:

        Finally, Barr said that Mueller repeatedly told him and Rosenstein that his decision not to reach a conclusion on obstruction was not due to the Office of Legal Counsel memos barring the indictment of a sitting president. That is also in direct contradiction with ongoing coverage. It also makes senses because, as I have written, there is nothing in those memos that even remotely suggests that a Special Counsel cannot reach a conclusion on criminal conduct.

        [end excerpt]

        So do the comparison and see if Turley (and Barr) are faithfully reporting what Mueller wrote. Of course, you would have to be capable of good faith comparison in the first place. If you are, by chance or circumstance, capable of conducting a good faith comparison between what Mueller wrote versus what Turley wrote, what Barr wrote and what Barr testified to, then you may soon be able to wrap your mind around the meaning of the phrase “Flaming Dipsticks With Broken Off Tips.” Or not. What say you, you delicate flowers, you?

        L4D on the Job.

          1. No. Not yet. He would have “disclosed” something if he had landed a WH gig.

            Turley is to professional ethics as Caesar’s wife was reputed to be to chastity.

            L4D spot checking.

  2. Put both feet upon the stump..
    Yell to masses…
    To vote for Trump!
    We don’t need Biden
    For he’s a shame..
    He will say Hillary is most to blame.

    Mule err Mule err bo bueller…..
    banana fanna fo tooler…
    Mule err!

  3. Barr poisoned the well and Turley serves it and wants us to drink shame on them.

    1. They are both lawyers. Just because it walks like a lie and quacks like a lie, doesn’t mean that “lawyer talk” is a lie. Obviously it’s just another Duck.

      L4D–delayed reaction.

    1. Whover or whatever that anonymous is, he/ she is a coward as well as a liar.
      From a good anonymous.

      1. Good Anonymous – I wish Bad Anonymous would pick one single avatar and stick to it, instead of pretending to be different people so that commenters would respond to her. I hope people interested in commenting on the blog will choose an avatar so as not to be confused with the demented posts of Bad Anonymous. Commenters might see the avatar “anonymous” and scroll past without reading thinking it is the troll who quarrels here obsessively.

        You can still pick an avatar name that protects your anonymity. Hope you consider it, because it’s nice to attribute a tenor of comments and personality to an online poster, even though we don’t know each others’ real identities.

        1. There are several people who post anonymously. Get over it.

          And there are plenty of “trolls” here, Karen S.

          1. Darren, the number of anonymous posters on the blog seems to have increased. Possibly because some are finding that they have to type in their details below every time they want to post. If that is within your control it would be nice if it were fixed. If not maybe the program will force everyone to accept an icon to differentiate them from one another. The final thought is to delete all anonymous postings such as this one.

            1. We could have a guessing game it might be fun

              i agree that it is waste of time to always have to type in your name. the content is what matters the most anyhow

              1. ^^^ That one is Mr. Kurtz–who refuses to use the shift key to capitalize anything let alone the first persona singular pronoun.

                This one is from L4D–I’m guessing. Or not. What do you think?

            2. If Darren’s smart, he’ll let it go. There’s nothing wrong with people posting anonymously.

              For some, like the anonymous poster at 3:11, it’s mostly about control, IMO. Some people just have an authoritarian mindset.

              1. Actually, all the anonymous listers degrade the discussion and degrade the blog so it would probably be best to fix the problem or force the use of a name.

                1. That’s just silly, Allan.

                  Some would say that your comments “degrade the discussion and degrade the blog” and short of banning you (something I wouldn’t endorse), there’s no way to fix that problem.

                  1. “That’s just silly, Allan. Some would say that your comments “degrade the discussion ”

                    I can understand you. You like to say what you wish but you would never consider doing so face to face and in this case you aren’t even willing to place a phony name and meaningless icon. What does that say about you? Coward? You want to hide even a phony existence among others that look exactly the same?

                    I was not asking to ban anyone though it appears you have been banned, rather I was suggesting that anyone could post under any name which would attach to a different icon. That would permit even you to post anonymously though the icon and name might change.

                    You can go on playing the nameless, faceless foolish icon that some of the brainless have used for some time. Apparently you believe your comments have no more value than the those from the brainless.

                    1. If Smith would stop blocking my comments, then I wouldn’t have to use the “Anonymous” option. If you ever bothered to read any of the comments that you reflexively critique, then you would see the identifying signature at the closing of some of those comments.

                      L4D–spanking Allan. <<< See that, Allan?

                    2. “If Smith would stop blocking my comments, then I wouldn’t have to use the “Anonymous” option. ”

                      Diane, I don’t think Smith is blocking anyone. I think the program gets screwed up. You can write your name and address each time and you will appear in all your glory Dipstick and all.

                      Something likely needs to be fixed.

                2. so it would probably be best to fix the problem or force the use of a name.

                  I disagree Allan for one very basic reason: It is the content of the posts and the mind that made them that is the issue. If this blog removed all names and avatars, we’d still be left with the content and the mind of the individual making them.

                  1. Olly, I don’t know why you disagree. What you seem to be saying seems to go against your core beliefs or maybe we are misunderstanding one another.

                    “If this blog removed all names and avatars, we’d still be left with the content and the mind of the individual making them.”

                    You aren’t suggesting censorship, are you?

                    1. You aren’t suggesting censorship, are you?

                      No Allan, exactly the opposite. Your comment seemed to suggest the name created a problem that would be fixed by not accepting posts without a name. I doubt you were calling for censorship.

                    2. “Your comment seemed to suggest the name created a problem that would be fixed by not accepting posts without a name.”

                      No. I think there is a problem that some names and emails are constantly being dropped adding to the anonymous designation which leads to a lot of miscommunication.

                    3. which leads to a lot of miscommunication.

                      What miscommunication? Is this about attribution, the comment, or something else?

                    4. Olly, sometimes statements have more than one meaning and one develops a bit of context from prior postings. Thus one can think it is one anonymous rather than another and unintentially create bad feelings. It’s nicer to have a bit more understanding of the individual you are responding to. The icon also permits people to scan.

      1. I don’t know who posted at 3:09 and 3:28 — nor do I care.

        Trolls and “scum” abound. As I said to Karen: Get over it (and learn to scroll.)

        Too many are overly invested in the comments section of JT’s blog.

        1. L4D guesses that this one ^^^ is the one and only original Big Sister anonymous.

          Now has anyone seen a post from P. Hill lately?

          1. Recently I asked the same question and thought that perhaps those paying Peter didn’t think he was worth the money. He may have started off as a borderline positive but ended up as a big negative.

  4. “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.

    – Peter Strzok to Lisa Page Days Before the Beginning of the Mueller Investigation
    __________________________________________________________________

    Robert “Mike Nifong” Mueller must be prosecuted with his co-conspirators for “malicious prosecution.”

  5. Please tell us Paul, in your opinion of today’s William Barr’s responses in the hearing today, have the Commie/Fascist American Hating Trash finally went completely insane over Trump/TDS?

      1. WoW! I find it amazing how fast , whom ever you are, react, changing videos, from the back ground if someone calls you out on your arbitrary videos. AI practice much do you?

  6. That’s it sweet heart, just try to let it out again& again & again:

  7. Does anyone expect Robert Mueller to admit to wrongdoing surrounding how he compiled and worded the special counsel’s report or any deficiencies in cooperating with the Attorney General or his deputy? I don’t.

    Mueller’s failure to conclude whether or not justice was obstructed by the White House reeks of passive-aggressive petulance. Any explanations he gives Congress will be self-serving and play right into the Democratic leadership’s hands – their case doesn’t have to be based on facts. Plausible lies will serve.

    1. kind of reminds me of how Comey usurped AG Lynch’s role but delivered the product that the Democrats wanted. not the same thing, but a similar sort of subrosa political cooperation. collusion if you will. lol

      here Meuller could have thumbed it up or down but failed to do so and essentially forced the AG to thumb it down as of course he would do

      Comey cooperated with making AG look good to benefit Democrats– in spite of how they whine about him; Meuller cooperated with Democrats in trying to make the AG look bad

      he could have just said

      WHILE THE ACTIONS OF DJT WERE NOT HELPFUL, THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF CORRUPT INTENT TO BRING A CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION

      he failed to do so I gather. but the result is the same. thus allowing these naysayers to continue to caste a negative light. wow, some special counsel. just repeal the stupid special counsel law already!

    2. You don’t want to talk about the facts of this investigation. They stink.

      1. “You don’t want to talk about the facts of this investigation. ”
        “They stink.”

        What stinks? Where are your facts Anon? Where are your facts? Your facts seem not to exist.

        1. Read the report Allan. Your leader is a sleaze bag who colluded with the Russians and tried to cover it up through lies, witness tampering including threats, and attempts to fire Mueller.

          1. Anon, I have listened to and read good amounts. I have no objections to different opinions but you don’t have any logic or fact that accompany your rhetoric. Over and over again you spend time libeling political individuals yet you don’t prove your case. Why not spend some time listing the facts and making sure they match up with the truth?

          2. Really? Not at all what Mueller said. Perhaps I”m living in an alternative universe here?

          3. whatever you’re smoking, save some for the rest of us please.

    3. https://images.app.goo.gl/q83dfiyYd14yGHxq6
      Jean L.,
      Parts of the OSC Report, especially the parts about obstruction, remind me of the jokes about the economists with extra hand(s).
      There’s a little something of everything in that obstruction stack of words for anyone to latch on to.
      Just pick a hand, any hand, and ignore “the other hands”.
      I didn’t expect universal acceptance and interpretation of the OSC Report, but I didn’t expect it to punt, either.

    4. Please research Infowars.com/show… Alex Jones the last 20 years, all your questions today will have been answered 20 years ago Pre Trump!

  8. Mueller is in trouble, and Pelosi’s talking points are making it worse for Mule when Eric Holder joins the Pelosi chorus

    Eric Holder, Once Cited for Contempt in Fast and Furious Probe, Criticizes Barr for ‘Protecting the President’

    Eric Holder, former Attorney General for then-President Barack Obama, joined the chorus of those criticizing Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday for “protecting” President Donald Trump.

    Holder’s tweet:

    “The conduct of AG Barr over the last few weeks and in the hearing today has been shown to be unacceptable. I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people. I was very wrong. He is protecting the President.”

    Irrespective of whether or not Holder is right about this, the overwhelming number of responses to the tweet reminded Holder of a certain scandal known as “Fast and Furious.”

    Recall: Back in 2012, Holder once recommended that President Obama assert executive privilege to prevent Congress’ subpoena from getting confidential Department of Justice (DOJ) documents about Operation Fast and Furious.

    Operation Fast and Furious involved the ATF and others who facilitated illegal gun sales to individuals connected to Mexican drug cartels in an effort to track both parties involved in the transaction. The DOJ Inspector General reported that nearly 2,000 firearms were illegally purchased for $1.5 million. It was also reported that weapons used in the murder of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry were linked to these sales.

    “I am writing to request that you assert executive privilege with respect to confidential Department of Justice documents that are responsive to the subpoena issued by the Committee of Oversight and Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives on October 25, 2011,” Holder said. “The subpoena relates to the Committee’s investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, a law enforcement operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona to stem the illegal flow of firearms from the United States to drug cartels in Mexico.”

    Holder said that he was concerned that the subpoena was overly broad and threatened to encroach on executive branch power.

    “The Committee’s subpoena broadly sweeps in various groups of documents relating to both the conduct of Operation Fast and Furious and the Department’s response to congressional inquiries about that operation,” he continued, before listing three steps the DOJ took in response to prior congressional oversight. “I am very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would haver significant, damaging consequences.”

    Holder cautioned against “substantial separation of powers concerns” and “potentially create an inbalance” between the legislative and executives branches. As a result, Holder recommenced that Obama assert executive privilege over requested documents.

    “I respectfully request that you assert executive privilege over the identified documents,” he said. “This letter sets forth the basis for my legal judgment that you may properly do so.”

    After that, the historical record shows, the House of Representatives voted in support of citing Holder for criminal contempt. Even 17 Democrats supported this at the time.

    Judge Amy Berman Jackson, more recently known as the judge in Roger Stone and Paul Manafort‘s criminal cases in Washington, D.C., eventually decided that jailing Holder wasn’t going to happen and that the contempt motion was “entirely unnecessary.” Nonetheless, per Politico at the time, Jackson “also denied Holder’s request for an indefinite stay of her prior order that the attorney general must turn over any ‘non-privileged’ documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed as part of an investigation into the botched gunrunning investigation.”

    While a spokesman for the DOJ referred to a majority Republican effort to have Holder jailed as a “stunt,” Republicans doubled down, claiming that “broke the law in withholding subpoenaed documents.”

    More than 64,000 documents related to Fast and Furious were eventually handed over to the House — on Election Day, Nov. 4, 2014. Holder resigned from his post on Sept. 25, 2014.

    https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/eric-holder-once-cited-for-contempt-in-fast-and-furious-probe-criticizes-barr-for-protecting-the-president/

  9. This is what Eric Holder had the nerve to tweet today. Of course the Democrat media will let Obama’s wingman, who himself was held in criminal and civil contempt of Congress for ‘protecting the President’ get away with saying this:

    “The conduct of AG Barr over the last few weeks and in the hearing today has been shown to be unacceptable. I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people. I was very wrong. He is protecting the President.”

    Eric Holder 12:22 PM – 1 May 2019

    Hypocrisy much? Remember when the Democrat media was in uproar over AG Holder protecting ‘his boy,’ President Obama? Yeah, no, because they kept it as quiet and out of the headlines as they could. Per usual.

    The blatant hypocrisy and unfairness of the Democrats and thier biased media disgust me.

    1. Watch out. Tom doesn’t like posters bringing up the media. By the way, by.Democratic Media, you mean newspapers when you don’t like the news, right?

      1. No, I mean the very obviously biased and left-leaning DNC-controlled mainstream news coverage.

      2. I don’t care if people comment about the media. I just think it’s better not to cherry- pick sources or distort what’s actually written.
        Also, there is the issue of “confirmation bias” . It’s ironic when those who use the “Hannity” and “Fox News” ploys ( used thousands of times here), turn around and quote or link Huffington Post or Vox articles.

      3. Anon….Speaking of the media….did you see where Covington Catholic high school student, Nick Sandmann’s lawyers filed defamation lawsuits against CNN for $275 million, WaPo for $250 million, and now against NBC for $275 million?

        They’re all gonna feel some pain. Good. And well deserved, too.

        1. I have not followed the law suits and don’t know the supposed culpability of the WaPo or CNN. Are they accused of misreporting the event or providing space for opinion pieces?

          I agree that the Covington Kids were wrongly maligned and that of the 3 groups at the event, they were probably the most well behaved. The Indian is a liar and by singing something not in English and failing to even smile, he did nothing to communicate his supposed interest in promoting “peace”. The kid on the steps is calm but clearly befuddled – “WTF is this dude?” – but not hostile. As to showing respect, I’m getting old, but I don;t expect that should give me special privilege or recognition – just the same as anyone else will be fine. The Black Israelites were even worse of course.

          I think MAGA hats are for idiots….. or their immature kids who don’t know any better though many of them eventually will. I don’t hold it against the kids, nor were all of them even wearing them. The event was a rohrschact test many on the left failed.

  10. Does anyone think the “collusion” below with the Chinese enriching the Biden family fortune will make anyone in the Democratic Party even blink?

    Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, went hunting for cash in China during an official state visit by his father, the vice president in 2013.

    On his financial safari in Beijing, he managed to bag a $1.5 billion investment in his own hedge fund, Rosemont Seneca Partners.

    The key moment in his hunting expedition came ten days after he accompanied his father to China when the government-owned Bank of China agreed to invest $1 billion — later upped to $1.5 billion — in Rosemont Seneca Partners.

    The likes of Jimmy Carter’s brother Billy, Bill Clinton’s brother Roger, and Hillary Clinton’s brothers Tony and Hugh Rodham could only dream about paydays like this. Their manipulation of their relative’s fame and power led to paltry payoffs in the millions.

    Leave it to the Bidens to break ten figures.

    And Hunter made good use of China’s money.

    Rosemont used part of Beijing’s billions to invest in the automotive subsidiary of Aviation Industry Corporation of China.

    According to Breitbart and The Hill, AVIC is “a major Chinese military contractor accused of frequently stealing U.S. military technology.”

    AVIC, armed with Hunter’s investment, went on to buy 51 percent of American precision-parts manufacturer Henniges.

    Hunter purchased the other 49 percent to keep it in the family.

    This strategic purchase had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the same body that Oked Putin’s acquisition of 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

    The committee obligingly had no objection.

    Hunter’s hunt began in 2011 when he and his associates met with top Chinese government fund leaders only hours before Vice President Biden met with Hu Jintao, China’s president.

    Most politicians, following the likes of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Clintons, wait until after they have been elected to let their family enrich themselves by using their influence.

    But the Bidens jumped the gun.

    1. Wow, that kid is smart. Biden seems pretty smart too. These gains are theirs whether he wins or not. Very sharp indeed.

      Ethical? At that level I’m not sure what ethics they believe applies to them, if any!

      1. The kid isn’t necessarily smart. The Chinese are and for this situation used the office of the Vice President to do as they wanted.

        1. Remember when Hunter Biden split from his own wife to start dating his late brother Beau’s wife? That’s right, Hunter separated from his own wife to have a romantic relationship with his sister-in-law. Looks like that relationship is now over, just in time for dad, Creepy Joe, to run for president. All completely normal family stuff.

          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6978939/Hunter-Biden-splits-brother-Beaus-widow-Hallie-two-years-together.html

          1. He will do the duty that Onan failed to do, in the Bible perhaps

            1. You really know your bible stories Mr Kurtz. I had to look it up. 😉

              “Onan is a minor biblical person in the Book of Genesis chapter 38, who was the second son of Judah. Like his older brother Er, Onan was slain by God. Onan’s death was retribution for being “evil in the sight of the Lord” and disobeying a direct order from the Lord by being unwilling to father a child by his widowed sister-in-law.”

              1. Yes an interesting story. So Onanism is something of a misnomer. In context, what you read, relates the actual meaning of spilled his seed, not that he spanked the monkey, but rather that he failed to follow this important tribal custom for extending the family by impregnating his deceased brother’s wife

      2. Biden seems pretty smart too.

        He’s never held an executive position and never worked in business. He was an associate in a suburban law firm for four years. His class rank in law school was below the 20th percentile.

        1. Cunning as as serpent. Such that he perhaps never bothered to try to hard and made a beeline for the public trough after 4 years.

  11. I find the Mueller letter fairly damning….to Mueller. According to WaPo, Mueller did not find that Barr’s summary was inaccurate or misleading but was concerned about the media narrative that ensued and wanted the executive summaries released to clarify. Rather than be concerned with media narrative perhaps Mueller should have put more effort in making a traditional prosecutorial determination. Instead we have a novel theory of obstruction leading to a novel standard of justice (exoneration) leading to a novel prosecutorial non-determination. Hardly the stuff of legend.

    The Mueller report raises the following issues/questions in my mind:

    Appearance of Impropriety:

    1) Is it true that Mueller signed an ethics waiver? If so, for what reason?
    2) Why did Mueller hire 13 Democrats to key positions (many of whom had potential conflicts of interest)? Was Mueller concerned about the appearance of impropriety? If so, what did he do about it?
    3) Can Mueller state that the Office of Special Counsel was free from bias? If so, why and on what basis? If not, what investigatory steps were taken to ensure that the investigation was free and remained free of bias?
    4) When did Mueller learn of Strozk’s improprieties? What actions were taken to ensure that Strozk did not taint the investigation? Why did Mueller delay in disclosing the Strozk situation?
    5) Was Mueller aware that Weissman and Ahmad were potentially involved in the propagation/chain of custody of the Steele dossier? If so, what steps did Mueller take to ensure a) there were no conflicts of interest and b) the integrity of the investigation?

    Russia “Collusion”:

    1) When did Mueller know there was no conspiracy or coordination? If true that Mueller knew by late 2017, then why wait to disclose this to the American public? Could non-disclosure have influenced the 2018 mid-term elections? If so, what steps did Mueller take to ensure that non-disclosure would not influence the mid-terms in keeping with DOJ policy?
    2) Why did the investigation not investigate the Steele Dossier and the role of Fusion GPS/DNC/Clinton campaign?

    Obstruction of Justice:

    1) What was the precise and exact bases for reaching a completely novel non-determination decision (or non-decision) on obstruction?
    2) Would Mueller have charged obstruction except for DOJ policy?
    3) Did Mueller intend the report to be some form of impeachment roadmap for Congress? If so, is that the appropriate role and function of a Special Counsel?
    4) Can Mueller clarify exactly what he meant by alluding to Congress multiple times in the report?
    5) Exactly why did Mueller decline to pursue an in-person interview with the President? Did Mueller make a risk/reward assessment considering the strength of his case? If so, did that factor into the decision? Did Mueller believe he could clear the legal bar set by US v. Espy? The delay line of reasoning doesn’t cut it as delay should never be the proper basis for making key prosecutorial decisions especially given the gravity and implications of the SC’s work.
    6) Why did Mueller believe that pursuing a novel, unprecedented and controversial theory of obstruction was appropriate given the considerable political and constitutional stakes involved?

    Conclusions:

    1) Does Mueller agree that the Barr summary of principal conclusions is accurate and not misleading? 1) No conspiracy/coordination 2) Special Counsel declined to make a determination one way or the other on obstruction and 3) Barr and Rosenstein determined there was insufficient evidence for obstruction. If not, why not? What were Mueller’s specific concerns regarding the media narrative(s)?

    1. Read the letter M. Mueller never mentions the media. He mentions the public. That’s Barr spin

      Your post is garden variety GOP spin.

      Party doesn’t matter to accomplished professionals. Mueller the republican hired the best prosecutors he could hire. I know one who personally interviewed with him and his party affiliation never came up. Next time you interact with a cop or FBI agent, be sure you ask what party he belongs to

      Collusion was not a standard for the report, even though the details lay out one example after another of trump campaign people looking for Russian help, not reporting it to the FBI, and then lying about it or claiming they didn’t remember it, including Trump. Everytime Barr says trump was cleared of collusion, he’s lying, since Mueller dismissed it as not a legal term and certainly did not clear him of it.

      Obstruction

      Mueller specifically states that the doj memo was party of his not recommending an indictment, another thing Barr continually lies about.

      Don’t be a tool. Don’t believe tools like Barr.

      1. Seems like legally speaking, a lot of it comes down to how you read the obstruction statute. Meuller took a broad reading, Barr did not. Meuller did not come to a conclusion and left the door open. Barr slammed it shut. Maybe your problem is with Meuller’s lack of a clear conclusion on obstruction. Maybe you guys should vent disappointment on him?

        I am seeing a lot of hot commentary and most of it’s going over my head. You guys sure are hot around the collar over it.

        1. This is not an either or situation. Barr is a lying dick, Mueller is a by the book conservative willing to let our grifter in chief stay in office rather than create a constitutional crisis.

          1. “Barr is a lying dick”

            Post after post Anon you say essentially the same thing. I am forced once again to ask, where are your facts? You have almost none and the ones you have are almost always wrong.

          2. Anon, has it ever crossed your mind that Mueller is a lying dick? Or nah?

            1. And by lying, I’m referring to lying in all its variations, including obfuscating the truth, for example…

              1. The report is detailed and no one has claimed the presented facts are untrue. We knew most of them a year ago or more thanks to our free press.

                1. So what has Mueller been doing since last year when he appears to have had enough information to make his determination that there was no collusion/conspiracy? Shouldn’t you all be mad at Mueller for NOT making a determination on obstruction? The narrative about not charging bc you can’t indict a sitting president is bogus. Mueller did not find collusion by any American and he punted on obstruction. Barr was forced to make the call.
                  And he put it all out there for everyone to see a very unflattering picture of the president. Why is Barr the bad guy? Why not make Mueller the bad guy for handing it off to Barr to decide?

                  1. T Bob,
                    There is a continuing disappointment that the OSC Report did not definatively conclude that Trump A.-. committed treason as a tool of Putin, and/ or B– .that Trump obstructed justice to cover up the fact that he did not conspired with Putin.
                    This is TDS Stage II playing out now.. Those afflicted never recovered from his unanticipated win in 2016, and now that the “insurance policy” failed to pay off, those with TDS are even more discombobulated. If Trump is re- elected in 2020, TDS will advance to the terminal stage for some of those here in these threads.
                    ( Note that I avoided mentioning either Natacha or L4B, even at the risk if appearing “ambiguous”).

          3. Anon – if you are going to claim that someone is a liar, please post your reasons so that we may agree or rebut. In addition, I really wish you wouldn’t be so vulgar. It’s a free country, but it kind of unplugs a discussion from the start.

      2. Anon, M provided a detailed set of argument which you answered very poorly. You said “Don’t be a tool. Don’t believe tools like Barr.” but it seems like you are the tool of your ideology. Much of what you say is wrong and innacurate. Why can’t you respond more like M and provide a cogent argument?

        1. Does anyone know if Anon has ever posted references for his claim that Barr is a proven liar? I keep asking for them, but haven’t seen it yet. He keeps repeating this assertion without any links or even examples.

          Did he ever explain and perhaps I just missed it? I know multiple people have asked for either evidence or reasoning.

          1. “Did he ever explain and perhaps I just missed it?”

            Karen, Anon has provided one or two pseudo proofs that have been proven wrong. He is like the Borg where the mind is connected to all others of his group who follow their leader and worship the leader like a God. It doesn’t matter what is true or not for the information fed into his head is printed directly on our computers. In his world there is no right or wrong because if what he is fed takes a 180 degree turn he does so as well. That is why his posts are filled with denial, generalizations conflict and a lack of facts. Take note that if he actually has some factual information for discussion it is generally only one level deep, maximum two. You cannot detach him from the bonds that hold him so I gave up providing detailed arguments.

            By the way Peter HIll stopped posting. Do you think his bosses thought he was doing a lousy job and stopped paying him ?

      3. Anon, don’t be a fool. What does this have to do with the questions/issues raised?

        1. M, ny responses were on point and specific. Step up…. Or not.

          1. Your responses were not on point and specific as to the questions/issues raised.

            If you’re concerned with the Mueller letter to and fro, then the subsequent Barr/Mueller testimony should be clarifying (hopefully). Until then, you’re just speculating as to what’s spin or not but I suppose since virtually every media pundit is doing the same thing…why not? The most salient point is that Mueller did not find Barr’s summary of principal conclusions to be inaccurate or misleading.

            1. Uh, I specifically responded to your talking points – you call them questions – such as Mueller’s team of Democrats, your repeating the false premise that Trump was exonerated of collusion, the false statements by Barr that the DOJ memo on indicting a president had nothing to do with Mueller’s conclusions, and like your ending of this post with the foolish acceptance of Barr’s description of a.conversation he had with Mueller, when Mueller himself has complained in writing about his previous mischaracterization of his communications.

              Other than that we agree that Mueller testimony should further clarify the issues. Unfortunately Senator.Graham has announced he’s closing the books on this issue. Something about freeing the calendar for another Benghazi hearing I think.

        2. The other interesting takeaway from the Mueller report Vol. II is the following language:

          “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

          The first sentence is interesting because it strongly suggests that the Special Counsel never resolved difficult issues of law and fact because they decided not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The second and third sentences seem to indicate they thoroughly investigated the facts and law (without apparently resolving the difficult issues) but could not conclude with confidence (an interesting qualifier) that the President clearly did not commit obstruction. The closing sentence seems like a unsurprising and logical conclusion if you failed to resolved the difficult issues of law and fact.

          Frankly, the whole passage reads like an ode to passive-aggressiveness. In the end, it was the Special Counsel’s job to obtain all the evidence relevant to the matter and to resolve difficult issues of law and fact one way or another with respect to what should be a binary prosecutorial or declination decision. If you don’t have sufficient evidence and/or there are legal issues that are unresolved, then that’s a declination decision.

          Let’s hope Mueller’s testimony can provide some clarity.

          1. Again, lodging charges of ‘obstruction of justice’ against the President because he jabbed the prosecutor with Tweets borders on the comical. Mueller is vain enough to not wish to look ridiculous.

    2. M, here is the 2nd letter Mueller sent Barr. As in the first, no where is the media mentioned. That’s more Barr spin. Clever, huh?

        1. Trump, Barr, Turley and his kennel full of Pavlovian pigeons [mixed metaphor alert] are extremely upset that Mueller did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. That meant that Barr had to exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. That looks bad because Barr auditioned for the AG job by saying that a POTUS could not obstruct justice in the execution of his or her Article II powers. OTOH, Barr did say that a POTUS could obstruct justice by suborning perjury, tampering with witnesses, destroying evidence or tampering with evidence and the like. And that means that Barr is now on the hook for cooking up some sort of legal reasoning scheme to explain why AG Barr exonerated The POTUS, Trump, of obstruction of justice even though he testified to The Senate at his confirmation hearing that a POTUS could obstruct justice.

          Rosenstein never said that he would NOT land the plane on The Potomac. I’d bet they’re downright hopping mad about that garble.

          L4D on the Job.

  12. The Steele Dossier could be Russian disinformation. If so the Hillary campaign or Hillary herself colluded with the Russians intentionally or unintentionally. Either way the one’s paying for the Dossier were intentionally involving the Russians in our election.

    “Can we state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of the Russian disinformation campaign?” asked Cornyn, a Republican.

    Barr replied: “No, I can’t state that with confidence and that is one of the areas that I’m reviewing. I’m concerned about it, and I don’t think it’s entirely speculative.”“

  13. #5. Mueller sends short notes and evidently does not l, it can not, speak.
    DOJ states that Mueller was offered the opportunity to review Barr’s 4 page summary of the conclusions of a 450 report.
    He may have preferred to complain about it later, rather than proactively get involved in a summary.
    This is probably the first time EVER that an author felt slighted or misrepresented by another’s summary of the author’s Golden Words.
    #11. I think that was a “probably”.

    #14. I don’t usually play a stupid game of 20 questions, or even 13 questions, with a Brock/ Soros- indoctrinated fool like Natacha.
    I happen to have a bit of extra time, and maybe humoring her will help with her therapy.

  14. Turley wrote, “Finally, Barr said that Mueller repeatedly told him and Rosenstein that his decision not to reach a conclusion on obstruction was not due to the Office of Legal Counsel memos barring the indictment of a sitting president.”

    Listen up, Flaming Dipstick. Read the God damned Mueller report and find out for yourself what Mueller said in the God damned Mueller report. You Flaming Dipstick With A broken Off Tip, you.

    Whatever crock of cockamamie Whitewash Barr coughed up in his Senate testimony is uterrly inadequate to the task of refuting or rebutting what Mueller wrote in the God damned Mueller report.

    You Flaming Dipstick With A Broken Off Tip You.

    1. A little triggered are we, that Barr’s remarks do not correspond to the ‘required’ narrative of the left. And lay off the abuse here, this isn’t the WaPo or some other leftie rag where vulgarity is acceptable.

      1. Shove it, Moran. Then stuff it for good measure. You don’t even dare dream of telling me what to do. Not ever.

        1. You don’t even dare dream of telling me what to do. Not ever.

          Bwahahahah! Dream? He’s already done it. Bwahahaha!

        2. “Shove it, Moran.”

          Cannuck, If Diane ever gets loose you might have to hide.😀 I don’t think the Canadian Mounted Police will let her in.

          1. Hide from what? Her idiotic opinions? Her gutter mouth? Her bravado? Her utter cluelessness? I need to know so I can find the right hiding place – mostly to stuff the body when it’s all over. What an idiotic toll she is.

            1. Canuck, just to clarify, I used a smiley face which I think you understand. She has already lost all her teeth and is toothless. You are safe as long as you don’t visit the insane assylum.

                  1. Excerpted from Macbeth:

                    Third Apparition

                    90 Be lion-mettled, proud; and take no care
                    91 Who chafes, who frets, or where conspirers are:
                    92 Macbeth shall never vanquish’d be until
                    93 Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill
                    94 Shall come against him.

                    [end excerpt]

                    Contributed by the Third Witch–one of The Weird Sisters.

        3. If you wish to be an unpleasant stupid bitch here, that’s fine. But I don’t particularly need to hear or see your crudeness – having to deal with your stupidity is bad enough. And you can talk big all you wish – I’m sure your keyboard is transfixed with terror at what you’re typing.

          1. Canuck S.,
            That is not really her wish….if you go back 18-24 months and review her propaganta platform and her games, it’s actually more of a career for her.

          2. Fair is foul, and foul is fair;
            Hover through the fog and filthy air.

            Witches, Scene I

        4. Stuff it for good measure

          Newton’s Third Law of Motion applies in all realms.

          ~~~
          Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
          ~~~

          https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-says-doj-investigating-whether-steele-dossier-was-part-of-russian-disinformation-campaign

          Barr says DOJ investigating whether Steele dossier was part of Russian disinformation campaign

          Attorney General William Barr says he is unable to rule out the possibility that the so-called Steele dossier was part of a disinformation campaign carried out by the Russians.

          During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Barr said he is “concerned about it” and is investigating the matter.

          The dossier was compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele at the behest of Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm that was being funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the Perkins Coie law firm. Steele’s dossier was based on sources Steele says were close to the Kremlin and was filled with salacious and unverified allegations. The dossier was circulated within both the media and the federal government and was used in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications to justify the surveillance of a former member of the Trump campaign, Carter Page.

          Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, brought the matter up with Barr, saying that “Steele, of course, was a former British intelligence officer hired to do opposition research by the Hillary Clinton campaign on her political adversaries, including President Trump, or candidate Trump at that time.”

          Cornyn asked Barr point blank: “How do we know that the Steele dossier is not itself evidence of Russian disinformation campaign knowing what we know now that basically the allegations made were second hand, hearsay, or unverified? Can we state with confidence the Steele dossier was not part of the Russian disinformation campaign?”

          Barr said he couldn’t rule out the possibility. “I can’t state that with confidence and it’s one of the areas that I’m reviewing. I’m concerned about it and I don’t think it’s entirely speculative,” he said.

          1. Nope, Ol’ Newt didn’t reckon on an Irishman from a northern Ontario mining town. I always push back WAY harder 🙂
            It serves to get the trash further from me…

            1. Their only purpose on these forums is Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals.

              “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
              “Keep the pressure on.”
              “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
              “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
              “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
              “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
              “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

              They, like the Dems in Congress, are not interested in the law of the land, the US Constitution, rational discourse, the vote of Americans or truth. Nancy Pelosi has released the latest talking points for the Dems, and like automatons, they are all already mouthing them in synch.

              No worries. When they go low, we nuke em

              My fellow Americans. I’m pleased to announce that I’ve signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes. President Ronald Reagan.
              😉

              1. Alinksy was intelligent and insightful, if unscrupulous.

                If you just look at these from an immoral, adversarial standpoint, they are very sharp. understand them defensively if you must infer a moral contect #9 is key to all successful coercion and successful “interrogators” aka torturers keep it in mind at all time. Alinksky did not make these things up of course but he reinterpreted them in the language of his audience.
                ___________________

                “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
                “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
                “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
                “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
                “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
                “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
                “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
                “Keep the pressure on.”
                “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
                “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
                “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
                “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
                “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

            2. Canuck – a word about internet trolls. Don’t wallow in the mud with pigs. The pig will enjoy it, and you’ll just get dirty.

              They act this way just to get attention, and negative attention gets them excited.

              1. Sometimes I just enjoy a good roll in the muck myself. 🙂 Awful of me yes…

                1. True – but they like it too, and they may be very disturbed people. It feeds that weird, dark place in their minds. They are not behaving like normal, well adjusted people, at all, which is why their comments are so shocking. Who knows what they are doing to people in their real life, especially vulnerable people. One of them claimed that she was a nurse, which gave me chills.

                  1. That’s actually a very good point… I need to keep that in mind

                    1. Allan:

                      “Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior.”

                      There have been multiple instances where she has written details of violent fantasies in a thread, such as torturing and castrating men, as well as obsessive behavior. Some of the comments written have been truly disturbing, especially since one of the posters is a nurse. I typically just scroll on by, but your post about the correlation between trolling and sadism is spot on.

                      The Internet is a new bounty, and it provides a feast for good or for ill.

                    2. “There have been multiple instances where she has written details of violent fantasies in a thread, such as torturing and castrating men, as well as obsessive behavior.”

                      Karen, I think I know who you mean but I couldn’t be sure. Wish to name the alias of the she you are talking about?

                  2. Time to see a therapist, Karen S. You’re seeing trouble and problems that don’t exist. Or rather, they only exist in the strange place that you inhabit, it would seem.

                    “…which is why their comments are so shocking.” -Karen

                    “Shocking”? Now that’s a hoot.

                    The only thing Karen S. has to fear is fear itself, as the saying goes.

                    Take a break, chill-out, and get some rest, sweetie. Your comment smacks of imbalance.

                    1. Thank you, Big Sister. I appreciate it.

                      (What have they done P. Hill?)

                      L4D–little sister.

                    2. Talking of an imbalance reminds me of the article Estovir posted a few postings earlier. The abstract: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism,

                      “In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online comment- ing frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.”

              2. They act this way just to get attention, and negative attention gets them excited.

                Karen,
                Of course they do. So don’t give it to them. They know full well they are short on facts and long on opinions. Treat them like the flamers they are and don’t give them the fuel or oxygen they need.

                1. Olly – I agree. I have regretted each time I tried to interact reasonably with one. There is nothing good there to draw out into conversation, and nothing rational to rationalize with, and I feel icky. There is something disturbing about what that behavior feeds in the psyche of a true internet troll.

                  1. There is nothing good there to draw out into conversation, and nothing rational to rationalize with, and I feel icky.

                    For what it’s worth, I perceive my participation in a blog not any different than I would if I was physically present in a room with all the other participants. So if I was listening to someone stating their opinion and they produced nothing to support it, I would ask for the evidence to support that opinion. If they ignored my request, I might repeat it. If they ignored it again, then I have a choice; ignore them or keep trying. If they ignore me and also everyone else, then it has become abundantly clear this individual is an absolute waste of time and not worthy of further consideration. This blog (room) has several contributors that fit that description.

                    1. I find it a pleasure to talk to people with whom I disagree on a regular basis. Debate can be lively.

                      I welcome all to come here and disagree with me. We should have compassion to each other and exemplify this in our own remarks. Respect people who take the time to chat with you. We all kind end up like very old folks who are stuck in silence, sullen and alone and forgotten. It’s fun to talk to people even if you disagree.

                      None of us are bigwigs really or we would not be wasting time in comments section. I am surely not an important person. Because we are humble people, we should not blame each other for various things that we may dislike which are bigger than all of us.

                      Political activism encourages people to dehumanize each other at times. I remind myself of this all the time and I have got caught up in it many times over the decades.

                      Karen Olly I think you guys are very decent in your remarks. I am not criticizing you just advancing my own ideals, for conversation, whether I Follow them or not.

                    2. I find it a pleasure to talk to people with whom I disagree on a regular basis. Debate can be lively.

                      I agree Mr. Kurtz and I like the challenge a spirited debate can provide. IMO, debate has very little value if the participants fail to justify their respective positions. With supporting facts, we might as well just sit back and watch The View.

                    3. Mr Kurtz:

                      “I find it a pleasure to talk to people with whom I disagree on a regular basis. Debate can be lively.” I agree. Most of the people with differing opinions are enjoyable to debate with, and once in a while, I change my mind. It is only the true internet trolls who do nothing but insult, sometimes hysterically, that are best to avoid. They do not seek conversation.

                    4. Karen,
                      They know what they think they know; just like the blind men and the elephant.

                  2. The Dark Triad of personality

                    “Trolls just want to have fun”, Erin E. Buckels, Paul D. Trapnell, Delroy L. Paulhus, published in the Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 67, September 2014, Pages 97-102

                    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324

                    once you understand their psyche, you proceed accordingly. Nothing they say is true. L4D is probably a male, Anon is a tool of a larger movement, Peter Hill probably isn’t “Peter”, and nothing he/she has stated is to be believed. Nada. Ditto for the other tried and true Natacha, Fishwings, etc

                    While others engage these creatures for scholastic pursuits, I take nothing they write at face value. Coupled with the political machinations of George Soros funded David Brock internet troll farms, their only purpose is to divide, agitate and conquer. They move as Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Joel Nadler, et al move.

                    Alas this is the internet. “Winning” on here is totally imaginative. Refer to the Dark Triad above article. Sadism is their goal, just like Hillary Clinton post election failure. She is a true Sadist

                    Refer to Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals and the circle is complete. Such is our internet forum. WaPo forums are far worse. True cesspool.

                    if nothing else this forum pushes us to be informed and fortify our arguments versus JT.

                    Cheers

                    1. Look Who’s Talking!!!

                      The entire discourse about trolls is conducted by trolls for trolls about themselves.

                      L4D–Ogress.

                    2. BTW, Estovir is an imposter. The professional Catholic organization that goes by the name Estovir would not approve of any of the comments that Estovir posts on this blawg. Not because they disagree with the positions that fake Estovir takes on the issues that fake Estovir obsesses over. They do agree with most of those positions. But because the real Estovir promotes Christian leadership amongst Catholic professional men through the use of public displays of the virtues associated with manliness so as to influence, inspire and lead the faithful back to The Good.

                      L4D–PSYOP.

                  3. Karen, you demonize entire groups of people and then somehow expect to have a “reasonable” conversation with them. Much as I do pass judgement on the specific positions and decisions of those with whom
                    i disagree, I do not think or claim that they are evil or lesser humans than myself or those with whom I do agree. In fact I would readily admit that some may be better humans than me who I just think are wrong on issues.

                    I have treated you rather harshly and mockingly after at first appealing to your obvious intelligence, but I have now lost hope of actually having that reasonable conversation with you as you have generally not responded on point in discussions and continue to paint your black and white world in words. Since I am an unapologetic democrat I am clearly evil in your mind or at least that’s the clear implication of your words, so why would I bother treating you with respect? Consider your own behavior as you commiserate with like minded posters about “trolls”.

                    1. “Karen, you demonize entire groups of people”

                      Anon, Karen is one of the most intelligent and gentle commentators on the blog. When she says something it generally contains fact, logic or opinion. She doesn’t stray far though her postings are long in her attempt to be complete. I believe she comes from the hard sciences and that is typical of their approach. That the facts or logic look bad for certain groups is not her fault but she permits you to provide your side. Her knowledge and attention to detail frustrates your generalizations. That is why you act the way you do.

                      Once again, let’s hear your proof of your statement above.

          2. “Can we state with confidence the Steele dossier was not part of the Russian disinformation campaign?”

            Estovir, does that mean Hillary or her campaign was colluding with the Russians? Biden’s kid’s company got over a billion dollars from the Chinese. It seems that Democrats believe that a government position is a license to Steele. Is Anon angry because he hasn’t gotten his share?

            1. Estovir, does that mean Hillary or her campaign was colluding with the Russians?

    2. Flaming Anonymous:

      You seem angry. Even unhinged. Barr read the report; is oodles smarter than you; is beholden to no one since he’s retired; and is a lot more articulate by orders of magnitude. Turley’s like Barr. One of the first rules of boxing I learned was you don’t venture fights out of your class. You’re swinging featherweight in a heavyweight division.

      1. Actually, Barr didn’t look at any of the underlying supporting data. Anything he disagreed with (like whether Trump ordered the firing of Mueller) he chose to dismiss without reading the five witness statements supporting the claim. He also “can’t remember” whether he’s discussed opening up prosecutions of people with Trump or anyone in the White House? I tend to think that would be a thing one could recall.

        1. That was weak, but mimicked his handler boss who couldn’t remember anything uncomfortable either

        2. Anything he disagreed with…

          You’re not following the latest Talking Points by Nancy Pelosi to her Dimwit House Members so here they are to keep you on script.

          Hillary Clinton is still pissed she lost two presidential elections to two men of color: black and orange

          😁

          Talking Points: House Democrats Call for Full Mueller Report & Findings to be Released

          https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/read-pelosis-latest-mueller-talking-points-for-house-dems

          Mueller Report & Findings Must be Made Public to the American People & the Congress

          Attorney General Barr’s letter raises as many questions as it answers. The full report and its underlying documentations must be made public immediately to ensure Congress and the American people can judge the facts for themselves.

          This transparency is necessary to ensure the American people have confidence in the integrity of the investigation, and that the government remains accountable to the people. We cannot simply rely on what may be a partisan interpretation of facts uncovered during the course of a 22-month review of possible wrongdoing by the President.
          Congress has the authority to see and evaluate the underlying evidence. Making the report public is consistent with the intent of the Special Counsel Regulations, past precedent and, most importantly, the interests of the American public.
          The Mueller report expressly does not exonerate the President. Instead, it “sets out evidence on both sides of the question” of obstruction – including the evidence that President Trump attempted to obstruct justice. The assertion that there is “no collusion” is an incorrect overstatement of the Special Counsel’s report.

          The fact that Special Counsel Mueller’s report does not exonerate the President on a charge as serious as obstruction of justice demonstrates how urgent it is that the full report and underlying documentation be made public immediately.
          AG Barr’s unsolicited audition letter to the Department of Justice, suggesting that the obstruction investigation was ‘fatally misconceived,’ calls into question his objectivity on this point in particular.
          AG Barr must immediately release the full report and the underlying documents so that the Committees can proceed with their independent work, including oversight and legislating to address any issues the Mueller report may raise.
          The American people, Congress and President Trump agree that the Special Counsel’s report should be released in full to the public. Making Special Counsel Mueller’s report public is also consistent with the intent of the Special Counsel Regulations, past precedent, and most importantly, the interests of the American public.

          An overwhelming and bipartisan majority of Americans believe that the Special Counsel’s report should be made fully public. 81 percent of adults believe the report should be released, including 79 percent of Republicans.
          The House just unanimously voted 420-0 to make the full report and its findings public to Congress and to the American people.
          Transparency is consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the Special Counsel Regulations and the accompanying Department of Justice commentary, which notes the importance of ‘‘ensur[ing] congressional and public confidence in the integrity of the process. In the only other instance where a Special Counsel was appointed under the Special Counsel Regulations (in 1999, concerning the 1993 confrontation at the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas), both the interim and final reports including findings by the Special Counsel were made public. As the Department of Justice made clear over the last two years, DOJ policy permits disclosure of investigative materials when it serves the public interest, even as they pertain to “‘uncharged third parties.”

          1. Estovir,…
            I’m sure you’re aware of this, but Speaker Pelosi’s talking points don’t always align perfectly with the Brock/ Soros Talking Points that inspire some who comment here.

            1. Pelosi’s words tend to be a smidgen more articulate than the George Soros discombobulated trolls-speak. Otherwise they’re all gutter trash pablum

              1. George Soros makes a lot of sense if you understand his weltanschaung . I loathe him! But all the same I respect him as a global plutocrat master mind of historical proportions. And a foremost champion of liberal-capitalism from the globalist perspective.

                Calling him a socialist is basically misunderstanding him. he is not. Not in the sense in which socialism can exist in one country, as Stalin said, nor in the sense in which socialism can serve the interests of the national folk as Hitler or even FDR demonstrated. No. Not that way at all.

                He is a global-capitalist who upholds the welfare state model as a necessary corrective to the business cycle which creates a lot of poverty and chaos; and his support for the religion of tolerance etc etc is part of his version of opium for the masses. He sees things in a sort of messianic historical process understood with a marxist attitude towards nationalism as a once-laudable but now outmoded concept en route to some sort of global utopia. this is what they call “tikkum olam” and he exemplifies it

                read this recent speech. He rightly claims to have undermined Empires. This was bragging but he has earned the privilege. By means right or wrong.

                His criticisms of China are apt, and I can agree with them to a certain extent.

                To a certain extent I feel he goes way overboard and considers anything he doesn’t like the enemy of his socalled “open society”
                ——————————————————————-
                https://www.georgesoros.com/2019/01/24/remarks-delivered-at-the-world-economic-forum-2/

                Remarks delivered at the World Economic Forum
                Davos, Switzerland, January 24, 2019
                Good evening and thank you all for coming.

                I want to use my time tonight to warn the world about an unprecedented danger that’s threatening the very survival of open societies.

                Last year when I stood before you I spent most of my time analyzing the nefarious role of the IT monopolies. This is what I said: “An alliance is emerging between authoritarian states and the large data rich IT monopolies that bring together nascent systems of corporate surveillance with an already developing system of state sponsored surveillance. This may well result in a web of totalitarian control the likes of which not even George Orwell could have imagined.”

                Tonight I want to call attention to the mortal danger facing open societies from the instruments of control that machine learning and artificial intelligence can put in the hands of repressive regimes. I’ll focus on China, where Xi Jinping wants a one-party state to reign supreme.

                A lot of things have happened since last year and I’ve learned a lot about the shape that totalitarian control is going to take in China.

                All the rapidly expanding information available about a person is going to be consolidated in a centralized database to create a “social credit system.” Based on that data, people will be evaluated by algorithms that will determine whether they pose a threat to the one-party state. People will then be treated accordingly.

                The social credit system is not yet fully operational, but it’s clear where it’s heading. It will subordinate the fate of the individual to the interests of the one-party state in ways unprecedented in history.

                I find the social credit system frightening and abhorrent. Unfortunately, some Chinese find it rather attractive because it provides information and services that aren’t currently available and can also protect law-abiding citizens against enemies of the state.

                China isn’t the only authoritarian regime in the world, but it’s undoubtedly the wealthiest, strongest and most developed in machine learning and artificial intelligence. This makes Xi Jinping the most dangerous opponent of those who believe in the concept of open society. But Xi isn’t alone. Authoritarian regimes are proliferating all over the world and if they succeed, they will become totalitarian.

                As the founder of the Open Society Foundations, I’ve devoted my life to fighting totalizing, extremist ideologies, which falsely claim that the ends justify the means. I believe that the desire of people for freedom can’t be repressed forever. But I also recognize that open societies are profoundly endangered at present.

                What I find particularly disturbing is that the instruments of control developed by artificial intelligence give an inherent advantage to authoritarian regimes over open societies. For them, instruments of control provide a useful tool; for open societies, they pose a mortal threat.

                I use “open society” as shorthand for a society in which the rule of law prevails as opposed to rule by a single individual and where the role of the state is to protect human rights and individual freedom. In my personal view, an open society should pay special attention to those who suffer from discrimination or social exclusion and those who can’t defend themselves.

                By contrast, authoritarian regimes use whatever instruments of control they possess to maintain themselves in power at the expense of those whom they exploit and suppress.

                How can open societies be protected if these new technologies give authoritarian regimes a built-in advantage? That’s the question that preoccupies me. And it should also preoccupy all those who prefer to live in an open society.

                Open societies need to regulate companies that produce instruments of control, while authoritarian regimes can declare them “national champions.” That’s what has enabled some Chinese state-owned companies to catch up with and even surpass the multinational giants.

                This, of course, isn’t the only problem that should concern us today. For instance, man-made climate change threatens the very survival of our civilization. But the structural disadvantage that confronts open societies is a problem which has preoccupied me and I’d like to share with you my ideas on how to deal with it.

                My deep concern for this issue arises out of my personal history. I was born in Hungary in 1930 and I’m Jewish. I was 13 years old when the Nazis occupied Hungary and started deporting Jews to extermination camps.

                I was very fortunate because my father understood the nature of the Nazi regime and arranged false identity papers and hiding places for all members of his family, and for a number of other Jews as well. Most of us survived.

                The year 1944 was the formative experience of my life. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of political regime prevails. When the Nazi regime was replaced by Soviet occupation I left Hungary as soon as I could and found refuge in England.

                At the London School of Economics I developed my conceptual framework under the influence of my mentor, Karl Popper. That framework proved to be unexpectedly useful when I found myself a job in the financial markets. The framework had nothing to do with finance, but it is based on critical thinking. This allowed me to analyze the deficiencies of the prevailing theories guiding institutional investors. I became a successful hedge fund manager and I prided myself on being the best paid critic in the world.

                Running a hedge fund was very stressful. When I had made more money than I needed for myself or my family, I underwent a kind of midlife crisis. Why should I kill myself to make more money? I reflected long and hard on what I really cared about and in 1979 I set up the Open Society Fund. I defined its objectives as helping to open up closed societies, reducing the deficiencies of open societies and promoting critical thinking.

                My first efforts were directed at undermining the apartheid system in South Africa. Then I turned my attention to opening up the Soviet system. I set up a joint venture with the Hungarian Academy of Science, which was under Communist control, but its representatives secretly sympathized with my efforts. This arrangement succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. I got hooked on what I like to call “political philanthropy.” That was in 1984.

                In the years that followed, I tried to replicate my success in Hungary and in other Communist countries. I did rather well in the Soviet empire, including the Soviet Union itself, but in China it was a different story………..

                1. The problem, as I understand it, with Mr. Soros is that he believes in the supremacy of government as opposed to classic liberalism, which believes in small government and the government by and of the people.
                  The devil is in the details, and it’s in the details that Soros’ political philosophy fails.

                  1. I look at Soros this way:

                    full of contradictions
                    egomaniacal disrupter
                    sadistic

                    Is he pathologic? I think so.

                    1. definitely monomania…and the money to engage as he pleases. Rarely a good combination.

        3. i just watched a little bit of it, but I did watch carefully the kamala harris questioning you refered to. I took at that he paused over the meaning of “suggest.” Infer ? what? he said they did not ask for anyone to be investigated. It seems obvious that they probably vaguely voiced concerns. This is a political position and it would not be wrong in itself to vague concerns to a cabinet level position. In fact the POTUS has the right and duty to commend certain political objectives to his entire cabinet.

          He said nobody asked him. The word suggest is vague and ambiguous and a vague response to it is not out of line.

          That’s my take on that comment by you, if I have I have understood the gist of it correctly

        4. Enigma, Trump didn’t fire Mueller and he had a right to have him fired. Trump claimed Mueller was biased and based on Mueller’s history he was. Mueller hired Democrats connected to Hillary Clinton and investigators that should have been included in the Special Counsel’s investigation.

          Trump was not proven to be a racist when his father 20 years earlier was arrested at a KKK march. They didn’t even know for sure if it was Trump’s father and whoever it was was released because he did nothing wrong. That type of evidence of racism 20 years before his birth is the type of evidence you are providing now.

        5. enigma – I don’t understand. Barr would not have sifted through the thousands of pages that Mueller did when he wrote the report. That’s not what Barr’s job was. Barr’s job was to read Mueller’s report, not repeat his investigation. Barr is not FBI.

          You would need top clearance to have access to all of the information the FBI had at their disposal.

          I actually am very sympathetic to the concern that Barr might have politicized his job. After all, that is what conservatives believe Comey did. He and his cohorts abused their position to protect Hillary Clinton from felony prosecution right before a presidential election. She broke numerous federal laws on the mishandling of classified information. Intent to commit espionage is most certainly not required to be prosecuted. That fact is drilled into anyone’s head who gets clearance. That is why if you pose for a selfie aboard a nuclear sub, you get prosecuted.

          However, the difference is that we have evidence that Comey et al abused their authority to protect Hillary Clinton. We have the wording of the laws themselves, the internal emails and texts indicating collusion against Trump, and other evidence.

          Where is the evidence that Barr lied about Mueller’s report? Mueller’s report has been released. We all have it. Mueller certainly gave an opening where he refused to complete his job and come to a conclusion about obstruction, so people can disagree with Barr and give their reasons. However, the fact remains that Mueller did not come to a conclusion of criminal obstruction and he also cleared Trump of colluding with Russia. Obviously, Russia was colluding with Hillary Clinton. Trump also did not fire Mueller, although with the accusations of an abuse of power against conservatives, the issue was discussed.

          The Democrat story keeps shifting. Most recently, it was that Trump was a Russian asset. Now that it’s been disproven, it’s obstructing the investigation into the crime he was innocent of. There seems no acknowledgement that Trump would have any reason to vehemently protest his innocence or the abuse of government authority to try to unseat a president for political gain.

          If you listen to Barr’s testimony, he explains his reasoning, as well as the proposition of Mueller being fired. Trump didn’t “try” to fire Mueller. He had the authority to do so. If he decided to fire him, nothing could stop it. He discussed his options to fight what many of us believed was an unlawful coup attempt. If Mueller was legitimately seeking to investigate Russian interference, then the dossier was central to that activity. He would have investigated Russia feeding false information to Hillary Clinton, and how that information was used to gain a FISA warrant, and spy on a presidential election. It was also the basis used for Obama to abuse his own authority and spy on his party’s political opponent.

          ““If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

          “So that’s another reason that we would say that the government would have difficulty proving this beyond a reasonable doubt,” Barr said.”

          I understand why some people might disagree with Barr. However, in light of the release of the Mueller report, there does not appear to be evidence that Barr abused his authority.

          1. I would also hold that the OLC opinion holds no weight on the obstruction question for several reasons.

            Mueller came to a conclusion of no collusion. He did not claim he could not reach a conclusion because of the OLC. Barr claims that Mueller told him that his refusal to come to a conclusion on obstruction was not based on the OLC opinion. Mueller can be questioned separately on that. A finding of criminal wrongdoing would be critical to an Impeachment, a fact the FBI would be aware of. Therefore, there is nothing preventing Mueller from coming to a conclusion on criminal obstruction, except for a lack of evidence. A conclusion on criminality is not the same as an indictment. The conclusion would be part of an impeachment process, which would likely be the preliminary step in a criminal case. Finally, the OLC would be challenged should a President ever engage in criminal activity that should be prosecuted, like murder, for instance, where there was some barrier to impeachment first.

            1. No Karen, Mueller did not say there was no collusion. This is the problem with your only following media that tells you what you want hear. You don’t know what’s going on.

          2. ” I don’t understand. Barr would not have sifted through the thousands of pages that Mueller did when he wrote the report. That’s not what Barr’s job was. Barr’s job was to read Mueller’s report, not repeat his investigation. Barr is not FBI.”

            I’m not saying Barr should be conversant in thousands of pages of underlying documents. If he disagrees with conclusions (as he acknowledged he sometimes did) I think he has the responsibility to look at Mueller’s documentation. He seems to ignore basic stuff in the report. Barr says Trump didn’t really mean for Mueller to be fired when there are five witnesses including Christie and McGahn that say he did. Barr’s conclusion “there was no underlying crime” is totally bogus, he’s already an unindicted coconspirator in the same case that will see Cohen go to jail on Monday, plus we have no idea what other crimes Trump may be trying to cover up including financial ones. Who ever heard of suing banks and accountants to keep them from obeying subpoenas? Barr absolutely lied (to Congress) about Mueller’s reaction to his summary. Good to know that he and Putin agreed today there’s no collusion.

            1. “He seems to ignore basic stuff in the report. Barr says Trump didn’t really mean for Mueller to be fired”

              Trump had good reason to fire Mueller. In the end he didn’t. That is defining proof.

      2. The Braggart said, “One of the first rules of boxing I learned was you don’t venture fights out of your class. You’re swinging featherweight in a heavyweight division.”

        The Justice Department Manual says that Mueller had to make a binary decision to prosecute or to decline to prosecute.

        The Office of Legal Counsel opinion said that Mueller could not indict [prosecute] a sitting President.

        Mueller declined to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice.

        Turley claims that there’s nothing in the OLC opinion to prevent Mueller from reaching a conclusion on the obstruction of justice case.

        Given a binary choice between prosecution versus declination, exoneration is not one of those two disjuncts.

        Turley can’t figure out why Mueller did not exonerate Trump for obstruction of justice.

        Turley does not, and probably never did nor ever will, understand that neither/nor is an option for any binary decision.

        Surely Turley is the featherweight in this division.

        L4D–with spanking gloves on.

        1. The Justice Department Manual says ….
          The Office of Legal Counsel opinion said…

          Meh.

          Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists selectively quote from the Quran, and it doesn’t make them right.

          You rail ad nauseam ad infinitum against ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 3 & its subsequent Twelfth Amendment because your loser candidates can’t win elections as designed by the Founding Fathers.

          You could try removing your “spanking gloves” and grab your tin hat, because you write as if all electrical currents within your brain(?) stopped conducting neural synapses in your cerebral cortex ever since Hillary lost her second presidential election to 2 different men of color

          A mind is a terrible thing to waste

          1. That always resonated me.

            A mind really is a terrible thing to waste. That’s what I see when I read about various young, healthy people going nowhere besides prison. It’s just a waste of their wonderful gifts and potential. People need to step onto a productive path from childhood. Race has nothing to do with potential or character. It’s nurture – culture, upbringing, quality of education, grit, and picking the right friends. So many little nudges throughout our lives.

            1. The Crystalline Entity said, “That always resonated me.”

              You don’t say? Where’s Ella Fitzgerald when we need her? Garson! Bring the Memorex–Stat.

              L4D–shimmying like Karen’s Sister Kate.

    3. Sounds like Diane has broken free of her straight jacket and is now bouncing off the rubber walls.

      1. Stronger meds might help. Of course, we can’t be sure that she’s taking the current ones.
        If she is, upping the dosage would seem to be warranted. Or trying out new/ additional meds.

        1. Tom, Have you noted that as the news gets worse and worse for Democrats Diane gets crazier and crazier.

        2. Mean girls at it again. If that’s all you have, why don’t you get a ducking job.

          1. Maybe Anon will use his inside track with the FBI and give us their current view of the flap over the Mueller Report. Or find out how his personal “friend” Sen. Sanders really feels about the issue.
            I forgot another part of his resume that Anon has provided for us here. In the meantime, I’ll be contacting my sources in the DOJ and call up my personal friends in the Senate.

            1. I just checked Bern’s twitter feed. Nothing about hearings at all. However, he is proud that he voted against NAFTA and the PNTR with China and is associated with unions. I liked that one but the rest of his tweets left me cold.

      1. not sure you meant me but if you did, yes, I think I am stupid, and the older I get the more sure I am of it. But, considering how stupid I am, I may actually be wrong about that!

        1. Kurtz, it looks like an anonymous statement directed at crazy Diane who is frequently anonymous as well. Take note another anonomous is trying to figure it out as well but that anonymous is part of the problem.

          1. Allan is mansplaining — to another man.

            (Allan needs to get out more.)

        2. 🙂 That reminds of something I tell my son from time to time. I’ve only been wrong once in my life; that was when I thought I was wrong when I was actually right.

      2. ?

        Who is “pretty stupid?” Certainly not Mr. Kurtz, though I don’t always agree with him.

  15. Key Takeaways From AG Whitewash Barr’s Senate Testimony (as analyzed by Marcy Wheeler):

    •You only need to call the FBI when being offered campaign assistance by a foreign intelligence service, not a foreigner

    •It’s okay to lie about the many dangles hostile foreign countries make to a political campaign, including if you accepted those dangles

    •Because Trump was being falsely accused (it’s not clear of what, because the report doesn’t address the most aggressive accusation, and many other accusations against Trump and his campaign are born out by the Mueller Report), it’s okay that he sought to undermine it through illegal means

    •It’s okay for the President to order the White House Counsel to lie, even about an ongoing investigation

    •It’s okay to fire the FBI Director for refusing to confirm or deny an ongoing investigation, which is DOJ policy not to do

    •It’s okay for the Attorney General to call lawfully predicated DOJ investigative techniques “spying” because Fox News does

    •Public statements — including threatening someone’s family — cannot be subornation of perjury

    •You can exhaust investigative options in a case having only obtained contemptuous responses covering just a third of the investigation from the key subject of it

    Contributed by L4D

      1. But of course Barr didn’t literally say verbatim what Marcy Wheeler said about what Barr said. Nevertheless, Barr said that if Trump thought he was being falsely accused of conspiring or coordinating with Russia in their election-interference activities, then Trump’s obstruction of the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation and the Special Counsel’s criminal and counter-intelligence investigations would be defensible on the grounds that Trump’s intent was supposedly not criminal nor corrupt.

        Now here’s a reminder of what Marcy Wheeler wrote minus the parenthetic comment:

        •Because Trump was being falsely accused, it’s okay that he sought to undermine it [the investigation] through illegal means.

        That just so happens to be a good faith paraphrase of what Barr said in his testimony yesterday. And that’s just for one of the examples given. The remaining paraphrases can be just as readily be demonstrated as faithful to Barr’s testimony. Did you even watch the hearing, Counselor?

        L4D on the Job.

    1. I talk to foreigners all the time. There is no legal obligation to assume a foreigner is a spy. You’re crazy if you think that a meeting with a foreigner entails any presumption of illegal activity whatsoever. It’s an incredibly bigoted comment and a little surprising it supposedly comes from a Democrat who loves diversity but this reflects our times.

      1. When was the last time you talked to Konstantin Kilimnik of the Russian Federation? When you met him at The Grand Havana Room at 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, on August 2nd, 2016, to brief him on Tony Fabrizio’s polling data for Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota while being briefed, in return, by Kostya on the Ukrainian Peace Plan that amounted to sanctions relief for Russia?

        No Wait. When was the last time you talked with Natalia Veselnitskaya about Bill Browder, The Ziff Brothers and Magnitsky Act sanctions relief for Russia? June 9th, 2016, at the Trump Tower in New York, New York?

        I see you playing dumb whenever it suits your fancy to play dumb. When you try to play dumb with me, you cross over the line into the land of Flaming Dipsticks With Broken Off Tips.

        L4D–with her spanking gloves on.

        1. I have talked to Chinese people with close relatives in the Communist party and commissioned officers in the PLA. Does that mean I adore the Chicoms or I collude with them? Certainly not. I’m staunchly loyal to this land of my native birth. Whatever truck i had with them was strictly legal according to the laws of both nations. But that word collusion has always meant just whatever you guys wanted it to mean. So please, give me a break.

          My Russian friends include some old time Communists too. From the old days at least. Big deal. But as i have noted, I am just a nobody. Who cares.

          it’s when an important person like Donny Jr meets with a Russian lawyer that all hell breaks loose, apparently. Even though it was flat out LEGAL

      1. Not directed at me but I am from Mars. Women are from Venus. Maybe I could write a book about that and make some money? oh crud, too late

      2. Anonymous says: May 1, 2019 at 5:46 PM

        “Which planet are you from anonymous??”

        L4D hails from a planet currently being overrun by Flaming Dipsticks With Broken Off Tips. You may have heard of it. It’s called, The Earth.

        1. “L4D hails from a planet currently being overrun by Flaming Dipsticks With Broken Off Tips. You may have heard of it. It’s called, The Earth.”

          Ain’t it the truth. (And it’s getting worse by the minute.)

          1. L4D says, I wish I was wrong. It’s not supposed to be like this. What’s going on?. What’s going on?

    1. That was a beautiful and wise reply. Yes the government spies. Smart guy. Not sure how well this went for either side today, but Barr is impressive.

      1. Peter Strzok was told that he could not conduct aggressive interviews with Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Sam Clovis nor any other member of the Trump campaign in late July and early August of 2016 when Strzok proposed doing just that because the DOJ, the NSD, and the FBI were afraid that Trump and Giuliani would leak that story to the press. Therefore, The NSD used Stephan Halper to conduct passive interviews with Page, Papadopoulos and Clovis–none of whom ever suspected that Halper was not trying to lend assistance to the Trump campaign. And so Trump and Giuliani never leaked the story to the press during the campaign.

        It was the passive interviews that Halper conducted that furnished the probable cause for the FISA warrants that Trump and Barr call spying. Barr is supposed to know better than Trump that those FISA warrants were fully warranted. But if Barr wants to find out the hard way, then he should go for it. The day that any one from the DOJ, NSD or FBI is indicted for “spying” with fully warranted FISA warrants is the day that all of the evidence that Barr needs to suppress in order to save Trump becomes discoverable as exculpatory evidence for the defendants that Barr would indict.

        L4D on the job.

        1. And for another thing, Russian military intelligence first established contact with Carter Page in 2008–five years before Carter Page said anything about it to the FBI when he was caught in 2013 communicating with Russian military intelligence operatives who were indicted in New York for some sort of securities fraud the details of which a can’t remember at the moment.

          In any case, Carter Page might not be quite the nincompoop that Carter Page and The Russians want everyone to think Carter Page is.

          L4D on the Job.

    2. Is Whitehouse not aware that the US employs “spies” who are authorized to gather intelligence in a clandestine manner?

      A spy can have a legitimate or an illegitimate mandate.

      My father interacted with spies on occasion. He said that they tended to be very innocuous looking. They would not grab your notice like, say, any Hollywood action thriller spy would. They could have any number of day jobs, and some actually had legitimate full time civilian occupations. They also do not get upset. Whatever happens, they are calm and collected. There could be an imminent nuclear war, and they would just do what needs to be done with steady hands. There were things that happened that definitely made my Dad’s heart race, but the spy was the calmest guy in the room. Or Jeep.

        1. I have a colleague who worked in the DOJ many years ago, with one of the worst spies in American history. And yet, all of that person’s business with the spy was strictly legal. All their cases were properly prosecuted. Whatever “spy” stuff he did had nothing to do with my colleague.

          MY point: all this innuendo about “being in contact with so and so” is a lot of hogwash

          it’s on the level with the yellow journalism people get from the likes of the SPLC the Self Promoting Legal Charlatans. Who are always “connecting the dots” to scare the money out of the old ladies on their enormous donation soliciting mailing list. A very inferior sort of smear tactic, day in and day out. You can do better with your brain and wits than this.

  16. The Same Media Who Excuse Bob Mueller Abused Ken Starr

    Today’s journalists routinely assert that it is “extreme,” “dangerous,” and possibly even criminal for the White House – or anyone else, for that matter – to criticize an investigation into the President. But twenty years ago, Independent Counsel Ken Starr was savaged by the same liberal media during his investigation of then-President Bill Clinton. At that time, Starr was harangued as a “partisan” and “inept prosecutor,” and a “peeping Tom.”

    On Monday evening, MSNBC host Chris Matthews shared his take on the Trump administration’s attitude towards Mueller while hosting Hardball: “President Trump is indicating today that he’s willing to go to extreme new lengths to discredit the Russia probe.”

    “It seems extremely dangerous that you have investigators investigating the investigation,” intoned a deeply concerned Don Lemon. The CNN Tonight host continued, “You have a President who appears to be, by anyone’s standards, trying to manipulate the process.”

    Chris Cuomo was similarly incensed on Tuesday, providing the following synopsis on CNN’s New Day: “The logic is clear. Attack the people who are attacking you, even if it’s just in perception. Bring down their credibility, and that will reduce the impact of anything they find…”

    During a segment on ABC’s This Week, CNN Contributor and former Ted Cruz staffer Amanda Carpenter mounted a particularly tone-deaf defense of the Special Counsel. “One of the problems here is that Donald Trump has a strong PR machine giving his side of the story out, and the Department of Justice and the investigators do not,” she claimed – as if the media are not themselves a massive anti-Trump PR machine.

    The liberal media-wide closing of ranks around the Mueller investigation has ramped up in recent days, but it is nothing new in the age of Trump. In March, MSNBC White House Correspondent Peter Alexander suggested that a tweet in which the President had criticized Mueller somehow constituted a criminal act: “Does this effort to sort of undermine and discredit this investigation… does this only add to this obstruction of justice effort by Robert Mueller?”

    Back in December of 2017, Lemon confessed on his show that he found conservative media criticism of Mueller “embarrassing,” and “shocking to watch.”

    Journalists sang a very different tune when it was a Democratic President under scrutiny. Accusations of Ken Starr’s supposed partisan zeal and incompetence were commonplace throughout the investigation, and as the probe dragged on, the cacophony of dissenting voices only grew fiercer. MRC analysts combed the archives for the most egregious clips of pundits tearing into the Special Counsel, which can be viewed in the compilation video below.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3657736/posts

  17. number of failures that may be attributed to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

    Blasphemy! Heresy! Off with JT’s Head.
    How dare him impugn the name of our Lawd and Savivur, Mueller

    Never has a Special Counsel ever been demeaned, defamed, denigrated or insulted. Never!
    What gall you have for doubting His Lordship Babbling Bob
    ——-

    Liberal reporters are scandalized by what they say is President Trump’s effort to “discredit” and “undermine” special counsel Robert Mueller, worried that it could presage an attempt to “remove Mueller, or end his investigation.” But when President Bill Clinton was being investigated by Ken Starr, journalists applauded Democratic and White House attacks on the independent counsel, and frequently joined in themselves.

    Today’s journalists seem appalled by attempts by the President and his allies that question Mueller’s credibility. Washington Post reporters Devlin Barrett and Sean Sullivan sounded the alarm in a front-page story on December 7: “Several law enforcement officials said they are concerned that the constant drumbeat of conservative criticism seems designed to erode Mueller’s credibility.”

    “You’re seeing an all-out effort by people close to the President to try to discredit the special counsel’s investigation,” ABC’s Jon Karl agreed on Thursday’s Good Morning America. On MSNBC’s Hardball that evening, USA Today White House reporter Heidi Przybyla claimed the President is “clearly trying to discredit the investigation, trying to discredit Mueller….They are trying to undermine this investigation.”

    An hour later, with the words “THE PLOT TO STOP MUELLER” on screen, MSNBC host Chris Hayes announced his opinion that “there is a pretty concerted effort to lay the groundwork to essentially remove Mueller, or end his investigation.”

    Later on CNN Tonight, host CNN’s Don Lemon found it “embarrassing” that journalists would participate in criticizing Mueller, complaining to media reporter Brian Stelter about Fox News: “There has been a huge rise in anti-Mueller and FBI rhetoric from right-wing media recently….It’s just been shocking to watch.”

    “Is this a concerted effort to discredit Mueller?” Lemon asked. Stelter instantly replied, “Yes.”

    The media’s fierce protectiveness of the investigation into Trump is the utter opposite of how they reacted in 1998, when the Clinton White House openly challenged independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Back then, many liberal reporters enthusiastically joined the effort to discredit the prosecutor and save their hero.

    ABC’s Cokie Roberts at one point marveled about the effectiveness of Clinton’s campaign to undermine the Starr investigation. “It’s fabulous. It is so good. It just unbelievably good,” she exclaimed on CNN’s Larry King Live on April 28, 1998. “Look at how they’ve managed to turn around this whole question about the President’s behavior to one of Ken Starr’s behavior, you know, just taken the whole focus off of the President and put it onto the prosecutor. That’s remarkable.”

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/12/11/bob-mueller-vs-ken-starr-classic-media-double-standard

  18. Mueller’s letter to Barr has Andrew Weisman’s fingerprints all over it. But I notice that JT didn’t refer to the news coverage as fake news. We all know ho disturbed he is when the president uses that term However, the president is in good company: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day” — Thomas Jefferson,” 1807

    1. RSA,
      I don’t try to make predictions about mostly unpredictable things, but somewhere between November 2020 and Jan.2025, this will all blow over and be old news, if not ancient history.
      In the meantime, maybe there’ll be another Special Counsel appointment to clear up any remaining disagreement over the Mueller Report. That otta help a whole bunch.

Comments are closed.