Sandburg’s Rule: Congress Shifts Attention Away From Mueller’s 400-Page Report To Focus On Barr’s 4-Page Summary

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the hearing with Attorney General Bill Barr in the Special Counsel investigation. Barr’s testimony reaffirmed many of the points of the column, including the fact that Robert Mueller was not told that he could not reach a conclusion of obstruction. Indeed, Barr testified that both he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told Mueller that he should reach a conclusion. As Mueller’s superiors, that should have resolved any question of a “policy” of Main Justice. However, according to Barr, Mueller not only did not reach a conclusion but he also disregarded the express request that his staff identify grand jury information to allow for a rapid release of a redacted report.

Notably, Barr also confirmed that just eight percent of the public report was redacted — largely to remove material that could undermine ongoing investigations. The sealed version of the report given to Congress only had two percent redacted. Thus, while the Democratic leadership is insisting holding back impeachment efforts until they can get “the full report,” they already have 98 percent of the report and the remaining grand jury information might ultimately not be released by a federal court. Nevertheless, as predicted in the column, the focus of Congress remains on the four-page summary that preceded the full 408-page report. It is a telling emphasis that highlights what I have previously discussed as the priority of congressional leaders.

Here is the column:

This week’s congressional hearings with Attorney General William Barr are likely to follow Carl Sandberg’s rule: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

Last night, news broke of special counsel Robert Mueller’s letter to Barr, objecting to the four-page summary that Barr gave Congress before releasing Mueller’s report. That news led to the familiar vapors of legal experts who suggested Barr might be impeached and accused him of lying to the public. In anticipation of the heated questioning in Congress, here is a Sandburg-like guide to the issues.

Arguing the facts

Many pundits and politicians in Washington seem far more eager to discuss Barr’s four-page summary than the actual 400-page report. It is a telling emphasis since, whatever the summary’s shortcomings, the public now has the report itself. It is like movie critics focusing on the one-minute “Avengers” trailer rather than the three-hour movie.

Barr released the report with limited redactions. The problem for critics is that the report does not support two years of predictions of criminal charges against President Trump and his family. In writing his summary, Barr offered to allow Mueller to review the draft. Mueller declined. The regulations stipulate that, after the submission of a confidential special counsel report, the attorney general will issue “brief notifications, with an outline of the actions and the reasons for them.”

Barr did that. He stated correctly that Mueller did not find evidence of crimes connected to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians and that Mueller did not reach a conclusion on obstruction. He then explained that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that the evidence would not support a charge of obstruction.

Barr then added a line from the report that remains most damaging to Trump, which is that Mueller did not exonerate Trump. The Justice Department issued a statement following Tuesday’s leak that Mueller wrote a one-page letter, calling for the release of the report’s longer executive summary. The Justice Department stressed that the “special counsel emphasized that nothing in the attorney general’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading.” Yet, Mueller is quoted as stating that Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.” Mueller wanted to release the summary section of the report.Barr reportedly called Mueller to explain that he preferred not to release the report piecemeal and that the specific portion raised by Mueller had not been cleared by reviewers for release.

Barr can be legitimately criticized for his press conference. He briefly described Trump’s noncriminal motivations and mindset in a way that raised valid concerns. Those three lines smacked of advocacy and tainted the rest of a largely descriptive press conference. However, his four-page summary was not misleading on the report’s conclusions, and his press conference was followed by releasing the report itself.

More importantly, despite predictions that Barr might delay the report’s release, redact embarrassing material or make unexplained redactions, Barr’s record is commendable. He released a summary within two days of the report’s completion. He then released the report within a few weeks. He released highly damaging information on Trump. Finally, he not only minimized redactions but clearly identified the reason for each.

Arguing the law

Faced with bad facts, many have argued the law, claiming that Barr’s narrow view of obstruction dictated Mueller’s results, or the Justice Department policy of not indicting a sitting president was the reason no obstruction was found. Both happen to be wrong on the law.

As Barr clearly stated during his press conference, any differences over the scope of obstruction were immaterial because all of the officials agreed there must be a showing of a “corrupt intent.” Mueller found a variety of noncriminal motives that would offer ample defenses to obstruction. That does not mean such acts could not be grounds for impeachment, but it would make for an anemic obstruction prosecution.

Mueller’s report largely defuses the key events cited for two years as clear acts of criminal obstruction. It describes the Trump Tower meeting in strikingly noncriminal terms. Likewise, Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey seems more obsessive than obstructive in the report. Even the alleged order to fire Mueller, described in the report, focused on Trump’s view of Mueller as having conflicts of interest. It did not say that Trump ordered an end to the investigation or barred the appointment of a new special counsel.

Finally, Rosenstein, who Democrats have defended, agreed there was insufficient evidence to support obstruction, given the noncriminal motives described by Mueller. The second claim is that Mueller was barred from finding obstruction because of the long standing, and in my view fundamentally flawed, Justice Department policy against indicting sitting presidents. Mueller does not claim in his report that he was told he could not reach a conclusion on obstruction. Indeed, Barr and Rosenstein did not feel legally constrained in reaching such a conclusion.

What is absolutely clear is that nothing in Justice Department policies would bar a special counsel from finding evidence of criminal conduct. It is absurd to suggest that a policy against indicting a president means you cannot report evidence of a crime. It also fundamentally changes the role of the special counsel to a mere collector of evidence with no analytical function. Absent an order to the contrary, the failure to reach a conclusion on obstruction was a failure of Mueller rather than Barr.

Pounding the table

With bad facts and bad law, that leaves pounding the table and yelling like hell. Despite the report being publicly available, and Congress has copies without many of the redactions, the focus will continue to be on whether an initial summary was accurate. Various pundits have declared that Mueller said Barr “lied” and that his summary was false or misleading.

Without waiting to hear from Mueller or Barr, Democratic Representatives Maxine Waters of California and Joaquin Castro of Texas called for Barr to be impeached over a four-page summary that preceded the report’s release a few weeks later. Impeaching someone for not adding more context to a summary, or adding three ill-considered lines to a press conference, is hardly equivalent to a high crime and misdemeanor.

The report released by Barr contained hundreds of pages of highly damaging information against Trump. Some of that information could support an impeachment inquiry, yet lawmakers now seem more inclined to focus on impeaching Barr. That may reflect the fact that Mueller’s report is full of evidence supporting noncriminal motives that would make for ready defenses against charge of obstruction. That is why we are likely to see desk pounding over a four-page summary, or three lines in a press conference, rather than the 400-page report itself in the coming hearings.

As for Barr, his record on the report was tarnished by his rhetoric. He would do well to remember another Sandburg caution: “Be careful with your words, once they are said, they can only be forgiven, not forgotten.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified at the Senate confirmation hearing of Attorney General William Barr. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

296 thoughts on “Sandburg’s Rule: Congress Shifts Attention Away From Mueller’s 400-Page Report To Focus On Barr’s 4-Page Summary”

  1. I have a great respect for Jonathan Turley and his willingness to be objective in his analysis regardless. That being said I continued to find it amazing that not only Turley but many if not most other “experts” fail to even mention the obvious ethical violations, if not legal ones, committed by Mueller.

    For example in talking about Barr’s 4 page summary, Turley mentions that Barr included the “most damaging” line to Trump in Vol , that he (Mueller) did not exonerate Trump. Maybe I am too idealistic but I would thought a bright legal mind might also point out that exoneration is NOT in anyway shape or form the job of a Special Prosecutor. That a SC has no authority to exonerate anyone (following the most legal definition of the word only a jury or Judge in a legal proceeding as such authority). That the principle of innocent until proven guilty is belongs to Trump and Mueller’s efforts to “heighten public condemnation of the accused” by making such statements is a major breach of ethical conduct. Not to mention legally irrelevant. Much is made of the lack of holding Prosecutor accountable for such breaches of ethics by Judges, but it appears to be a condition that NO ONE in the legal profession is willing to call Prosecutor out over.

    Turley also fails to even mention, let alone accuse, Mueller of failing g to do is specific mandated job (which is malfeasance) by failing to reach an decision on obstruction. While Turley mentions that Mueller did not reach a decision, failing to to put that act in it legal context, excuses the malfeasance, of Mueller. And the same goes with Mueller’s then listing all the evidence, in a report that fails that basically declines to indic.

    Why does Myeller get a pass on these very unethical acts, when no other Federal Prosecutor in any other case would committed such violations. Turley like all the others, unfortunately by ignoring these unethical and maybe illegal behaviors do in fact condone then and that is extremely disappointing.

  2. Checkmate: How President Trump’s legal team outfoxed Mueller

    When the Mueller Report was released on April 18th, most commentators focused on the “explosive” factual allegations. But other than the shocking revelation that the President once used an expletive in private, very few of those facts were novel; most were leaked long ago.

    In June 2018, Bill Barr, then in private practice at Kirkland & Ellis, wrote a detailed legal memorandum to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. This memo came to light in December, when Barr was nominated for Attorney General.
    At the end of Volume II of the Mueller Report, however, there were 20 pages of genuinely new material.

    There, the former FBI director turned Special Counsel Robert Mueller defended his “Application of Obstruction-Of-Justice Statutes To The President.” These overlooked 20 pages were dedicated to defending Mueller’s interpretation of a single subsection of a single obstruction-of-justice statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).

    That’s quite strange, but you know what’s stranger still?

    In June 2018, Bill Barr, then in private practice at Kirkland & Ellis, wrote a detailed legal memorandum to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. This memo came to light in December, when Barr was nominated for Attorney General.

    The subject was Mueller’s interpretation of the aforementioned 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).

    When Barr’s memo first appeared, prominent liberal legal commentators were perplexed. Georgetown Law professor Marty Lederman wrote at Just Security:

    “[T]he first huge and striking problem with Barr’s memo is that he unjustifiably makes countless assumptions about what Mueller is doing…From all that appears, Barr was simply conjuring from whole cloth a preposterously long set of assumptions about how Special Counsel Mueller was adopting extreme and unprecedented-within-DOJ views about every pertinent question and investigatory decision.”

    At Lawfare, Mikhaila Fogel and Benjamin Wittes wrote:

    “[I]t is not an exaggeration to say that Barr’s entire memo is predicated on two broad assumptions: first, that he knows Mueller’s legal theory, and second, that he understands the fact pattern that Mueller is investigating… Neither assumption is, in our judgment, warranted. Unlike Barr, we don’t purport to know what Mueller’s obstruction theory is.”

    But now that we have the Mueller Report, things look very different.

    Forrmer Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
    Keynote at the 2018 State of the Net Conference. Image by the Internet Education Foundation, Flickr

    Reading Barr’s June 2018 memo alongside the last twenty pages of the Mueller Report is a curious experience.

    Together, they read like dueling legal briefs on the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2); the type of material one would expect to see from adversarial appellate litigators.

    So-why did Robert Mueller dedicate 20 pages of his report to a seemingly obscure question of statutory interpretation? Why did Bill Barr write a detailed legal memorandum to Rod Rosenstein about that very same statute?

    And how, exactly, did Bill Barr know that that § 1512(c)(2) was central to Mueller’s obstruction theory – in June 2018, when he was still in private practice at Kirkland?

    After some consideration, I arrived at a theory that I believe answers these three questions, and others as well. For example – why was AG Jeff Sessions asked for his resignation the day after the midterms? Why was Bill Barr the only name ever seriously floated for AG? And is it merely a coincidence that six weeks after Barr’s confirmation, the Mueller probe came to an end?

    This theory is not entirely my own — I’m indebted to the work of the anonymous lawyer user going by Undercover Huber on Twitter (@JohnWHuber), and his detailed thread on the subject. But the story I’m about to tell does contain some novel theses, which are noted throughout.

    Here’s why Andrew Weismann is almost certainly the driving force behind Mueller’s embrace of a legally dubious theory of Obstruction of Justice, targeting @RuleDonaldTrump

    — Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) April 17, 2019

    This is a story about a legal chess match played for the highest stakes imaginable: Trump’s Presidency – and whether it would be under the cloud of an endless special counsel investigation – hinged on the result.

    John Dowd, Ty Cobb, Jay Sekulow, and the rest of President Trump’s personal legal team were on one side. Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, and the Special Counsel’s office were on the other.

    The dispute was a year-long struggle over the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).

    No judge ever ruled on who was right about the meaning of this obstruction statute. No formal decision was ever rendered.

    All the same, Trump’s legal team prevailed on February 14, 2019.

    That’s the day William Pelham Barr was confirmed as United States Attorney General.

    1. continued from the above link


      So why, exactly, was the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) so contested?

      Let’s start by looking the statute, excerpted here:

      (c) Whoever corruptly—

      (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

      (2) otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction]. (Emphasis added).

      Why was this so important to Mueller? Because most of the obstruction statutes couldn’t possibly apply to President Trump’s behavior, as they require that a defendant obstruct a “pending proceeding” before an agency or tribunal.

      It is settled law that an FBI investigation does not constitute such a proceeding. But § 1512(c) applies to acts of obstruction done with the intent of impairing evidence for a future, potential proceeding. That made it potentially usable against the President.

      Second – the language of subsection (c)(2), read in isolation, is *very* broad. Removing subsection (1), it reads like this:

      “Whoever corruptly… obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so [is guilty of the crime of obstruction].”

      If taken to its extreme, it could be read to cover any act – no matter how lawful – that has the effect of impeding a federal investigation. That would include, for example, asking an FBI director to lay off an investigation, or firing an FBI director. The Mueller Report revealed that Mueller interpreted § 1512(c)(2) in just such a broad fashion.

      Conversely, in Barr’s reading (as detailed in his June 2018 memo) subsection (c)(2) is a “residual clause” – a catch-all clause “most naturally understood to cover acts that cause a similar kind of result as the preceding listed examples, but cause those results in a different manner.”⁠ Because subsection (c)(1) deals with types of obstruction that impair evidence, Barr argues, subsection (c)(2) has to be read narrowly, as limited to obstructive acts “that impair the integrity or availability of evidence.”

      Mueller firmly disagreed: in the Mueller Report, he addressed this argument specifically, boldly asserting that nothing in the text of subsection (c)(2) “limits the provision to acts that would impair the integrity or availability of evidence in an official proceeding.”

      Mueller adopted an expansive, acontextual, and constitutionally questionable interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) and used it to justify an extensive investigation into potential obstruction of justice by President Trump.
      This is a very truncated explanation of the legal debate, which covers technical issues of statutory interpretation, as well as constitutional questions about the separation of powers. If you are interested in going deep into the legal minutia, I would highly recommend reading the full Barr memo, which is excellent legal work.

      For our purposes, it is enough to understand this:

      Mueller adopted an expansive, acontextual, and constitutionally questionable interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) and used it to justify an extensive investigation into potential obstruction of justice by President Trump.

      Barr’s interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) – which was far more textually and constitutionally sound – would have made it almost impossible for Mueller to justify investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.

      Let’s begin the story.


      Very shortly after the Mueller investigation began, Trump’s lawyers were alert to the possibility that Mueller might investigate obstruction by the President.

      On June 23, 2017, Sekulow and Dowd wrote their first of many letters to the Special Counsel’s office arguing that those statutes could not be lawfully applied to the President. They might have been confident that their arguments were working, at first; Cobb went so far as to predict the investigation would be over by Thanksgiving.

      In hindsight, this was optimistic.

      Perhaps Trump’s legal team had reviewed the evidence, realized there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and believed that Mueller would come to the same conclusion, quickly. But in January 2018, it must have become abundantly clear to the Trump legal team that things were not going well.

      President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden meet with senior advisors in the Oval Office to discuss the shooting in Aurora, Colorado, July 20, 2012. Pictured, from left, are: Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
      On January 8, 2018, the Mueller team requested an interview with President Trump about a wide array of subjects, including “[t]he President’s awareness of and reaction to investigations by the FBI, the House, and the Senate into possible collusion,” “[t]he President’s reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from the investigation,” and “[w]hether or not [James] Comey’s May 3, 2017 testimony led to his termination.”

      These questions were tells.

      None of these questions related to possible collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government. They were all clearly targeted at potential obstruction by the President. And President Trump’s legal team knew it.

      On January 29, 2018, Dowd and Sekulow fired back with a confidential letter to the Special Counsel (that was later leaked to the New York Times). In it, they declined Mueller’s request for an interview, and pushed back on a potential obstruction theory. In particular, they suggested that 18 U.S.C. § 1505 was inapplicable to the President, because there was no “pending proceeding” against him.

      But, as we now know from the Mueller Report, Mueller wasn’t relying on § 1505. Instead, he was relying on the more broadly worded § 1512(c)(2).
      But, as we now know from the Mueller Report, Mueller wasn’t relying on § 1505. Instead, he was relying on the more broadly worded § 1512(c)(2), which covers the obstruction of *potential future* proceedings, not just proceedings that are already ongoing. Mueller and his team likely clarified this point to Dowd and Sekulow, who just a week later wrote another letter to the Special Counsel, arguing that § 1512(c)(2) did not cover the President’s actions as a matter of law.

      Clearly, though, Mueller was undeterred by the Trump team’s legal argument. And why would he be? This was not a lawsuit or a criminal proceeding. It was an investigation. Dowd and Sekulow couldn’t go in front of a judge and demand the investigation be stopped; no judge had jurisdiction.

      But if Trump’s legal team couldn’t persuade Mueller to let go of his obstruction theory, the investigation could go on indefinitely. Any act that could be characterized as “impeding” the Russia probe – even the exercise of core Article II powers or Trump’s complaints about Mueller – could conceivably be investigated as potential obstruction of justice. Rather than ending by Thanksgiving 2017, the Mueller investigation could continue through Trump’s first term – and perhaps longer.

      Dowd and Sekulow needed to come up with an answer.

      And that’s why I think they turned to Bill Barr.

    2. part 3 continued from above link


      On June 8, 2018, Bill Barr wrote a detailed memorandum to Rod Rosenstein about what he believed was Mueller’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). While Barr professed to be “in the dark about many facts,” in light of the Mueller Report, it’s clear he knew *exactly* what Mueller was up to.

      There are other interesting things to note about this memorandum.

      First, it’s addressed to Rod Rosenstein and Steve Engel – not to Mueller, Weissmann, or the Special Counsel’s office, which were running the Trump investigation. In that respect, it’s distinct from the Trump team’s prior letters, which were sent directly to Mueller.

      Second, it is a thorough legal argument, taking up some 19 pages of single-spaced text, and full of citations to relevant authority. This memo is not an off-hand missive, sent to Rosenstein on a whim. This is serious, robust legal work product; it bears the hallmarks of having one or two bright Kirkland & Ellis associates helping Barr research and draft the memorandum.

      The more likely explanation (and my first novel thesis) is that Trump’s legal team sought out Bill Barr.
      Now, it’s possible that Barr simply heard some extremely accurate scuttlebutt from some old DOJ pals about the exact statute Mueller was relying on to investigate obstruction of justice. It’s also possible that he was so incensed that he decided, on his own initiative, to draft a very thorough memorandum to Rod Rosenstein about his concerns, appropriating some expensive Kirkland associates for the task.

      The Barr Memo
      But that’s improbable. A more likely explanation (and my first novel thesis) is that Trump’s legal team sought out Bill Barr, gave him inside information about Mueller and Weissmann’s interpretation of § 1512(c)(2), and asked him to write the memorandum to Rosenstein.

      Why would Trump’s lawyers want Barr to do this?

      Because their efforts to dissuade Mueller from pursuing obstruction using § 1512(c)(2) had failed.

      Going over Mueller’s head to Rosenstein was the obvious move. If they could persuade Rosenstein that the legal theory underlying the entire obstruction investigation was unsound, Rosenstein might finally clamp down on Mueller, and the probe might come to an end.

      Why Barr?

      Well, he was a former AG, with all the prestige that entails. He had previously written an op-ed about why Trump was justified in firing James Comey, so Trump’s legal team must have suspected he was inclined to agree with their legal position. And finally, Barr was AG from 1991-1993 – just after Rosenstein began his career as a line attorney at DOJ.

      If Trump’s team were looking for someone with the prestige and gravitas to persuade Rod Rosenstein, they couldn’t have found anyone better than Bill Barr.

      This theory also explains why the memorandum is so thorough.

      If Barr had written it on his own initiative, he might have had trouble wrangling associates to help him with the research and drafting, and the memorandum might not have been as robust. But if he was put up to it by Trump’s legal team, he would have had no trouble appropriating Kirkland associates for the task.

      Whether or not this theory about the impetus for Barr’s memo is right, the memo itself ultimately did not have the desired effect. Rosenstein did not intervene in the Mueller investigation. Trump’s presidency would continue to operate under a cloud of uncertainty. And his legal team would need to find another way to rein Mueller in.


      The day after the midterms, Jeff Sessions was asked for his resignation. Less than a month later, Bill Barr was nominated as his replacement. Everyone talked about how he was the “consensus choice” in the administration. No other candidate was ever seriously floated.

      That leads to my second novel thesis: After it became clear that Rosenstein was not persuaded by the Barr memorandum, Dowd and Sekulow persuaded President Trump to fire Sessions and make Barr the Attorney General.

      Why fire Sessions? As discussed, it was on Trump’s lawyers to solve the problem posed by Mueller’s interpretation of § 1512(c)(2). One can’t imagine they were too happy in July 2018, having realized that they had no means of stopping this investigation, save for one.

      The timeframe is key here. The Barr Memorandum was written on June 8, 2018. It probably wouldn’t have been obvious to Barr or Trump’s lawyers that their effort to persuade Rosenstein had failed until July.
      The problem for Trump’s lawyers is that Rosenstein had either adopted Mueller’s obstruction theory, or was letting him run wild with it despite his reservations. But who decides what the Department of Justice’s position on the proper interpretation of a criminal statute is? Usually, the attorney general would decide. In this case, however, it was the Deputy Attorney General, since Sessions was recused.

      But what if Sessions wasn’t the Attorney General?

      The timeframe is key here. The Barr Memorandum was written on June 8, 2018. It probably wouldn’t have been obvious to Barr or Trump’s lawyers that their effort to persuade Rosenstein had failed until July.

      And Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in late June.

      If Trump’s legal team thought that Sessions needed to go, they probably would have been reluctant to advise Trump to fire him right away, with a bruising Supreme Court confirmation battle coming up, followed by the midterm elections.

      Instead, one suspects that Trump and his team decided focus on getting their Supreme Court Justice confirmed, and to hold off on firing Sessions until after the midterms, assuming they still had control of the Senate (a likely outcome given the terrible map for Democrats).

      Jeff Sessions, President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Attorney General, being sworn in at his confirmation hearing
      Barr was eminently confirmable, a former Attorney General, and well-respected by the Republican establishment.

      But more importantly, Trump’s legal team knew that Barr agreed with them on the meaning of § 1512(c)(2). Thus, in a perfectly lawful, legitimate manner, Barr’s confirmation would change the Department of Justice’s official view on the interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) – and thus undermine Mueller’s obstruction investigation.


      When the June 2018 Barr memorandum became public in December, many Democrats tried to weaponize it against him. But because Barr’s memo was specific to a particular statute, and was perfectly defensible legal analysis, it was hard for the Democrats to get any traction.

      It is clear that Barr was the assassin Democrats feared.

      In hindsight, however, it’s clear that Barr was the assassin Democrats feared.

      Within six weeks of his confirmation, the Mueller probe was over.

      When Mueller equivocated on obstruction in his report, Barr affirmatively determined that there was no viable obstruction charge. In a twist, Barr didn’t rely on a narrow reading of § 1512(c)(2); instead, he exploited the malleability of Mueller’s theory and determined that Trump lacked the requisite intent to commit obstruction.

      At the same time, he made clear during the press conference that he didn’t agree with Mueller’s legal theories; one has to suspect he was referring to the debate over § 1512(c)(2).

      In any event, Mueller and Weissman had lost the chess match. Trump and his team had won.

      No Collusion. No Obstruction. No more Mueller Investigation.


      1. Robert Mueller impaneled a grand jury. Here’s what it means …

        Aug 4, 2017 … Special Counsel Mueller believes there is sufficient evidence a crime was committed to warrant a criminal investigation. … Robert Mueller impanels Washington DC grand jury in Russia probe · Darren Samuelsohn. That said …

        Contributed by The L4D–Il Postovir Went To A Lot Of Trouble For Nothing–Project

  3. If CNN’s recent polling is any indication, Dems and Obama officials could be in for a world of hurt

    Almost 7 in 10 Americans want an investigation into the origin of the Russian collusion investigation, according to a random poll conducted for CNN by SSRS. That would seem to be a sign that some key Obama officials and media puppets ought to be slithering off into their hidey-holes right about now.

    At the end of a lengthy article on the poll in which several questions were asked, CNN polling director Jennifer Agiesta included this brief statement: “In one point of partisan agreement over Mueller’s work, 69% think Congress ought to investigate the origins of the Justice Department’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including 76% of Democrats, 69% of independents and 62% of Republicans.”

    Clearly, the origins of the inquiry would mean the Obama administration’s Department of Justice.

    The poll of 1007 adults was taken from April 25-28.

    CNN’s published report on their poll focused strongly on President Trump’s measured approval rating … according to this poll it was at 43%–which they admitted was the highest approval rating for this poll since the 100-day mark of Trump’s term in office. In January, approval was at 37 percent. The most recent number shows 46 percent of independents and a whopping 86 percent of Republicans approving of the job Trump is doing.

    The poll also found that the public is increasingly opposed to the non-stop efforts of Democrats to probe the President, with 44 percent saying Democrats “are doing too much … to investigate Donald Trump.” Five weeks earlier, that number was at 38 percent.

    1. continued from above…..

      The most significant takeaway is that a very strong majority of Americans want to get down to the bottom of the giant politically partisan attack on an American President. Why and how the costly deception and misdirection? Who are the people responsible? How can we prevent it from happening again?

      It is also important to note that, when almost 7 in 10 want to find the hoaxers, it shows Americans are not quite as malleable as some media operations believe. Mainstream outlets have been continually pushing lies and false narratives, aiming to steer the public’s attention away from the corrupt and criminal behaviors in the Obama DOJ. Yet now, even Democrat voters are opening their eyes and coming to the realization that the story is much different than what they have been lead to believe.

      Leftist power brokers are not yet giving in, though conservatives are finally beginning to turn the tables. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham and Attorney General Bill Barr have committed to new investigations and ultimate justice for the perpetrators of what the President and others have called a coup attempt.

      Americans want and deserve the truth.

        1. the NYT has a long and documented history of being an antisemitic rag

          But you’re ok with the long history of antisemitism at the NYT.
          Of course you are


          Anti-Semitism is not just another opinion. The New York Times should know better.

          Richard Cohen

          Over the centuries, anti-Semitism has been many things — a religious conviction, an ideology, a national ethic, an unadorned expression of hate and, in more recent times, evidence of sturdy insanity. Now thanks to a New York Times interview with Alice Walker, it’s been reduced to merely a point of view. To cite the Times’s own motto, this interview was definitely not “news that’s fit to print.”

          Walker, of course, is a highly praised novelist best known for “The Color Purple,” for which she won a Pulitzer Prize. Her renown is great, and it was no doubt on this basis that the Times interviewed her for its “By the Book” feature that runs in the Sunday Book Review. The trouble started with the first question.

          “What books are on your nightstand?” the Times asked. The second book Walker named was “And the Truth Shall Set You Free” by the British conspiracy theorist David Icke. The book is so repellently anti-Semitic that Icke’s usual publisher wouldn’t touch it. Among other things, it endorses that hoary anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which blames evil Jews for much of the world’s ills. The book also suggests that schools ought to balance lessons on the Holocaust with some questioning whether it ever even happened, and it reveals that the world is run by a cabal of giant, shape-shifting lizards, many of whom just happen to be Jewish.

          Times readers howled. The paper should have flagged the book as an anti-Semitic tome, they insisted. The Times disagreed. It doesn’t do that sort of thing in its “By the Book” feature. In the Times’s response, the paper conceded that Icke “has been accused of anti-Semitism,” a bit like conceding that David Duke has been accused of racism. Walker, who last year posted the poem “It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud” on her blog, is beyond mere accusation. She’s the genuine anti-Semitic article. Apparently informed by her odd reading of the ancient Jewish text, Walker’s 2017 poem asked some questions: “Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews?” “Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse? Are young boys fair game for rape?”

          In its response, the book review editor, Pamela Paul, submitted to some questions, one of which was why the Times did not ask Walker to account for her odd literary taste. “We never question people on their choices,” Paul said. A sentence later, she added, “The people’s answers are a reflection of their opinions, tastes and judgment.” In other words, anti-Semitism is just another opinion, taste or judgment.

          Paul went on in that vein, saying that the Review has been down this road before. “We’ve also faced criticism when a writer only named white authors, or male authors. My response to that is the same as in this case: Does that answer tell you something about the subject? I think it does.” But it doesn’t. For some reason, my book group — wearily stuck on Jon Meacham, Michael Beschloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin — never got around to the Icke book. So, not having heard of Icke, I didn’t know that I was being informed that Walker cuddled up nightly with the rantings of a Jew hater. My bad, I suppose.

          “Our readers are intelligent and discerning,” Paul added. “We trust them to sift through something which someone says in an interview, whether it’s the president or a musician or a person accused of sexual harassment, and to judge for themselves: Do I agree with this person?” Sexual harassment? The Holocaust? I guess they’re both bad.

          In interviewing itself, the Times neglected to ask the Times (Paul) if it even knew that Walker was an anti-Semite. It might also have wondered if that might have caused the Times to feature someone else. After all, anti-Semitism has become something of a common leftist tic, especially among Israel haters, and has even polluted the leadership of the Women’s March. Walker is in that category. She will not even allow “The Color Purple” to be published in Hebrew.

          The tone of Paul’s response is appalling. She surely does not mean to, but she manages to treat anti-Semitism as just another point of view — not a hatred with a unique and appalling pedigree that has led to unending slaughter, including the murder of 6 million, pogroms in Kielce in Poland (1946), York in England (1190) and the lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia (1915). What’s lacking from the Times is appropriate shock at Alice Walker’s bigotry and its own refusal to admit a mistake. An apology would be fit to print.

          Read more from Richard Cohen’s archive.

  4. Bill Barr is going to expose Spygate, and the Democrat-Media Russia Collusion Complex is panicking

    Something has changed. Attorney General William Barr has become Public Enemy No. 1 for the Democrats and supportive mainstream media.

    It started with Barr’s four-page summary of the Mueller Report’s conclusions, which punctured the almost three year narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. The conclusion of no conspiracy or coordination, accurately summarized in the Barr letter, was verified when the full Mueller Report was released three weeks later.

    Barr’s letter also accurately set forth that Mueller did not find obstruction of justice, declining to reach any determination on that issue, instead laying out the arguments for and against. That no obstruction recommendation also was verified when the Mueller Report was released.

    Lacking any substantive ground for attacking Barr, Democrats and the media seized on procedure — that Barr framed the media narrative in a way favorable to Trump during this three week period. Apparently, framing a narrative favorable to Trump was not permitted even though the narrative of the Mueller Report in Barr’s letter was accurate.

    When Barr testified in Congress that “spying” on the Trump campaign did take place, the attacks on Barr took on a different and more vicious tone.

    That tone went into overdrive during Barr’s testimony earlier this week, when it was revealed that Mueller had expressed concern that Barr’s four-page letter did not include all the context of the full report. But Mueller, according to Barr, did not claim the four-page letter was inaccurate or misleading, rather, the media coverage was the problem.

    These are all details, none of which paint Barr in a bad light. But Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, have decided to accuse Barr of perjury and demand he resign. Barr didn’t commit perjury, not even close, but that’s besides the point to Democrats and the media.

    What is going on here? Why are they going after Barr with such ferocity?

    It has nothing to do with the Mueller Report, or the four-page summary, or the timing of the release of the full report.

    It was Barr’s comments about spying on the Trump campaign, and his pledge to investigate that spying, that explains the frenzy to take down Barr. That spying, regardless of whether lawful, has the potential to be a scandal that could touch deep into the Obama administration, and some former officials who loom large in the anti-Trump resistance.

    It also could reach deep into the media, with the involvement of Fusion GPS in feeding Russian-provided, Clinton/DNC paid-for, disinformation to the mainstream journalist community.

    So the stakes are huge. The Russian collusion scandal may be a Democrat and media scandal. People may go to jail for that collusion, and if so, they may be the first people to go to jail over Russian collusion involving the 2016 election.

    Barr is the single greatest threat to the Democrat-Media Russia Collusion Complex. That’s why Democrats, with help from the mainstream media, will spare no effort to tarnish Barr as a way of discrediting the investigative train that is rolling down the tracks.

  5. NYTimes headline:
    The U.S. economy added 263,000 jobs in April, another month of robust growth and a fresh sign that recent fears of a slowdown were overblown.
    Friday, May 3, 2019 8:35 AM EST

    Good Job President Trump. Everyone on the blog wishes you to have a good day and a successful Presidency.

    1. The economic boost added by Trump to the already growing economy rely on the tax cut which will add $1 trillion to the debt and who’s affect is not expected to last by any respectable economists.

      “…for all of 2019, growth is expected to total around 2.2%, down from last year’s 2.9% gain, as the effects of the 2017 tax cuts and billions of dollars in increased government spending fade….”

      1. So far these economists you quote have been wrong time after time. I don’t bother reading tea leaves. Yes the debt needs to be controlled but what Democrat or standard Republican will stand up and be counted in the debt reduction crowd. Trump will, but it is the House that brings up spending bills and it hasn’t done a good job in decades.

        However, as the economy grows the ration of prior debt to the GNP falls so that is a good sign. But spending by the government must be reduced. We should cap expenditures (many variatins) at present day levels and adjust the spending through the various departments. However, if one listens to the Democratic candidates it sounds like they are competing as to who can spend the most.

      2. and who’s affect is not expected to last by any respectable economists.

        and who’s affect is not expected to last by any economist that I agree with.

        There, fixed it for you.

        You’re welcome.

        1. I posted a link to a very recent analysis by the NY Fed. You won’t find anything much different from anyone not in the Trump administration and they are all political hacks and amateurs.

          1. The takeaway point from the fed.

            ” economic activity rose at a solid rate.”

            despite what the left has been saying. (eventually everyone is correct for our economy is cyclic)

            Quite different than what was heard during the Obama years.

            1. Obama handed Trump the nations 2nd longest period of economic growth since WWII and in contrast with what he started with, and in favorable contrast to the rest of the developed world’s economies after the crash..

              1. Always the cheesy talking points.

                As noted in other venues, domestic product per capita over the years running from 2009 to 2017 grew at a rate of 1.42% per annum. That’s the slowest tempo of any recovery cycle in the last 70-odd years. As a rule, the recovery tempo is correlated with the depth of the previous contraction. Not so during his administration.

                Prof. Casey Mulligan had an extensive series of posts on how various Obama policies inhibited recovery of the labor market.

                1. The crash of 2008 was the worst recession 79 years. US growth outpaced all developed economies but Germany’s during Obama’s presidency, with which it was very close.

                  Casey Mulligan is not a respected main stream economist as proven by his appointment as economist to Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers. Absurd should stop looking for bias confirmation in his choices.

                  1. The 2008 crash was made worse by Obama.

                    Anon has the weird idea that anyone appointed to a position with Trump has to be bad, but the GDP and U6 show otherwise.

                    Anon, we all know you are full of your talking points but that is as far as you are able to go. That’s (as Obama put it) junior varsity stuff.

              2. As DSS rightfully stated the recovery was anemic and their predictions for the Trump administration was anemic as well. Trump must have had the magic wand Obama talked about. Additionally it is not just what happens in the US but worldwide. That is one of the things that has to be considered along with the future. In Obama’s world there was no future as the US would be like all other nations. Maybe that is what you like, a fall to mediocrity.

                What is your interpretation of what Obama meant by a magic wand? Why did Trump have the magic wand and Obama didn’t?

                1. As noted, the crash was the worst since 1929 and the US economy came out of it faster than all other developed economies than Germany, which was very close. Trump has pumped it up by writing hot checks, but even that is not expected to last as the economy is predicted to grow at just above 2% for the year. Our kids and grandkids will get the bill.

    2. Allan, please. Not everyone on the blog shares your wishes. Please do not speak for me. Importantly to the topic – as I understand it, there were approximately 16,500 words redacted from the AG Barr report, correct? Would that be the equivalent of 66 pages of material counting 250 words per page? That is a lot of language to remove. I suggest the entire report be made available for us to read.

      1. ” I suggest the entire report be made available for us to read.”

        Faith, do you mean that you want laws signed by Democrats to be broken because you want a copy of the unredacted report? Why do you support criminality?

        “Please do not speak for me.”

        Along with criminality faith are you requeting that Trump not have “a successful Presidency.” so the American people thrive? That is not nice.

        “Good Job President Trump. Everyone on the blog wishes you to have a good day”

        That is known as being polite.

        Have a good day.

  6. Since Anon didn’t respond to the video’s posted maybe he needs a little helpful explanation.

    “Obama to Medvedev: I’ll have more flexibility to solve missile defense after my election

    Mar. 26, 2012 9:19 am by The Right Scoop

    Obama was caught on a hot mic making post-election promises to the Russians to solve the so-called ‘missile defense issue’ after this election, given he’ll have more flexibility:

    FOX NEWS – Obama, during a sit-down with Medvedev in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him “space” until after November. The conversation was relayed by a TV pool producer who listened to the recording from a Russian journalist.

    “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility,” Obama told Medvedev.

    Obama appeared to be asking Medvedev to relay this point to Vladimir Putin, who recently won election to return to the Russian presidency.

    “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense … this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama said.

    Medvedev told the president he understood the “message about space. Space for you …”

    After Obama noted he’d have more flexibility in the future, Medvedev told him: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

    Sounds like Obama is selling out the American people, making secret deals with the Russians to dismantle our missile defense and make America weaker.”

    Quid Pro Quo COLLUSION

    1. President Obama made the above statement to the Russian president at that time – it was not Putin – and after a period of joint efforts favorable to both parties, including a new SALT treaty. In contrast, Flynn, speaking for the elected but not yet President Trump told Russians to bide their time on sanctions imposed by still president Obama in retaliation for their election interference, which they intended as help for Trump ( Allan had previously criticized Obama for not doing anything about Russian interference). Flynn lied about this action, indicating it was as it appeared – a quid pro quo – and another example in the Mueller report of campaign collusion.

      1. “President Obama made the above statement to the Russian president at that time – it was not Putin ”

        It wasn’t, Anon? It was to the President of Russia and to be given to Putin by Medvedev.

        If you want to look for COLLUSION or RUSSIA, RUSSIA , RUSSIA look no further than that comment thought to be off mic. QUID PRO QUO and that means COLLUSION for Obama was asking a favor of Putin to help him win the election.

        Obama says: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility,”

        Medvedev responds: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”


        1. “Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev (/mɪdˈvɛdɪf/; Russian: Дми́трий Анато́льевич Медве́дев, IPA: [ˈdʲmʲitrʲɪj ɐnɐˈtolʲjɪvʲɪtɕ mʲɪdˈvʲedʲɪf]; born 14 September 1965) is a Russian politician who has served as the Prime Minister of Russia since 2012.[2][3] From 2008 to 2012, Medvedev served as the third President of Russia.

          Regarded as more liberal than his predecessor and later successor as president, Vladimir Putin (who was also prime minister during Medvedev’s presidency), Medvedev’s top agenda as president was a wide-ranging modernisation programme, aiming at modernising Russia’s economy and society, and lessening the country’s reliance on oil and gas. During Medvedev’s tenure, the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty was signed by Russia and the United States…”

          Obama’s action were policy driven, not payoff for Russian help in his election.

          1. Anon, Trump is even more policy driven and he gets results.

            But Obama’s statement was Quid Pro Quo asking for Russian help to aid in his relection at which time Obama could be more flexible.

            We have Obama’s words on audio-video. We have no such words by Trump.

            1. Beyond getting Russian help in his election Trump has gotten nothing for America like the SALT treaty and cooperation on Iran that Obama got and has acted as Putin’s agent in his dealings with the EU and NATO. Russia did not help Obama get elected, actively opposed Hillary’s election and as a matter of fact helped Trump get elected.

              1. PS we have on record Trump’s sweet nothings and traitorous comments made for Putin’s benefit.

                1. We have on the record his disputes with the Russian government as well. And unlike your ‘record’, these aren’t imaginary.

              2. the SALT treaty

                Negotiated 40-odd years ago. Which Soviet Russia violated on the QT.

                and cooperation on Iran that Obama got



                Carly Fiorina offered about Hellary that ‘activity is not accomplishment’. Neither is fraud and failure.

                1. absurd is right. The nuclear gareement Obama negotiated with Russia was a not another SALT treaty but named START.

                  “New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) (Russian: СНВ-III, SNV-III) is a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation with the formal name of Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. It was signed on 8 April 2010 in Prague,[3][4] and, after ratification,[5][6] entered into force on 5 February 2011.[1] It is expected to last at least until 2021.”


                  Unlike Trump’s futile hand jobs he gives Lil Kim, with the help of Russia and our European partners, Obama secured the removal of nuclear weapons development tools and materials and the placement of IAEA inspectors on the ground in Iran, The IAEA and both US and Israeli intelligent have continued to score Iran as complying with the terms of the agreement.

                  Carly Fiorina …… OK.

                2. DSS, it is pathetic to watch how Anon destroys his reputation.

              3. 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.

                Buckels, E. E., et al. Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), j.paid.2014.01.016

              4. “Beyond getting Russian help in his election ”

                You have yet to show where Trump asked for and got help from the Russians yet we have Obama on tape with a quid pro quo for Medvedev and Putin. Amazing how that slides by.

                The Iran deal was a lousy deal and Iran was cheating.

                Prove Russia “actively opposed Hillary’s election” and wasn’t playing both sides of the fence. It appears Hillary and or her campaign might have colluded with Russians to produce the Steele Dossier.

                You knowledge of what has been happening here and in the rest of the world is atrocious.

                1. Trump asked for Russian help publicly and they responded immediately. It’s in the Mueller report.

                  The IAEA and US and Israeli intelligence have all certified Iranian compliance with the agreement. Trump has gotten nothing with NK and has given up prestige for Kim and military exercises with SK.

                  1. Anon, your record of truthfulness is very bad. There is a dispute regarding Iran, but that is because some want to protect Obama’s legacy rather than the USA and some are self haters.

                    You don’t even know that we are not permitted on the ground and the tearms that are have to give a long notice before they can investigate and even there they are limited to the sites they can investigate. Iranian teams have provided soil samples themselves thinking their cheating would not be detected. It was.

                  2. Trump asked for Russian help publicly and they responded immediately.

                    If you buy into the fantasy that the Wikileaks material came from Russia. Which of course we don’t

                    1. Another poster ignorant of the Mueller report details.

                      “in June 2016, WikiLeaks would get a Twitter direct message from @DCLeaks, an account Russians used to disseminate information, according special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, released Thursday. The account had already started posting stolen emails.

                      “You announced your organization was preparing to publish more of Hillary’s emails. We are ready to support you,” @DCLeaks wrote to WikiLeaks, according to the Mueller report. “We have some sensitive information too, in particular, her financial documents. Let’s do it together. What do you think about publishing our info at the same moment? Thank you.”


      2. The Cold War has been over for 30 years. The 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back.

  7. Here’s a question that Professor Turley will never even pose, let alone answer:

    Can a President assert executive privilege to quash subpoenas to witnesses to testify before Congress even after that same President has had presidential communications with a foreign head of state about the same underlying subject that that President had discussed with the witnesses whose testimony to Congress that President would block with assertions of executive privilege?

    Didn’t Trump waive executive privilege when he discussed The Mueller Report with Putin?

    Or does Trump have a Joint Defense Agreement with Putin, too?

    Contributed by The L4D Bronx Cheer Project

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        Mr. Trump first mentioned that he “had a long and very good conversation” with Mr. Putin in a tweet, in which he also said that the subjects discussed included “even the ‘Russian Hoax.’” When the subject of the Mueller report and Russia’s role in the election came up during the call, Mr. Trump later explained, Mr. Putin “actually sort of smiled when he said something to the effect that it started off as a mountain and ended up being a mouse. But he knew that because he knew there was no collusion whatsoever.”

        A White House official later clarified that it was not a video call; Mr. Trump meant to say that Mr. Putin had “laughed, chuckled” rather than smiled.

        [end excerpt]

        So Trump discussed The Mueller Report under the rubric of “The Russian Hoax” with the President of the Russian Federation after Trump refused to answer three out of four questions that Mueller posed to Trump, even while confessing to amnesia on the one in four questions that Trump did answer, and Trump is asserting executive privilege to quash subpoenas to witnesses to testify to Congress about what Putin tells Trump to call “The Russian Hoax.” Huh? What? That’s right. Trump briefs Putin on The Mueller Report and Trump blocks witnesses from testifying to Congress about The Mueller Report. Huh? What? Don’t ask me. Ask Turley.

        Contributed by The L4D You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me Project

        1. You do a very good synopsis of Leftist propaganda, which fake news outlet employs you?

          1. David Brock employs her and a few others on this forum, who largely copy/paste WaPo, CNN and NYT fake news as well as DNC Talking Points

            Welcome to the forum


            1. Warning: True believer above. Estovir even has the “fake news” meme and he doesn’t mean from Russian troll farms on Facebook. No wonder he oesn’t know what’s going on if he doesn’t read the NYTs, WaPo and WSJ (not the editorial pages). It’s a common problem here as posters deny events we’ve known about for over a year through those papers and recently confirmed by the Mueller report. Allan was denying Flynn contacted the Russians about Obama’s sanction before Trump took office, a fact we – the informed public – has known about since 2017.

              1. “Allan was denying Flynn contacted the Russians about Obama’s sanction before Trump took office,”

                Finally Anon

                We all know that though you had to wait for the Mueller Report to be informed. Comm0n and acceptable practice. Talk is permitted though he can’t make a deal.

                …But look at the video where Obama thinking the mic is off tells Medvedev that after the election he will have more flexibility.

              2. Anon said, “Estovir even has the “fake news” meme . . .”

                Estovir is “protected” by “Smith.” Estovir is yet another sacred heifer on the Turley blawg. Not bull. Heifer. Estovir is. Heifer.

                Contributed by The L4D Let My People Go Project

            2. Estovir says: May 4, 2019 at 7:55 AM

              “Welcome to the forum”

              Ron was here long before you showed up, you gate-crashing glutton, you.

              Contributed by The L4D Do You Know Where You are Right Now Project

    1. Excerpted from the Op-Ed linked above:

      And the four-page letter that Mr. Barr issued in March and supposedly described the Mueller report omitted the two key factors driving the special counsel’s decision (which were hard to miss, as they were on the first two pages of the report’s volume about obstruction): First, that he could not indict a sitting president, so it would be unfair to accuse Mr. Trump of crimes even if he were guilty as sin; and second, Mr. Mueller could and would clear a sitting president, but he did not believe the facts cleared the president.

      Contributed by The L4D Read It And Weep Project

    2. “Why Barr Can’t Whitewash the Mueller Report”

      No need to.
      No Collusion
      No Conspiracy
      No Obstruction

      2016 Trump elected President
      2929 Trump will be reelected President

      The only question that remains is which of the people involved in trying to set up Trump will end up in jail.

      1. The Mueller report lays out the details which prove:

        The Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
        Criminal conspiracy with Russia is not provable
        Trump engaged in numerous attempts to obstruct justice.

        No one set up Trump and no one will got to jail who investigated his colluding campaign.

        I encourage anyone to read at least parts of the Mueller report and then describe what you saw. I’m still waiting for Allan to tell us how he would describe the campaign’s collusion.

        1. “No one set up Trump and no one will got to jail who investigated his colluding campaign.”

          Anon, it is amazing how sure you are despite making so many errors in the past. A number of people have already lost their jobs. Whether or not any will be convicted or go to jail remains to be seen.

          Mueller Report:
          No Collusion
          No Conspiracy
          No Obstruction

          The anti-Trumpers have unloaded their big guns, now the honest people that include the Trumpers have a chance to unload theirs. It’s very hard to win a battle after you have run out of ammunition and the other party’s ammunition is just coming to the front.

          1. I think his contact at Correct-the-Record told him to just keep repeating the lies.

            1. DSS, Do you think that since Peter seems to be gone they took Peter’s salary and offered a small part of it to Anon?

              1. Peter seems to be gone they took Peter’s salary and offered a small part of it to Anon?

                A few days ago Peter made the blunder of attacking Darren while attacking me. Darren responded to Peter and since then Peter is no more.

                1. Did I miss that or is the blog so feisty that it blended with the blog so as not to be noticed. Why would Peter attack Darren? Darren is the epitome of a polite blogger. That means I have to occasionally look at the Washington Post myself in order to know what they are thinking.

              2. I think PH took some vacation time and went hiking with one of his young buds, so he’s offline.

      2. I’ll make one Predications; Trump will not run in 2929.🙂

        1. “I’ll make one Predications; Trump will not run in 2929.🙂”

          Tom, if he does I’ll buy you a cup of coffee.

          Note how you use the term “prediction”. Anon wouldn’t be so uncertain. He would say absolutely yes or no. Children have a tendency not to be nuanced.

          1. FUBARAllan neglected to say which calendar he was consulting when he awarded the presidency to Trump in 2929.

            By FUBARAllan’s own reckoning . . . (children have a tendency not to be nuanced.”) . . . Ptom Gnash is just another impulsive tyke.

            Contributed by the Guess Who’s Spanking You Now Project

            1. Who awarded thePresidency to Trump in 2929? Your mind is clouded up.

              1. Allan says: May 4, 2019 at 9:17 AM

                2016 Trump elected President
                2929 Trump will be reelected President

                Allan says: May 4, 2019 at 10:53 AM

                “Did I miss that . . . [edit] . . . That means I have to occasionally look at the Washington Post myself in order to know . . .”

                L4D says . . . What century it is?

                Allan says: May 4, 2019 at 5:42 PM

                Who awarded thePresidency to Trump in 2929? Your mind is clouded up.

                Contributed by The WaPo/Mayan Calendar Project

                1. Yep, a typo. the 0 and 9 are next to each other

                  I’m glad I made your day interesting.

          1. Heaven bless you and your eternal optimism, Sir or Madame.

      3. Allan says: May 4, 2019 at 9:17 AM

        “2929 Trump will be reelected President.”

        2929 minus 2020 equals 909. Trump is currently seventy-something years old. 2020 is one year away. 909 plus seventy-one equals 980.

        By Allan’s reckoning, Trump will be an antediluvian biblical patriarch before he ever gets reelected president again.

        Contributed by The L4D Typing With Mittens On Project

        1. Huh? What? Well . . . I’m presuming that the term limits on the Office of The President of the United States would remain in effect in between the end of Trump’s first term of office and the beginning of Trump’s second term of office in the WaPo/Mayan calendar year of 2929.

          Contributed by The L4D Typing With Naked Fingers Project

          1. It looks like a typo gave you two good days instead of just one.

  8. George Washington Law School Professor Jonathan Turley has censored Pages 1 & 2 of Volume II of The Mueller Report that were posted on this thread yesterday. Turley cannot win an argument without censoring his opponent. Turley cannot win an argument while censoring his opponent. Either Turley censors his opponent or Turley doesn’t censor his opponent. Either Turley cannot win an argument or Turley cannot win an argument.

    Contributed by The L4D Bronx Cheer Project

    1. The deleted post has reappeared. Imagine that. The Bronx Cheer is retracted. L4D

        1. While you’re here . . . take a look around at the entire comment section, then confirm or deny your own hasty assumption.

          Contributed by The L4D There’s Always A History Project

    2. They are there to help you start your recovery

      Narcotics Anonymous
      Find A Meeting

      Use this method to locate helplines and websites for local groups near you who can assist you in finding a meeting. This is our best recommendation for finding an NA meeting

      1. Is there any organization for which Be-A-Straw-Man does not proselytize? D’oh! The DNC.

        Contributed by The L4D You Go First Project

  9. I didn’t even know that Putin is a Communist.
    I thought the
    Russian Communist Party was a minority, opposition party.
    Maybe Natacha is a commie-detector from way back, and old habits are hard to break.

Comments are closed.