House Dems are trying to hold Barr in "contempt" for....Upholding the Law

If I am Subpoenaed to do something, I am legally required to do that something save for if I challenge the subpoena on some legal grounds.

If I ignore the subpoena, I am breaking the law.

So... Barr is breaking the law if there are no specific legal grounds upon which the subpoena does not apply.

Grand Jury testimony and evidende is available to prosecutors in order to make the determination of whether or not to prosecute a particular crime, or on-site an individual.

As the Mueller report effectively said that the president committed obstruction of justice, but we can’t so as we can’t indict him - that’s up to congress - the whole point of obtaining the grand jury information is to allow congress to determine whether or not to begin impeachment. 

This is just Barr and Trump illegally rejecting a Subpoena in order to run out the clock - and something you would troll your little head off here if a democrat was in the same room as someone who even suggested it.

Like I said, I can wait another 2 years.

We already waited 2 years for Mueller to conclude nothing worthy of indictment for Russian collusion or obstruction happened.

Mueller didn’t conclude either of those things - but you already know that.

No indictments for Russian collusion or obstruction.

34 Indictments for process crimes. 

If you are angry with that, talk to Mueller.

"while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

I am actually surprised the rabid fringe left allowed Mueller to continue breathing air for printing that ridiculous statement in his report. How dare he say something that could possibly help that monster Trump.

Mueller had plenty of avenues and options to indicate Trump had cleared the bar for a crime, yet took none of them, and instead punted it over to Barr. How disappointing for the people waiting years for Mueller to conclude...that his report does not conclude...

Wait, so Mueller determines that you’re allowed to indict a sitting president?

The only reason the president has not been indicted is because Mueller did not believe he could indict a sitting president. Nothing in Muellers report cleared anyone of collusion - and in fact went onto show innumerable instances that met that criteria. He didn’t find any evidence of a larger criminal conspiracy - though a number of people got out of their indictments by being too dumb.

This is ignoring the fact that the honest and innocent individuals involved lied repeatedly about almost everything. A+ indication that they’re clean!

Worse, you know of all this. All of this is a matter of objective fact. All of this is clearly documented in the report.

The truth doesn’t appear important to you, only the face saving spin!

Ken Starr had zero problems concluding that the threshold for a crime(s) was reached in the Starr report. He had no trouble concluding that "his report concludes...."

"while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Had Starr written that in his report, Republicans would have had his head on a pike.

I am surprised the Democrats can even contain themselves after getting the shaft from Mueller. It looks nothing like the Starr report.

Collusion is NOT a one man show. Yet Mueller did not indict any other parties. No indictments for collusion, not even any Russians...

I think we should go back and deal with this quote again.

You said: 

I want you to walk me through the logic here. Why did you say that even though this is objectively untrue to the point that anyone with a brain knows it’s untrue.

You stated:

Then omitted what Mueller followed that line with:

Or in public

I’m genuinely interested: why did you decide to make this argument despite it being factually untrue - and worse - blatantly factually untrue to anyone with a brain?

I’m interested because generally people that have a correct and valid position don’t have to lie about basic matters of objective fact so brazenly?

Tell me what would have happened to Ken Starr if his report said 

"this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

instead of:

There is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.
4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.
5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.
6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.
8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.
9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.
10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury – and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.
11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 – all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.

i didn’t say repeat the obvious lie: I asked why are you choosing to lie so blatantly.

You said that Mueller concludes that nothing worthy of indictment for Russian collusion or obstruction happened.

The report almost literally said explicitly the exact opposite of that.

Really, so where are the indictments for collusion, since it takes more than the president for that crime. Where is the Russian(s), or anyone else associated with Trump indicted for collusion? Mueller has no barriers to indicting non-presidents...does he?

Just for funsies, I downloaded the PDF version of the Mueller report from the DOJ website, and did a search for the word "impeachment"

I would tell you what I found, but it would spoil all the fun. :)

I also looked for the phrase "grounds for impeachment"

So much fun an average joe can do at home with the internet.

Again, I would very much like to focus on your lie.

 

You said that Mueller concludes that nothing worthy of indictment for Russian collusion or obstruction happened.

That is objectively false. That is a massive, obvious lie.

Mueller, as stated concluded nothing on the matter of obstruction - and explicitly said he didn’t conclude anything. 

He didn’t indict the President as he concluded that DoJ policy prevented him.

So when you say that the report concluded nothing happened, you know that’s a ridiculous lie, I know it’s a ridiculous lie, everyone knows it’s a complete lie.

Why  did you say it?

Where is the indictment for collusion?

Why does the phrase "grounds for impeachment" appear nowhere in the Mueller report?

If it's the truth that Mueller found something worthy of indictment for collusion...where is it?

Yeah, this is the same ridiculous spin. But that’s what I’m trying to figure out.

You’re making claims that are objectively untrue - by implying Mueller didn’t find any thing worthy of obstruction.

Thats not what happened. The report said that wasn’t what happened. Mueller said that wasn’t what happened.

Why are you lying about it?

Why are you trying to pretend that Mueller didn’t find anything worthy of prosecution when he specifically said that he would have said so if that we’re the case?

Why are you now trying to maintain that same line, and try and dodge out of it with side tracks? 

Again, spin spin spin.

You’re stating an outright flagrant lie. And I am interested in your thought process! Do you believe the lie? Are you doing it because “the big lie” is harder to work out how to deal with? Are you an elected Republican and that’s just what you guys do!

You said that Mueller found nothing worthy of indictment for obstruction. 

This is flat out horseshit - so substantially horseshit that I am genuinely interested in what went through your head when you said it. It’s so divorced from reality that you know it’s false.

Mueller even stated that if there was no crime, he would have stated as much.

Youre simply just dodging the original lie by subtly changing the subject. 

No. What you said is factually false.

Why did you lie? Why are you continuing to lie?

If Mueller found something that was worthy of indictment or impeachment, he would have explicitly said that, instead he said he would not come to a conclusion on whether he did or didn't.  Just because he cannot indict a sitting president does not mean he can't suggest that it be done, or suggest that impeachment process should be started based on his findings and his understanding of the law.

Basically, I read this as, he still thinks Trump did something bad, he just has no proof, and he has turned over as many rocks as he can.  

This flies in the face of every prosecutor's job, and is actually contrary in every way to what they are supposed to do.  The conclusion is either guilty or not guilty, or enough evidence is there to start some sort of proceeding.  Since he did not say that he believes Trump to be guilty, that means he is not guilty, because it could not be proven in a court of law.  This is how the whole justice system works.

Mueller is a coward to write this report in this manner... This is just another scandal to add to the 50 millions scandals we already have.  He knew there was no collusion month's into Trumps Presidency, the rest of the time was spent waiting for Trump to try and obstruct justice.  

This investigation, which is was not really an investigation if there was going to be no conclusion is a farce and a disgrace to everyone, US Government, it's citizens, Office of the Special Counsel, and ruined some good people's lives that wouldn't have been ruined if the investigation never existed.  Whether you are republican or democrat, this report should leave you sick to your stomach.

I hear Flynn fired his attorneys, and is going another route, will appeal because of bad legal advice.  We will see what happens. 

No. What you just said is factually untrue.

I do not know whether you believe this because this is the reality you want to believe - or this is what you have been told: but the Mueller report found who instances of obstruction of justice for which any other person in the Us would have been indicted for - had it not been the president.

The Mueller report expressly said that if there were no grounds for prosecuting a crime - they would have said: and in multiple examples on a variety of other potential crimes they explained why. They declined to indict Trump Jr for the Trump Tower meeting, not because it didn’t meet the grounds for an illegal Action, but they were not convinced that Trump Jr knew it was illegal.

Mueller didn’t accuse Trump or explicitly committing a crime - as this is what an indictment is for - and a sitting president cannot be indicted; and guidelines restrict accusing someone of a crime if they are not being indicted. He did not accuse Trump of committing an impeachable offence - as this is congresses Job - and restricted by the same regulations.

This is laid out both in the report - and in Muellers subsequent comments about it.

To claim the report somehow shows he did nothing wrong, or nothing impeachable is logically, factually and objectively false.

Why didn't you reply to my last post about Union Jacks and the 1st of July, and the difference between US and Canada?  I was looking forward to your knowing if you were in one of the French Provinces or English Provinces.  Did it make you mad or something, that it wasn't worthy of a reply post?

Im off and on, I often lose replies.