Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NIGGERS AGHAST!
Whitehouse: “If you are the president of the United States, you can either waive or readily override the OLC opinion and say I’m ready … I want to exonerate myself. Let’s go. Could you not?”
Barr: “How is this relevant to my decisions?
“I don’t think spying has any kind of pejorative connotation at all,” Barr said. “I think spying is a good English word…It’s commonly used in the press…”
Whitehouse again feeling he was losing the argument said under his breath before ending his session: “spying” isn’t commonly used by the Department of Justice. Barr laughed and said: “It’s commonly used by me.”
Resign, for what?
Especially with Mueller stating that, "...nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading"
There's nothing wrong with the Mueller Report that Trump and his chumps stopping obstructing justice and American principles (enabled by the Republicans in Congress) wouldn't solve.
Because rabies in the media is contagious to the unsophisticated.![]()
There's nothing wrong with the Mueller Report that Trump and his chumps stopping obstructing justice and American principles (enabled by the Republicans in Congress) wouldn't solve.
^^^
Ignorant and obtuse.
MSNBC introduced a new feature today at the Barr hearing: Whenever someone told an especially egregious falsehood, they'd break away from live coverage to do an immediate fact check.
They did it twice in the first hour, the first time was when Sen. Lindsey Graham channeled his inner-Ishmael to announce there was "no collusion", they immediately cut to Brian Williams in their studio who informed viewers "The chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said that Mueller found there is no collusion. That is not correct"
Great "fact" check except for the actual fact that no collusion (coordination) was found.
As the report takes pains to point out, “collusion” has no legal definition and is not a federal crime. So while the report did not establish conspiracy or coordination, it does not make a determination on “collusion” — and in fact, it strongly suggests that there was at least an attempt to collude by Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government.
The fact that it did not rise to the level of criminal activity does not mean it was not a serious breach of trust and a damning indictment of the president’s commitment to the health of the American legal and political system. The section of the report focusing on Russian interference in the election is not an exoneration of Trump’s innocence. It’s a devastating portrayal of his approach to politics.
Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was “no collusion” in his press conference before the report’s release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of “collusion.” This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation.
“Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” Mueller writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.” So when Mueller concludes that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.
But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes.