I'd ask tj if the minimally redacted sections contain such "damming bombshells" why is it that Mueller himself came to the bottom line conclusion that he couldn't make a case for obstruction and that there is no evidence of collusion with access and oversight to the grand jury proceedings themselves all the underlying evidence etc?  The claim is preposterous on it's face!!!

I don't know what's in there. I just know that it's damn peculiar when a man has the chance to bury his political enemies once and for all by just releasing a report that he says proves his innocence, yet he refuses to do so and tries to keep people from talking about it.

You could actually "hear" the frothing of the mouth in TJ's post earlier. I felt bad.

You misread me, then. My eyebrow is raised, but I'm not frothing by any stretch of the imagination. There's a pattern of odd behavior shaping up here, the sort of behavior that Nixon was engaging in shortly before the end. When any President starts engaging in that pattern of behavior, I think we'd all be wise to let the spidey sense tingle a bit. When he does so regarding something that he says completely exonerates him, and something that would no doubt destroy his opponents if it does turn out to be absolutely nothing beyond what we already knew, I'm highly suspicious.

I am not sure what pattern of behavior you think Trump is behaving in. He is following the decision of his attorney general. Here is my issue. Muellers report screamed partisan hack. I would actually be shocked if Mueller actually had anything to do with writing the report. It stinks of Andrew Weisman. The entire report was garbage and just meant to give the MSM something to continue to chew on. Mueller and his team should be ashamed of themselves.

As someone mentioned above, its illegal to release the full unredacted report.

---

Welp Democrats, time to spin the "Wheel of Trump". What will it land on this time?

1. Trumps a racist
2. Tax returns
3. Russia Collusion

I would like to know why the hell the news feed on my phone is telling me that Trump's businesses have lost $1B. I don't see how that's relevant to, well, anything unless he was embezzling from them? Am I missing part of the story, or is CNN just trolling for views today?

By the way, here is Trump telling you 15 years ago that he lost billions.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/...narrative/

---

I sincerely wonder if Nadler willingly put himself in this ridiculous situation, or did DNC higher ups direct him to be the 'Harasser in Chief'.

"Constitutional crisis." 

---

I think you are wrong regarding Congress having any right to see an unredacted report.  Congressional oversight is always supposed to be general questions that help them revise statutes that will affect many cases.  Judges are the ones who are supposed to have access to more specific information about one case.
I think the House judiciary committee had the right to compel Barr to testify and answer questions from anyone they designate.  Barr could have cited statutes that prevent him from answering, but he needed to show up and speak. 
I also think Barr intentionally deceived Congress and the public. But that's not why they are about to hold Barr in contempt.  
Congress has grounds to hold Barr in contempt or impeach him, but they're citing different grounds for some reason.

Why would the Attorney General take questions from the staff of congressional members?

Because it is his job to answer questions presented to him by the judiciary committee of either house of Congress. just as Congress is entitled to hire a lawyer to present these questions, Barr was entitled to have another lawyer assist him answering the questions.
The Democrats were trying to insist that they could have a hired gun question him , but that Barr could not have a hired gun assist in answering.
This may have been a negotiating tactic.  A compromise should have been reached and a meeting should have taken place where both sides should have had their hired guns available.
All that said, Senate Democrats already got a fair shot at Barr, and it revealed little of value.  It is not likely that whatever lawyer the Democrats in the house intended to hire would have broken any new ground.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Welp, Trump invoked Executive Privilege. It's over now, he basically told Nadler and Schiff to get bent. Democrat tears to ensue momentarily.

The Democrats may choose to appeal that one to the Supreme Court.  The Court resolved a very similar matter, in 1974, in about a month.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Welp, Trump invoked Executive Privilege. It's over now, he basically told Nadler and Schiff to get bent. Democrat tears to ensue momentarily.

The Democrats may choose to appeal that one to the Supreme Court.  The Court resolved a very similar matter, in 1974, in about a month.

That would be childish, and even further divisive (and exactly what Russia-Russia-Russia would want, a fractured US dividing itself from within even further.)  But hey, they are children and seem to be pretty committed to behaving that way.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/23374...tempt-vote


Funny how things work...

The left doesn't even realize how far away from normal human beings they are.  They'll be reminded in 2020 for sure if they keep their insanity up.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Welp, Trump invoked Executive Privilege. It's over now, he basically told Nadler and Schiff to get bent. Democrat tears to ensue momentarily.

The Democrats may choose to appeal that one to the Supreme Court.  The Court resolved a very similar matter, in 1974, in about a month.

Perfect. I hope they do it. They sure as hell aren't creating legislation that helps their constituents. I will say, it is nice of them create a 2020 Trump ad for free though.

---

I'd ask tj if the minimally redacted sections contain such "damming bombshells" why is it that Mueller himself came to the bottom line conclusion that he couldn't make a case for obstruction and that there is no evidence of collusion with access and oversight to the grand jury proceedings themselves all the underlying evidence etc?  The claim is preposterous on it's face!!!

I don't know what's in there. I just know that it's damn peculiar when a man has the chance to bury his political enemies once and for all by just releasing a report that he says proves his innocence, yet he refuses to do so and tries to keep people from talking about it.

You could actually "hear" the frothing of the mouth in TJ's post earlier. I felt bad.

You misread me, then. My eyebrow is raised, but I'm not frothing by any stretch of the imagination. There's a pattern of odd behavior shaping up here, the sort of behavior that Nixon was engaging in shortly before the end. When any President starts engaging in that pattern of behavior, I think we'd all be wise to let the spidey sense tingle a bit. When he does so regarding something that he says completely exonerates him, and something that would no doubt destroy his opponents if it does turn out to be absolutely nothing beyond what we already knew, I'm highly suspicious.

Have you ever read the tale of Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I don't know what's in there. I just know that it's damn peculiar when a man has the chance to bury his political enemies once and for all by just releasing a report that he says proves his innocence, yet he refuses to do so and tries to keep people from talking about it.


You misread me, then. My eyebrow is raised, but I'm not frothing by any stretch of the imagination. There's a pattern of odd behavior shaping up here, the sort of behavior that Nixon was engaging in shortly before the end. When any President starts engaging in that pattern of behavior, I think we'd all be wise to let the spidey sense tingle a bit. When he does so regarding something that he says completely exonerates him, and something that would no doubt destroy his opponents if it does turn out to be absolutely nothing beyond what we already knew, I'm highly suspicious.

Have you ever read the tale of Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch?

I'm pretty sure it triggered AOC

---

I'd ask tj if the minimally redacted sections contain such "damming bombshells" why is it that Mueller himself came to the bottom line conclusion that he couldn't make a case for obstruction and that there is no evidence of collusion with access and oversight to the grand jury proceedings themselves all the underlying evidence etc?  The claim is preposterous on it's face!!!

I don't know what's in there. I just know that it's damn peculiar when a man has the chance to bury his political enemies once and for all by just releasing a report that he says proves his innocence, yet he refuses to do so and tries to keep people from talking about it.

You could actually "hear" the frothing of the mouth in TJ's post earlier. I felt bad.

You misread me, then. My eyebrow is raised, but I'm not frothing by any stretch of the imagination. There's a pattern of odd behavior shaping up here, the sort of behavior that Nixon was engaging in shortly before the end. When any President starts engaging in that pattern of behavior, I think we'd all be wise to let the spidey sense tingle a bit. When he does so regarding something that he says completely exonerates him, and something that would no doubt destroy his opponents if it does turn out to be absolutely nothing beyond what we already knew, I'm highly suspicious.

He released the report.  What were talking about are redactions that a.) The special counsel assisted with b.) That are protected by federal law

If we're talking about gj testimony.  The subpoena from the judiciary committee was Nadler literally asking Barr to commit a crime.  

As for 1974.  If Richard Nixxon had a special counsel report exhonerating him or his satellites from any connection to the Watergate then he would have served out his term.  And it wouldn't even be a footnote in history.  

In his case there was a tale of holderman discussing knowledge of the burglary, and then directing the FBI to back off because they knew the money could be traced back to them.  That's why SCOTUS pierced ep and deemed that POTUS didn't have ep to conceal evidence that was plainly incriminating.  That's a far cry from forcing the ag the unredact gj information against the law or to compel members of the executive branch to discuss internal decision making with an oversight committee when there is no underlying legislative purpose and no predicate for further investigation.

---

Ya know, one of the negatives of being a swamp creature your entire career...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/...rr-report/

---

Ya know, one of the negatives of being a swamp creature your entire career...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/...rr-report/

Still posting from Breitbart?

---

What's that have to do with what was posted? News is news. Most of it has bias. Filter through the bias and get the story. In this case, it's literally a video taken during a House Committee Meeting. What's your complaint?

---

Ya know, one of the negatives of being a swamp creature your entire career...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/...rr-report/

Still posting from Breitbart?

So, was that not Newman, err.. Nadler contradicting his current self in 1998 or no? Lets focus on the facts here Cleatwood. I know thats a challenge for you.

---

What's that have to do with what was posted? News is news. Most of it has bias. Filter through the bias and get the story. In this case, it's literally a video taken during a House Committee Meeting. What's your complaint?

Thank you.

---

Still posting from Breitbart?

So, was that not Newman, err.. Nadler contradicting his current self in 1998 or no? Lets focus on the facts here Cleatwood. I know thats a challenge for you.

---

What's that have to do with what was posted? News is news. Most of it has bias. Filter through the bias and get the story. In this case, it's literally a video taken during a House Committee Meeting. What's your complaint?

Thank you.

Dude. Didn't even open the article.

I see we are still just throwing insults around here though. Keep up the good work.

---

So, was that not Newman, err.. Nadler contradicting his current self in 1998 or no? Lets focus on the facts here Cleatwood. I know thats a challenge for you.

---

Thank you.

Dude. Didn't even open the article.

I see we are still just throwing insults around here though. Keep up the good work.

Well, it is a video of Nadler contradicting himself in 1998. Where was the insult? Liberals just deflect when they are wrong and have painted themselves into a corner. Not an insult, just fact.

---

What's that have to do with what was posted? News is news. Most of it has bias. Filter through the bias and get the story. In this case, it's literally a video taken during a House Committee Meeting. What's your complaint?

Let's try to remember this the next time someone posts an article from CNN or another website that people don't like.

---

Dude. Didn't even open the article.

I see we are still just throwing insults around here though. Keep up the good work.

Well, it is a video of Nadler contradicting himself in 1998. Where was the insult? Liberals just deflect when they are wrong and have painted themselves into a corner. Not an insult, just fact.

So when you say "Let's just look at the facts. I know that's a challenge for you.", you didn't intend for that to be a direct shot at my intelligence?

---

Still posting from Breitbart?

So, was that not Newman, err.. Nadler contradicting his current self in 1998 or no? Lets focus on the facts here Cleatwood. I know thats a challenge for you.

---

What's that have to do with what was posted? News is news. Most of it has bias. Filter through the bias and get the story. In this case, it's literally a video taken during a House Committee Meeting. What's your complaint?

Thank you.

I'd be interested to view this video of Nadler supposedly contradicting himself if it was hosted by literally anyone other than Breitbart. Breitbart is a website that literally made its name by deceptively editing videos of public officials.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So, was that not Newman, err.. Nadler contradicting his current self in 1998 or no? Lets focus on the facts here Cleatwood. I know thats a challenge for you.

---

Thank you.

I'd be interested to view this video of Nadler supposedly contradicting himself if it was hosted by literally anyone other than Breitbart. Breitbart is a website that literally made its name by deceptively editing videos of public officials.

Here
....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PW-Snrmx0

Here is another contradictory video that just shows how both sides love to play politics.
...https://kfyi.iheart.com/content/2019-05-09-watch-the-media-in-2012-deride-the-contempt-vote-for-eric-holder/?fbclid=IwAR34-eDfw92Rk_fu7GsW3fZcVE40wnD_2iW_4bwlcd5_qtnGmDCb-7-WC00

And more hypocrisy.

https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/statu...ainst-barr

---

I'd be interested to view this video of Nadler supposedly contradicting himself if it was hosted by literally anyone other than Breitbart. Breitbart is a website that literally made its name by deceptively editing videos of public officials.

Here
....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PW-Snrmx0

Here is another contradictory video that just shows how both sides love to play politics.
...https://kfyi.iheart.com/content/2019-05-09-watch-the-media-in-2012-deride-the-contempt-vote-for-eric-holder/?fbclid=IwAR34-eDfw92Rk_fu7GsW3fZcVE40wnD_2iW_4bwlcd5_qtnGmDCb-7-WC00

And more hypocrisy.

https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/statu...ainst-barr

It might all be petty revenge.  Shoe on the other foot, etc.  
I'll say this:  You know the Republicans weren't serious back in 2012 because once Trump got in office, no one tried to prosecute Holder.  The matter was dropped.
Do the Democrats really think prosecuting or impeaching Barr would be in the public interest?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Here
....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PW-Snrmx0

Here is another contradictory video that just shows how both sides love to play politics.
...https://kfyi.iheart.com/content/2019-05-09-watch-the-media-in-2012-deride-the-contempt-vote-for-eric-holder/?fbclid=IwAR34-eDfw92Rk_fu7GsW3fZcVE40wnD_2iW_4bwlcd5_qtnGmDCb-7-WC00

And more hypocrisy.

https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/statu...ainst-barr

It might all be petty revenge.  Shoe on the other foot, etc.  
I'll say this:  You know the Republicans weren't serious back in 2012 because once Trump got in office, no one tried to prosecute Holder.  The matter was dropped.
Do the Democrats really think prosecuting or impeaching Barr would be in the public interest?

They have no plans to prosecute or impeach Barr. Their sole purpose right now is smearing him as much as possible to try to discredit his findings to the public on the origins of the Russia probe.

On a side note, the democrats have had a house majority for nearly 130 days and have accomplished nada.

---