Impeach is Congress’ job if crimes have been committed.
Personally, I would rather him lose in a landslide in 2020. Otherwise the cultists claim some sort of conspiracy.
1 Like
And Barr did not do that.
He did not have Trump read the report – we know that Trump doesn’t read documents. He went to Trump’s lawyers. And then everyone else mentioned in the report – they also got a sneak peek.
Barr is failing in the responsibility of the AG to maintain an appropriate distance from the Exec Branch. Not the first AG to do so, but he is perhaps the most blatantly partisan AG yet.
History will judge Barr for how his four page summary cherry picked the conclusions and will not judge him kindly.
How so? 
If he was joking… why would he immediately ask his campaign advisors to actually go find the emails? In which actual people setup companies and operations to find those emails.
Read the page referenced.
Actually that distinction goes to Holder! 
Think about it.
At the rally he was having a “Where’s Waldo” moment. He was clearly enjoying himself.
How could you possibly equate his follow-up actions to find the emails as having anything to do with asking Russia to hack her email server - which no longer existed. 
1 Like
You are having a hard time…
You said he was joking… “why would he seriously ask for Russians to find emails that no longer existed”
If he was joking… then why did he directly ask his campaign advisors, immediately following the press conference, to actually find her emails?
In which the people took that “joke” and stood up actual operations to find the emails?
Why would a joke go that far?
Why would that be a problem exactly? Because it wasn’t the Russians?
I just explained my take. Why can’t you simply accept it and move on?? 
That’s exactly what the report said:
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”
To frame it otherwise is completely misleading.
No it isn’t. I just quoted what it said. Not sure why you’re trying to paint it as otherwise since it’s there for everyone to read and not just take your spin for it.
Predictable…
Thanks for playing
Or not playing!
That’s not spin, that’s verbatim from the report. If the President did not commit obstruction of justice, they would have said so. They didn’t.
Why would they have said so? There is plenty of reason for them to not say so. Illegitimate election and all. Honestly, why does it even matter WHAT they said? Burden of proof. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. I know, damn that pesky Constitution.
Because they straight up said they would have said so if there was no evidence of obstruction.
Given that Mueller wouldn’t have indicted Trump anyway based on DOJ police, it would be a matter for Congress to decide.
Of course they did, and look – just like a good little lemming you swallow it without question. Again, how is what they said even relevant? “We think he’s guilty” isn’t proof of anything. I shouldn’t have to be telling you this.
Unlike you, I’m going off what the report actually says.
Don’t worry…I’ve just seen/heard Nadler is going to investigate it.
1 Like
Unlike me? I’m going off what it says too. Unlike you, I’m just ignoring the parts that aren’t legally relevant. You’d rather focus on them instead. Your prerogative. Let me know how that works out for you.
