Fmr AG Barr: ‘I Haven’t Seen Anything that Makes Me Think the President Committed a Crime’

Oh... haven't you heard? The Durham investigations are a HUGE bust, but by all means, waste some Congressional time with that nonsense... It's not like the GOP wants to..... you know..... govern....

 

What question is that?? She did it, and justifiably so, especially in the case of potential witness Jordan... Does that mean you don't sign off on the 3 playa's acceptable to both sides?? Or try to add 2 other acceptable options??

Of course not.... it showed in nauseating detail that McCarthy's only goal (as he was instructed) was to sabotage the effort...

He failed.... Fortunately, watchable hearings are the result....

I'm perfectly fine if the committee shows the "peaceful" part of the video.... in fact, it makes a perfect lead-in to "fight like hell", and it changes nothing as to his intent....

 

Dude, I basically agree with you. But I'm pointing out that if committee members have never been rejected before, that is a question the Republicans can legitimately raise. I agree there is good reason to reject the 2, but it wouldn't change the fact that it was unprecedented. If the shoe was on the other foot, the democrats for sure would complain in the same way.

Well, “peaceful” came after “fight like hell”. As I said, I don’t think it’s terribly exculpatory in context, but it’s important for the committee to present things precisely, I think.

 

Uhhhh.... not even close...

https://apnews.com/article/election...-siege-media-e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27

"fight like hell" was within the final 2-3 minutes.... "Peacefully" was somewhere near the bottom of the first third.... buried...

So you are saying the committee should show 1 sentence from @ 20 minutes into the speech just because.... precision?

How in the world could Nancy accept GOP on the committee that voted to throw out certified states?? And she STILL allowed one, which is one more than I would have...

 

OK, I'm happy to be corrected on that. Still doesn't change the basic point - ignoring something a little exculpatory just gives fuel to opponents of the committee.

Yes. They should put it in a context to explain why they still think Trump wanted violence. Because not being scrupulous about such things easily makes it look like they are cherry-picking things to make Trump look bad.

Do I have to say a 3rd time that I think she made the right decision? I've said all I have to say on this.

 

Fair enough... I just wanted to point out I think she should have kicked 3 picks, not 2....

 

Barr & Durham both found crimes occurred from trump. They just kept it all silent until the truth was discovered.

Thank you, Italy!

 

You might benefit from reading his resume. He's far more accomplished than anyone here, and he's on the outs with Trump.