• You must be logged in to see or use the chatbox


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

CentreAussie

Trusted Member
Bold Member!
Surprise surprise...more bill barr lies
A day after the letter was sent, Barr and Mueller spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that news coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office's work, according to Justice Department officials.

When Barr pressed him whether he thought Barr's letter was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of the letter was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

In their call, Barr also took issue with Mueller calling his letter a "summary," saying he had never meant his letter to summarise the voluminous report, but instead provide an account of the top conclusions, officials said.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/mueller-complained-to-barr-about-his-summary-of-russia-probe-report-20190501-p51iw3.html
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

CentreAussie

Trusted Member
Bold Member!

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Siobhan

Baekjul Bool Gool
Staff member

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Prettypink513

Church Member
Bold Member!


Grasping at straws, much? This piggy won't fly, just go back to accusing everyone of being racist.
I don't accuse everyone of being racists. Just the ones who have a habit of making racist statements. Liiiike you. I call it how I see it. And that is why you've been on ignore for over a year. I'm going back to not paying you any attention now
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
Barr Said He Won’t Show for House Hearing Thursday, Hill Aide Says

Attorney General William Barr has told the House Judiciary Committee that he won’t show up for a scheduled hearing Thursday about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, panel chairman Jerrold Nadler said.

Barr is “trying to blackmail the committee,” Nadler told reporters Wednesday evening, saying that the executive branch doesn’t get to dictate the format of the hearing. Nadler added that he may issue a subpoena for the attorney general to show up if he doesn’t relent.

Barr’s decision not to attend the hearing dramatically escalates tensions with the Democratic-controlled committee, which has already authorized a subpoena to the Justice Department to obtain an unredacted version of Mueller’s report as well as the underlying evidence. Nadler said the Justice Department is refusing to hand over the full report and the panel may issue a contempt citation.

… article continus

Post automatically merged:

Kamala Harris Earns Praise From Former Prosecutors For Barr Questioning

Democratic senator and 2020 candidate Kamala Harris garnered praise from legal experts on Wednesday after she appeared to stump Attorney General William Barr more than once during his congressional testimony on his handling of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report.

“This is what happens when Barr is asked a carefully worded question,” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted in response to the tense exchange. “He can't figure out how to answer it the way he wants to without outright lying, which would be a crime.”

Legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah added that Harris and fellow 2020 candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar “are excellent & tough questioners & I would love to see either or both of them debate Donald Trump.”

Harris, who previously served as the attorney general of California, grilled Barr over his decision to clear Donald Trump of obstruction of justice despite evidence of wrongdoing recorded in the special counsel’s 448-page report. Mueller investigated at least 10 incidents where the president attempted obstruction, including his multiple attempts to remove the special counsel.

“In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?” Harris asked the attorney general. Barr responded that he did not.

Harris continued, asking if Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who announced his resignation on Monday, had looked at any underlying evidence before coming to the official conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice.

“No. We accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate,” Barr replied. He then insisted that it wasn’t unusual for an official in his position not to review underlying evidence.

“I think you’ve made it clear sir that you have not looked at the evidence and we can move on,” Harris said.

Jill Wine-Banks, a former Watergate prosecutor, commended Harris for provoking Barr's revelatory admission in a Twitter post during the hearing.

… ar6ticle continues

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kamala-harris-earns-praise-from-former-prosecutors-for-barr-questioning/ar-AAAMmiy?ocid=spartanntp
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Prettypink513

Church Member
Bold Member!
Barr Said He Won’t Show for House Hearing Thursday, Hill Aide Says

Attorney General William Barr has told the House Judiciary Committee that he won’t show up for a scheduled hearing Thursday about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, panel chairman Jerrold Nadler said.

Barr is “trying to blackmail the committee,” Nadler told reporters Wednesday evening, saying that the executive branch doesn’t get to dictate the format of the hearing. Nadler added that he may issue a subpoena for the attorney general to show up if he doesn’t relent.

Barr’s decision not to attend the hearing dramatically escalates tensions with the Democratic-controlled committee, which has already authorized a subpoena to the Justice Department to obtain an unredacted version of Mueller’s report as well as the underlying evidence. Nadler said the Justice Department is refusing to hand over the full report and the panel may issue a contempt citation.

… article continus

Post automatically merged:

Kamala Harris Earns Praise From Former Prosecutors For Barr Questioning

Democratic senator and 2020 candidate Kamala Harris garnered praise from legal experts on Wednesday after she appeared to stump Attorney General William Barr more than once during his congressional testimony on his handling of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report.

“This is what happens when Barr is asked a carefully worded question,” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted in response to the tense exchange. “He can't figure out how to answer it the way he wants to without outright lying, which would be a crime.”

Legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah added that Harris and fellow 2020 candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar “are excellent & tough questioners & I would love to see either or both of them debate Donald Trump.”

Harris, who previously served as the attorney general of California, grilled Barr over his decision to clear Donald Trump of obstruction of justice despite evidence of wrongdoing recorded in the special counsel’s 448-page report. Mueller investigated at least 10 incidents where the president attempted obstruction, including his multiple attempts to remove the special counsel.

“In reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?” Harris asked the attorney general. Barr responded that he did not.

Harris continued, asking if Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who announced his resignation on Monday, had looked at any underlying evidence before coming to the official conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice.

“No. We accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate,” Barr replied. He then insisted that it wasn’t unusual for an official in his position not to review underlying evidence.

“I think you’ve made it clear sir that you have not looked at the evidence and we can move on,” Harris said.

Jill Wine-Banks, a former Watergate prosecutor, commended Harris for provoking Barr's revelatory admission in a Twitter post during the hearing.

… ar6ticle continues

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kamala-harris-earns-praise-from-former-prosecutors-for-barr-questioning/ar-AAAMmiy?ocid=spartanntp
I love how she gets right down to business
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

CentreAussie

Trusted Member
Bold Member!
Read the forum rules carefully, as you've got more than just a habit of making personal attacks and highly bigoted commentary that are unacceptable, even in regards to "Three Things".

https://dreamindemon.com/community/threads/the-definitive-forum-rules.74734/
Ok, I'll try be good.... But in all honesty, I think I've made precisely one 'highly bigoted' comment here. One that I sincerely apologized for. Just out of interest, is wrongly labeling someone a racist or a bigot considered to be a 'personal attack'?

Barr Said He Won’t Show for House Hearing Thursday, Hill Aide Says

Attorney General William Barr has told the House Judiciary Committee that he won’t show up for a scheduled hearing Thursday about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, panel chairman Jerrold Nadler said.

Barr is “trying to blackmail the committee,” Nadler told reporters Wednesday evening, saying that the executive branch doesn’t get to dictate the format of the hearing. Nadler added that he may issue a subpoena for the attorney general to show up if he doesn’t relent.

Barr’s decision not to attend the hearing dramatically escalates tensions with the Democratic-controlled committee, which has already authorized a subpoena to the Justice Department to obtain an unredacted version of Mueller’s report as well as the underlying evidence. Nadler said the Justice Department is refusing to hand over the full report and the panel may issue a contempt citation.
Can someone explain to me why this is even an issue?

Barrs summary was 'accurate' according to Mueller himself, the report is publicly available.

Seems like the Democrats and the Media are pissed at Mueller because he wouldn't confirm their delusions. But they can't go after Mueller because for the last 2 years we've all been reassured by all and sundry that he was going to be the saviour who would relieve us all of the tyranny of Trump. So AG Barr is the only viable target lest they expose their own hypocrisy.
Post automatically merged:


Lindsey 'the southern dandy' Graham once again tells it like it is. Many on the left think that questioning his sexuality will turn the right against him, but it's only people on the left who think that a persons sexuality matters.

I wonder if any of you are prepared to listen to what he has to say and can come up with a solid refutation to any of the points he makes. If you can, you'll get a gold star and much respect from me.
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
Lawmakers see empty chair, not AG Barr, at House hearing

Update:
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing that wasn't really a hearing, with lawmakers facing an empty chair after Attorney General William Barr informed the panel he wouldn't show up for the session on special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia report.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler said as the session opened Thursday that Barr had "a choice" whether to stand up to President Donald Trump, who has pledged to fight congressional oversight.

Democratic members of the committee had fun with the spectacle, with Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen bringing buckets of fried chicken and Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline jokingly looking under the desk to make sure Barr wasn't there.

For most of Wednesday, Barr underwent at times scathing questioning by Democratic senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The House panel is considering holding Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to show.

… long article continues

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawmakers-see-empty-chair-not-ag-barr-at-house-hearing/ar-AAAMUIa?ocid=spartanntp
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
Nadler threatens contempt citation against Barr

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is threatening a contempt citation against Attorney General William Barr if the Justice Department (DOJ) does not comply with a subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller's unredacted report.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday evening, Nadler said that if he is unable to reach a "reasonable" agreement with the DOJ "in the next day or two" he would seek a contempt citation against Barr.

"I will continue to work with the attorney general to reach a reasonable accommodation on the access to the full report and the underlying evidence -- but not for much longer," "There are many questions that must be answered."

Barr released a reacted version of the Mueller report last month, but Nadler quickly subpoenaed for the full report, setting a deadline of May 1. Nadler said Wednesday that the administration informed him they would not turn over the report.

Roughly 10 percent of the public report is redacted to conceal grand jury material, details on ongoing investigations, classified information and details that could impact the privacy of third parties. Barr has allowed a select group of lawmakers, including Nadler, to review a less-redacted version of the report, but Democrats have objected to the arrangement because it leaves many in Congress unable to view information.

... article continues

1556819924879-png.16948
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
Exclusive: Foreign government leases at Trump World Tower stir more emoluments concerns

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department allowed at least seven foreign governments to rent luxury condominiums in New York's Trump World Tower in 2017 without approval from Congress, according to documents and people familiar with the leases, a potential violation of the U.S. Constitution's emoluments clause.

The 90-story Manhattan building, part of the real estate empire of Donald Trump, had housed diplomats and foreign officials before the property developer became president. But now that he is in the White House, such transactions must pass muster with federal lawmakers, some legal experts say. The emoluments clause bans U.S. officials from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments without congressional consent.

The rental transactions, dating from the early months of Trump's presidency and first revealed by Reuters, could add to mounting scrutiny of his business dealings with foreign governments, which are now the subject of multiple lawsuits.

Congressional staffers confirmed to Reuters that the Trump World Tower lease requests were never submitted to Congress. Elijah Cummings, chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said his committee has been "stonewalled" in its efforts to obtain detailed information about foreign government payments to Trump's businesses.

"This new information raises serious questions about the President and his businesses' potential receipt of payments from foreign governments," Cummings said in a statement to Reuters. "The American public deserves full transparency."

A State Department spokesperson referred Reuters to the Justice Department because the subject involved "matters related to ongoing litigation." The Justice Department declined to comment. The White House referred a request for comment to the State Department and the Trump Organization, which did not comment.

The 1982 Foreign Missions Act requires foreign governments to get State Department clearance for any purchase, lease, sale, or other use of a property in the United States. Through the Freedom of Information Act, Reuters obtained diplomatic notes sent to the agency under this requirement from early 2015 until late 2017.

The records show that in the eight months following Trump's January 20, 2017 inauguration, foreign governments sent 13 notes to the State Department seeking permission to rent or renew leases in Trump World Tower. That is more solicitations from foreign governments for new or renewed leases in that building than in the previous two years combined.

… article continues

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/exclusive-foreign-government-leases-at-trump-world-tower-stir-more-emoluments-concerns/ar-AAANmKg?ocid=spartanntp
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
1556839309719-png.16958
Me Too

Trump’s New ‘Nasty’ Woman: Kamala Harris


“Nasty.”

When President Trump said on Wednesday that Senator Kamala Harris was “probably very nasty” in her questioning of Attorney General William P. Barr at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he brought back sharp memories for many Democrats. During the final presidential debate in 2016, Mr. Trump described Hillary Clinton as “a nasty woman,” a phrase that drew disgust from many critics, spawned countless memes and merchandise and became a feminist rallying cry.

Mr. Trump’s latest use of the adjective, in an interview on the Fox Business Network, was part of a wider attack on the three Democratic presidential candidates who sit on the Judiciary Committee, all of whom questioned Mr. Barr at the hearing.

“How about these three people?” Mr. Trump said, in an apparent reference to Ms. Harris, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

“You have three of them running against me, and they’re up there ranting and raving like lunatics, frankly,” he said. “They don’t care about this. They’re just looking for political points.”

It was the second time in a week Mr. Trump had used the word “nasty” to describe Ms. Harris. Last Thursday, when the Fox News host Sean Hannity asked him for his thoughts on the senator, Mr. Trump said, “I think she’s got a little bit of a nasty wit, but that might be it.”

Asked Thursday on CNN about why Mr. Trump had chosen to describe her as “nasty,” Ms. Harris chose not to speculate, saying, “God only knows.”

Instead, she drew a broader contrast with the president.

“We have a president of the United States whose primary interest, I think, that has been clear as a result of what we know as a result of the Mueller report, his primary interest has been to obstruct justice,” Ms. Harris said. “My primary interest is to pursue justice. You can call that whatever name you want, but I think that’s what the American people want in a leader.”

Ms. Harris was pointed in her questioning of Mr. Barr at the hearing on Wednesday, which centered on his handling of the special counsel’s report. She displayed her prosecutorial style from her days as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general, rattling off questions and repeatedly cutting him short. At one point, she prodded Mr. Barr into saying that he had not examined the underlying evidence before deciding not to charge the president with obstruction of justice.

... article continues
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-new-nasty-woman-kamala-harris/ar-AAAOlJl?ocid=spartanntp
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

CentreAussie

Trusted Member
Bold Member!
When President Trump said on Wednesday that Senator Kamala Harris was “probably very nasty” in her questioning of Attorney General William P. Barr at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he brought back sharp memories for many Democrats.
She is nasty. She's a partisan hack who slept her way to the top. Did we all forget about that?


Cruz says it all.

The attack of Barr is a complete joke, I'd say it was a 'new low' for the Democrats but I still remember the Kavanaugh debacle. If you're a Democrat, and can't understand why you should be ashamed of your party - you are the problem. Not Trump, not 'old white men', not 'wypipo', not 'racisim', not 'the patriarchy' ... it's you. Because you're too biased to see the objective truth when it's staring you right in the face.

That being - Trump didn't 'collude' with Russia, he won't be charged with obstruction and the entire affair was based on a lie. A lie paid for by Clinton. Clinton -> DNC -> Fusion GPS -> Christoper Steele -> FISA -> Bullshit investigation(s) designed to undermine American democracy. All because your 'superiors' decided for you the HRC was ordained to be the next President.

And I know it's not because you are stupid, because you're not. It's because admitting the truth would force you to reconsider the incredibly partisan position that you have been clinging to, for what must seem like forever. You'd have to face the fact that you were wrong about something. Your pride just can't take it.

There was no conspiracy, deal with it and move on. You gave it your best shot and you still couldn't pin a thing on Trump. So now you attack Barr, because..... why, exactly? What did he do wrong? Accurately describe the conclusions of the Mueller investigation. What a joke.
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

CentreAussie

Trusted Member
Bold Member!

Here is Mazies effort to oppose Barr.

She embarrassed herself. No ifs, buts or maybes about it. If she is the best you can do, you have problems.

She's a disgrace, an embarrassment to the people of Hawaii and a complete political hack.

If your side had any sense they'd be trying to cover this up, but here you are trumpeting it like its some kind of victory.... I mean, did you even listen to what she said before you posted this, or did you just read MSN and decide to parrot their opinion?
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Victoria

Intrepid Sojourner
Bold Member!
@CentreAussie

Well now, you are certainly generous with your own personal views and opinions but I watched the entire hearing. I am not in the habit of forming an opinion or taking a view without immersion into the matter of which I speak.

I don't find going off in what appears to be a highly emotional tare as you have done very helpful.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Knox

Queen of the Cunts
Bold Member!
Barr: Was my letter inaccurate? Mueller: No. Barr: Was the media coverage of my letter inaccurate? Mueller: Yes.
I literally just reread his statement in his OWN words with his signature attached. You people seriously fucking cherry pick. I will post it in here at my lunch or when I'm off work. Then you can all reread it.
Post automatically merged:

She is nasty. She's a partisan hack who slept her way to the top. Did we all forget about that?


Cruz says it all.

The attack of Barr is a complete joke, I'd say it was a 'new low' for the Democrats but I still remember the Kavanaugh debacle. If you're a Democrat, and can't understand why you should be ashamed of your party - you are the problem. Not Trump, not 'old white men', not 'wypipo', not 'racisim', not 'the patriarchy' ... it's you. Because you're too biased to see the objective truth when it's staring you right in the face.

That being - Trump didn't 'collude' with Russia, he won't be charged with obstruction and the entire affair was based on a lie. A lie paid for by Clinton. Clinton -> DNC -> Fusion GPS -> Christoper Steele -> FISA -> Bullshit investigation(s) designed to undermine American democracy. All because your 'superiors' decided for you the HRC was ordained to be the next President.

And I know it's not because you are stupid, because you're not. It's because admitting the truth would force you to reconsider the incredibly partisan position that you have been clinging to, for what must seem like forever. You'd have to face the fact that you were wrong about something. Your pride just can't take it.

There was no conspiracy, deal with it and move on. You gave it your best shot and you still couldn't pin a thing on Trump. So now you attack Barr, because..... why, exactly? What did he do wrong? Accurately describe the conclusions of the Mueller investigation. What a joke.
Unless you have proof and facts, shut your hole. We are not going to degrade an amazing woman of color just because you think she slept her way to the top.
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Siobhan

Baekjul Bool Gool
Staff member
I literally just reread his statement in his OWN words with his signature attached. You people seriously fucking cherry pick. I will post it in here at my lunch or when I'm off work. Then you can all reread it.
I'll save you some time and effort @Knox.
Here is Mueller's letter written on March 27, 2019 - he repeats his frustration with how Barr is handling Mueller's report, without a single mention of "the media", whatsoever.

muellerletter032719-jpg.16989
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!


Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

CentreAussie

Trusted Member
Bold Member!
Unless you have proof and facts, shut your hole. We are not going to degrade an amazing woman of color just because you think she slept her way to the top.
Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker.

And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians.

- Willie Brown.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/willie_brown_admits_it_kamala_harris_slept_her_way_to_the_top.html
Post automatically merged:

Bigots just HAAAATE educated black women, don't they?
There are 52 cards in a deck, so why do keep throwing up the same one? Then maybe you're not playing with a full deck.
 
Last edited:

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Knox

Queen of the Cunts
Bold Member!
Helping someone get on a commision or helping them with a race is NOT someone sleeping their way to the top. You just like to think so because she's a woman and a woman of color. If she were male you'd never brought it up. We've all got your number. No need to try and explain.
 

Don't like ads? Then help out the site and GO BOLD!

Staff online

Top