The 400 page Mueller Report is now available to publically read - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The 400 page Mueller Report is now available to publically read
in Politics

By TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
And in regards to the current POTUS, no Obstruction, and no Collusion.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/18/democrats-barr-press-conference-1280948

CONGRESS

"Dems blast Barr’s ‘campaign press conference’ for Trump"

"House and Senate Democrats reacted with fury to Attorney General William Barr’s rollout of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Thursday, accusing him of acting more like the personal attorney for President Donald Trump than the nation’s top law enforcement officer."

"In a 22-minute press conference, Barr repeatedly defended Trump, using talking points that Democrats said could have been written by the White House.

press conference ahead of the release of the 400-page report — a move that had already prompted fierce backlash among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Barr repeated the “no collusion” line three more times, as well as stating Mueller “did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.”

"Democrats reacted with shock and rage, questioning why the attorney general would even hold the event hours before the report was released to Congress and the public.

“Now that President @realDonaldTrump's campaign press conference is over: It's time for Congress and the American public to see the #MuellerReport,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote on Twitter.

Added Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "AG Barr has confirmed the staggering partisan effort by the Trump Admin to spin public’s view of the #muellerreport – complete with acknowledgment that the Trump team received a sneak preview," Pelosi tweeted."

"It’s more urgent than ever that Special Counsel Mueller testify before Congress," she said.

In his statement to reporters, Barr was adamant in his defense of Trump, saying the president faced an “unprecedented situation” and acted with the “sincere belief” that Mueller’s probe was undermining his presidency.

“Criminal acts are still criminal even if you're ‘frustrated’ when you commit them,” Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), a Judiciary member and former police chief, tweeted in response.

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), another member of the Judiciary panel, added that Barr was acting as "the president's personal attorney rather than as the highest-ranking law enforcement official in the nation."

Within minutes after Barr’s press conference, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to Mueller officially requesting he appear before the panel “no later than May 23, 2019.”

“We cannot take Attorney General Barr's word for it,” Nadler said in a tweet accompanying the letter. “We must read the full Mueller report, and the underlying evidence. This is about transparency and ensuring accountability.”

"Barr will testify before the House Judiciary panel on May 2, a day after he is scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary."

Several Democrats vying to take on Trump in 2020 were also quick to rip Barr after his press conference wrapped.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said Barr was "undermining the independence of this entire process" by trying to "spin" the report before its actual release. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said the press conference was "outrageous," adding she's "deeply disturbed" by Barr's actions.

And Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said the press conference was a "stunt, filled with political spin and propaganda."

"It's a disgrace to see an Attorney General acting as if he's the personal attorney and publicist for the President of the United States," tweeted Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Barr said Thursday that he will allow select members of Congress to view most of the unredacted report — save for federal grand jury information — in a secure location "subject to appropriate safeguards."

"But that answer has not been satisfying for top Democrats, including Nadler, who have said lawmakers have a right to the full unredacted report, including grand jury information.

Nadler is expected to issue a subpoena as soon as Friday or Monday for the full report. But fellow Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said Thursday that the House Judiciary chairman should move to force the information as fast as possible given Barr's insistence on shielding that part of the probe.

"I have great respect for you and your leadership particularly on the Yemen War Powers Resolution," Khanna said in a tweet directed at Nadler. "Now is the time to act for the sake of our nation."

Even before Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein held the Thursday morning press conference, Democrats were blasting the move as a partisan attempt to spin the report in the best light and protect the president.

In an early morning statement, Schumer and Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized Barr’s “partisan handling” of the report and has “resulted in a crisis of confidence in his independence and impartiality,” they wrote. The only remedy, Pelosi and Schumer said, was for Mueller to testify in the House and Senate “as soon as possible.”

"Republicans, meanwhile, celebrated the formal conclusion of the nearly two-year investigation into the White House. They argue that Mueller has cleared Trump of any claims of wrongdoing — before they’ve seen the full report and even as Barr acknowledged 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice by the president.

“No collusion. No obstruction,” tweeted Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. “No cover up when there’s nothing to cover up.” 

Nancy Pelosi D, has already had her news media camera outlet time, today earlier.

Chuck Schumer D, has already had his news media camera outlet time, today earlier as well.

And Jerry Nadler D, just said on the news that hes going to issue a subpoena, so that he can get an unredacted version of the Mueller Report?

I'm wondering what AG Bill Barr, might have to say to Mr. Nadler?

I'm wondering, as well where (D, Adam Schiff's) evidence of collusion is at,  that he has alluded to before is at? 

Is it possible, that some of the Democrats, and the Socialists Democrats, are going to continue on with their collective negative attention campaign, for as long as they can, towards the current POTUS, as the upcoming 2020 Election Cycle has already slowly started to gain some steam, with the growing list of Democrats, and Socialists Democrats, who want to run and become the next POTUS? 

It's fascinatingly educational, to see how some individually campaign, according to their individual political philosophies? 

Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and some of the other's who are likely, waiting things out, before making their individual campaign intentions known, to become the next POTUS as well via the 2020 Election. 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    A probable example of how Opinion Journalism, can maybe, get utilized in the 21st century, verses maybe original News Journalism?

    https://beta-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/william-barr-has-shamelessly-corrupted-the-mueller-report/2019/05/01/6819c0b4-6c39-11e9-8f44-e8d8bb1df986_story.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#aoh=15567423819812&amp_ct=1556742393277&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s 

    "William Barr has shamelessly corrupted the Mueller report"

    "One of our most colorful legal concepts is the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The phrase was introduced by Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter 80 years ago to hold that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used to convict a defendant.

    We now know that the entire debate the country has been having over special counsel Robert S, Mueller III’s report was fatally infected by the lethal sapling that was Attorney General William P. Barr’s four-page letter offering his gloss on the findings of the 448-page document. As a dandruff shampoo ad taught us long ago, you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

    It’s not good enough that a redacted version of the report was eventually made public. For 27 days, the debate over Mueller’s findings was twisted by Barr’s poisonous distortions that implied a full exoneration of President Trump. Many public statements and much punditry were devoted to insisting that Trump’s opponents owed the president an apology, that the Russia matter was never what it was cracked up to be, that the president was free and clear.

    While it would be nice to see an outpouring of public apologies from those who were snookered by Barr, I am not anticipating a run on sackcloth. But it is very heartening — but also, in light of Barr’s subsequent conduct, very disturbing — to know that one person who was infuriated by what Barr did was Mueller himself.

    As The Post and then the New York Times reported, three days after the attorney general released his propaganda document, Mueller wrote Barr to express his dismay. “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote, adding, “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”

    Yes, and confusion was what Barr had in mind. The longer Mueller’s findings were misrepresented, the more time Trump had to claim vindication, to denounce the media and — well, to lie and to disfigure the results of inquiry that were in fact devastating about his conduct. Mueller’s office did not take this calmly. It intervened the day after Barr issued his non-summary summary, and again with Mueller’s letter."

    "Recovering from Barr’s original sin is well-nigh impossible. Of course we now know what the report said. Congress can investigate, and the House can even impeach. But the political context for such decisions is irreparably warped. It will take enormous work to overcome that first impression that Barr so deviously created.

    And anyone who still hopes that Republicans might have qualms about this massive coverup was not watching Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Barr testified. We have a president who was plainly elected with Russian help, and Republican senators want to go after FBI agents whose only transgression was to be worried about the intervention of a hostile power in our politics. They also want to reinvestigate — Hillary Clinton! Most Republicans have locked away their consciences to appease a mob screaming, “Lock her up!”

    When he answered questions from Democrats, Barr did everything he could to justify the resignation calls from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and other Democrats. To trust Barr as anything but a specialist in smokescreens is now impossible.

    It was Van Hollen who — two weeks after Mueller had registered his complaint — had asked Barr an un-senatorially direct question: “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?”

    Barr replied: “I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.”

    Lawyers might argue over whether this was an outright lie, but to call Barr’s answer misleading and obfuscatory is rather kind. Trump must have been very proud of his attorney general. "

    "The obfuscation and indirection continued Wednesday when Democrats tried to pin Barr down on his prevarication.

    When Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) pressed Barr about a misleading statement he made in response to an April 9 query similar to Van Hollen’s from Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.), Barr’s answer was so convoluted that Whitehouse finally threw up his hands and earned a nomination for the quotation of the day: “I can’t even follow that down the road. I mean, boy, that’s a masterful hairsplitting.”

    The corruption Trump has fostered now goes to the top of the Justice Department. We have an attorney general who has proudly and shamelessly corrupted our political conversation to protect a president whose survival depends upon burying facts and clouding public understanding."

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1939 Pts
    edited May 1
    These people are doing their best to get Trump reelected. Trump has already demonstrated that the more attention her receives, the stronger his position is. By going after him in such a weak way, constantly talking about the investigation that has, in the end, produced no evidence in support of their claims, they send a strong message to everyone: "Do not trust us. We do not care about America, we only care about our party's well-being. We will do everything we can to make the life of the current president a living hell and to try to demote him for any reason we can possibly find."

    It is strange how they have not realised it yet. People like Trump or Pence, and more so such as Yiannopoulus, Shapiro, Southern or Owens, would be nobody on the political space, and almost nobody would even know who they are - were it not for the ridiculous way they are treated by their opponents, picking on every single breath they take and calling them names and demanding them to be punished simply for disagreeing with opinions of pro-Democratic people.
    To be fair, pro-Republican people did the same with Cortez and Sanders, people who, again, would be nobody, had they not been constantly smeared and picked on by Fox News or Trump and other biased media and individuals.

    Perhaps Trump is a good shock therapy against such behavior. Perhaps, after getting burned a few times, people will do some self-reflection and adjust their behavior to a more civilised one. Otherwise, we will keep having joke politicians and journalists who do not have anything of use to say or do, but get a lot of attention simply due to being contrarian - until the next strong recession, which will make people think, "Okay, we are doing something wrong. Let us return to our roots."
    ApplesaucePlaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    Listening to CNN, and realizing that their apparent Opinion Journalism news coverage, is based on their perceptions on how they view the current POTUS, AG Barr, and how they interpret the Mueller Report product?

    So in a sense, the POTUS, and AG Barr, are their meal tickets, when it comes to how they formulate the news, and presenting it to their viewer constituents?

  • There was “obstruction” but I don’t believe that its an impeachable offense
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1180 Pts
    MayCaesar said:

    Perhaps Trump is a good shock therapy against such behavior. Perhaps, after getting burned a few times, people will do some self-reflection and adjust their behavior to a more civilised one. Otherwise, we will keep having joke politicians and journalists who do not have anything of use to say or do, but get a lot of attention simply due to being contrarian - until the next strong recession, which will make people think, "Okay, we are doing something wrong. Let us return to our roots."

    Are you kidding?!?  We get burned constantly by the "serious" politicians.  We've gotten to the point of being able to expect it.  The "joke" politicians are the ones who put the American people first and actually try to keep their campaign promises.  Don't worry, there aren't that many people who are willing to sacrifice their reputations to the inevitable Establishment smear campaigns for us to consistently have a choice between an Establishment candidate and someone who tries to do the right thing.
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/house-democrats-barr-mueller.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/house-democrats-barr-mueller.html

    "Democrats Threaten Barr with Contempt After He No-Shows House Hearing

    Attorney General William P. Barr pulled out of a Thursday hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, and he has left House lawmakers investigating the president fuming and calculating."

    "WASHINGTON — House Democrats, decrying what they called an erosion of American democracy, threatened on Thursday to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress after he failed to appear at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee and ignored a subpoena deadline to hand over Robert S. Mueller III’s full report and evidence.

    “What is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the United States of America was not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters, referring to a House hearing in which he said he was unaware that the special counsel had protested his portrayal of his conclusions. “And that’s a crime.”

    Convening in a nearly empty hearing room despite his absence, the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, called on Republicans to join Democrats in standing up for the rights of Congress against an administration that he said was trying to “make it that much harder for us to hold the executive branch accountable.”

    But mostly he trained his ire at the attorney general, who objected to Mr. Nadler’s insistence that staff lawyers be allowed to ask questions at the hearing.

    “The attorney general must make a choice,” he said. “Every one of us must make the same choice. That choice is now an obligation of our office. The choice is simple: we can stand up to this president in defense of the country and the Constitution we love, or we can let the moment pass us by. ”The challenge for Mr. Nadler and other House committee leaders is now figuring out how to secure the material they need for their work. Mr. Nadler said afterward that he would give Mr. Barr “one or two more days” to relent on producing the full Mueller report and the evidence gathered to compile it before initiating contempt proceedings. Committee Democrats were preparing to make the Justice Department a formal counteroffer."

    "But with no cooperation in sight, House Democrats would then have to choose between the different options they have to escalate their case. Dozens of Democrats in Congress, including some running for president, seized on Mr. Mueller’s letter to the attorney general protesting his characterization of the special counsel’s findings and called for Mr. Barr to resign.

    Some lawmakers are arguing for opening an impeachment inquiry, which grants the House clearer powers to command information from the executive branch. Though not necessarily punitive, a vote to hold Mr. Barr in contempt would put a mark on his record and could push the dispute into the courts. House Republicans chose that route in 2012 when they held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over internal Justice Department documents."

    "In a private meeting with members of her leadership team, Ms. Pelosi called Mr. Barr a “lap dog” for President Trump and an “enabler” of his obstruction of justice, according to a congressional aide in the room.

    At her weekly news conference, the speaker referred to Mr. Barr’s testimony to Congress on April 9 when he told Representative Charlie Crist, Democrat of Florida, that he was not aware of Mr. Mueller’s concern about the way he had presented the special counsel’s conclusions.

    A letter released by the Justice Department on Wednesday from Mr. Mueller to Mr. Barr showed that before that House hearing, the special counsel had laid out concerns about how Mr. Barr had communicated his findings to the public.

    “He lied to Congress. If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime,” she said at her weekly news conference on Thursday. “Being the attorney general does not give you a bath to say whatever you'd like.”

    "But privately, the speaker continued to hold her line against impeachment. “Impeachment is too good for him,” she said of Mr. Trump, according to the aide.

    Officially, Mr. Barr refused to show for the Judiciary Committee hearing because Democrats had insisted that he sit for questioning from Democratic and Republican staff lawyers. In a statement on Wednesday, Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, called Democrats’ demands “unprecedented and unnecessary.” She said Mr. Barr would be happy to come testify if Democrats would drop that demand.

    In the nearly empty Judiciary hearing room, where the committee convened for only about ten minutes, there were moments of levity, too. Before the hearing even began, Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, munched on Kentucky Fried Chicken on the dais as press cameras clicked. The highest law enforcement officer in the country, he said, was a gobbler."


    "Democrats, seeking to dramatize the attorney general’s absence, set out an empty chair with a name card for Mr. Barr.

    “What is he hiding under here?” Representative David Cicilline, Democrat of Rhode Island, said, miming confusion as he moved the chair around. “Just checking.”

    Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the committee, lit into his Democratic colleagues for making “ludicrous” demands of the attorney general, and accused the committee’s chairman of manufacturing a conflict instead of trying to get at the truth.

    “The reason Bill Barr is not here today is because the Democrats decided they did not want him here today,” Mr. Collins said, his rapid-fire Georgia rat-a-tat winding up in indignation."

    "When Republicans tried to prolong the brief session with parliamentary objections, Mr. Nadler gaveled out, cut the microphones, and walked out of the hearing room.

    It was a stark contrast to just a day before, when Mr. Barr testified for five hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a hearing largely spent defending his handling of the special counsel’s report.

    The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee provided a more friendly venue for Mr. Barr to take his first congressional questions since the report’s release, but it was by no means a tranquil session.

    Democrats pressed Mr. Barr on the newly revealed letter in which Mr. Mueller complained about Mr. Barr’s initial summary of his findings. They asked him to explain why he did not view specific actions by Mr. Trump to thwart investigators as obstruction of justice. And they excoriated Mr. Barr as “purposely misleading” Congress and the public and even lying to Congress, all in service of insulating Mr. Trump from the consequences of his actions.

    Mr. Barr took the punches and did not give ground, agreeing with Republicans that the time had come to review the conduct of investigators and move on.

    He called Mr. Mueller’s letter “a bit snitty” and professed amazement that it should even matter after he released, voluntarily, a lightly redacted 448-page report. He defended his legal determinations around obstruction of justice and aspects of Mr. Trump’s behavior. The Justice Department’s job, he said, is to make charging decisions, not to police right and wrong. Congress or voters, he said, are welcome to look at the evidence themselves and pursue other recourse.

    “Two years of his administration have been dominated by the allegations that have now been proven false,” Mr. Barr said. “And, you know, to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think that the Mueller report had found the opposite. ”Democrats have still been unable to secure testimony from Mr. Mueller himself. Mr. Nadler said on Wednesday that they were hoping to hold a hearing on May 15, but were still “seeking to firm up the date” with the Justice Department. It is also unclear if Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel whom the committee subpoenaed to testify this month, will show up."

    Maybe some of the liberals, via their individual statement making, and their garnered news media camera time, aren't of the realization, that they, may be collectively talking themselves into a corner, with their rhetoric, with the collective self belief that the upcoming 2020 Election will be their payoff for all of their anti Trump, and anti AG Barr negative talking points? 

    They are of the hypothetical hopes, that the 2020 Election cycle, will validate their collective liberal efforts? 



  • @MayCaesar ;
    Perhaps Trump is a good shock therapy against such behavior. Perhaps, after getting burned a few times, people will do some self-reflection and adjust their behavior to a more civilised one. Otherwise, we will keep having joke politicians and journalists who do not have anything of use to say or do, but get a lot of attention simply due to being contrarian - until the next strong recession, which will make people think, "Okay, we are doing something wrong. Let us return to our roots."
    True that Trump may be a good shock therapy, but "going back to our roots" won't cut it... 

    Just going back to a "pre-Trump" state of affairs is not good enough... That prior state of affairs was what led to the very possibility of a Trump presidency in the first place, the system was not answering the needs of the people and bred resentment, many who voted for Trump did so just to wreck the system, in a "let's burn it all down and start anew" type of philosophy... Many Bernie voters have the same mindset, in the sense of "Let's try something radically different"... In this sense, Biden, Harris, Broker, etc, have nothing new to propose...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1939 Pts
    edited May 2
    @CYDdharta

    Getting burned by serious politicians with bad policies does not mean that electing a joke politician is a proper response. There are more options out there. You could have elected someone like Mitt Romney, but you kept electing populists instead, because they offered a more close-to-home narrative.


    @Plaffelvohfen

    By "our roots" I meant the state the US was in before, say, mid-90-s, when bipartisanship started taking extreme forms. I am not sure what caused it, although I have my suspicion that the US winning the Cold War and having no real enemy left removed the factor that kept the country united around liberal-democratic set of values, causing both camps to radicalise, and the respect for scientific approach in politics to erode.

    Regardless, yelling in politics must stop, and civil discourse must be resumed. When we hear phrases like "fake news" or "white privilege" thrown around by everyone, we know that something is seriously broken in our kingdom.

    In this regard, people like Trump or Sanders may help people realise that something needs to change. Or they may only worsen the breach in the societal communication. That remains to be seen.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1180 Pts
    edited May 2
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    Getting burned by serious politicians with bad policies does not mean that electing a joke politician is a proper response. There are more options out there. You could have elected someone like Mitt Romney, but you kept electing populists instead, because they offered a more close-to-home narrative.

    LOL, Mitt Romney is EXACTLY  the type of "serious" politician who would burn the people who voted for him. He had no principles whatsoever.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1939 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    As you yourself said, it is not about principles, it is about doing what is right. A good politician is not supposed to please their voters; a good politician is supposed to benefit their voters, even if they do not realise it.

    You are welcome to keep believing that random people who said a few loud buzzwords can make your life better. Just be careful not to apply this principle anywhere else in your life. You do not want to have your teeth fixed by someone who promised to make your teeth great again, and lacks any qualification to back their promise up with.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1180 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    As you yourself said, it is not about principles, it is about doing what is right. A good politician is not supposed to please their voters; a good politician is supposed to benefit their voters, even if they do not realise it.

    You are welcome to keep believing that random people who said a few loud buzzwords can make your life better. Just be careful not to apply this principle anywhere else in your life. You do not want to have your teeth fixed by someone who promised to make your teeth great again, and lacks any qualification to back their promise up with.

    I'm so glad I have your permission.  Likewise you need to  be careful not to apply your principle anywhere else in your life.  You don't want to go to someone to have a cavity filled and leave with dentures you didn't need.  I'll take someone with no record over someone with a record of failure.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/05/02/nancy-pelosi-accuses-william-barr-of-committing-a-crime.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/02/nancy-pelosi-accuses-william-barr-of-committing-a-crime.html

    "Speaker Pelosi accuses Attorney General William Barr of committing a crime: 'He lied to Congress' "

    "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused Attorney General William Barr of committing a crime by lying to Congress about Robert Mueller's report and Mueller's issues with how Barr has characterized the special counsel's findings.

    "What is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the United States of America is not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States. That's a crime," the California Democrat told reporters.

    Pressed again about the accusation, Pelosi said, "He lied to Congress. If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law." Asked whether Barr should go to jail, the speaker responded that "there's a process involved here."

     "In a statement in response, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Pelosi's "baseless attack on the Attorney General is reckless, irresponsible and false."

    Pelosi's comments appeared to reference answers Barr gave during House testimony last month. Lawmakers asked him about reported frustrations Mueller's team had with a summary the attorney general wrote about the special counsel's report.

    Barr said he was not aware of concerns the Mueller team had about his summary. But news reports revealed this week that Mueller had written a letter to Barr expressing concerns about how the attorney general depicted the "substance" of the report — before the attorney general testified.

    Here is the exchange from an April 9 hearing that apparently sparked Pelosi's accusation.

    Rep. Charlie Crist, D-Fla.: "Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel's team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter. ... Do you know what they are referencing with that?"

    Barr: "No, I don't. I think I think, I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view I was not interested in putting out summaries."

    The comment from the highest-ranking Democrat in the country intensifies the party's criticism of the top U.S. law enforcement official. While Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have accused Barr of protecting Trump and having a conflict of interest, neither lawmaker has previously gone as far as alleging a crime.

    Pelosi has so far resisted calls to impeach the president, which have intensified following the release of Mueller's redacted report. Schumer, meanwhile, is writing a letter to Barr questioning the attorney general's views on executive power, particularly his suggestion that a president could end an investigation if they feel they are falsely accused, NBC News reported. The senator wrote that "if these views are truly your views, you do not deserve to be Attorney General."

    Democrats want Mueller to testify publicly and have questioned why the Justice Department decided not to charge the president with obstructing justice by trying to influence Mueller's investigation. While Mueller's report declined to say whether Trump obstructed justice, he also noted that the report did not "exonerate" Trump. It also set out a detailed case for Congress to potentially investigate the president for obstruction.

    Pelosi's remarks Thursday follow a House Judiciary Committee hearing that Barr decided not to attend. The panel's chairman, Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, threatened to hold the attorney general in contempt of Congress if he does not give access to Mueller's full, unredacted report on the Russia probe.

    Barr repeatedly defended Trump during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. The president has contended Mueller's investigation fully exonerates him on both questions of whether he obstructed justice and whether his campaign coordinated with Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. Trump repeatedly described the investigation as a "witch hunt" and has since falsely called the probe a "coup."

    This week's events have escalated a partisan battle over congressional witnesses who have testified about the investigation and the president's conduct. Democrats shot down a GOP resolution Wednesday to refer Trump's former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to the Justice Department for accusations of lying to Congress in February. "

    The liberal rhetoric, of they painting themselves into their own corner, continues.


  • ApplesauceApplesauce 241 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    while I hope much of what you said will happen, I doubt it given the platforms the democrats are touting.  Unless people are willing to support more libertarian type candidates all of this will just get worse, how can it not?  There was 2 democrat candidates I thought I could support, until I learned more about them :(
    that party no longer cares for me and my kind, in fact they are hostile towards us.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1939 Pts
    @Applesauce

    Democrats have always supported heavily interventionist economical and social policies. They just seem to have lost the sense of proportion recently, when they realised that the new generation learning politics and economics from Facebook and Twitter cares more about sentiments, than details. People such as Yang, Harris, Sanders, Warren or O'Rourke would have been unelectable just 15 years ago.
    Buttigieg and Biden seem fine to me, but both are unlikely to win the race, the former because of his sexual orientation (the US society simply has not matured enough in this regard, I suspect), and the latter because of all the scandals around his weird behavior.

    Most likely Trump will be reelected, and then, perhaps, both Democrats and Republicans finally realise that something needs to change in the public discourse. Vilifying everyone one disagrees with is not a great way to facilitate productive discussion.
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited May 9
    Shame on some of the Democrats, and some of the Socialist Democrats.

    We're in a Constitutional Crisis?

    How so, and can, any of the liberals, explain this situation? 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch