Barr Busted

It was pretty obvious to everyone except Trumpers that Barr was hiding the nature and extent of the Mueller report’s findings and that the redactions in the released version of it were fishy. Now this judge – appointed by George W. Bush – is calling Barr on the carpet for his dishonesty and demanding answers. This was predicted by the House Managers – the truth WILL come out.

20 thoughts on “Barr Busted

        1. @Jim

          What difference at this point does it make?

          Easy. There is an election coming and the public has an absolute right to know everything that the President is trying to cover up.

          The word “busted” is quite appropriate, IMHO, since it is extraordinary for any judge to question the veracity and honesty of the AG of the United States. This is far more than disagreeing with an “assessment.” It is alleging in effect that an “assessment” is impossible if parts of the report have been illegitimately redacted as part of a cover up.

          Easy.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Yes, Paul was a but hyperbolic. But the term isn’t completely inappropriate. Barr hid quite a bit from the report released to the public and would not even share it’s entirety with Congress in a closed door, classified setting. The judge’s order will, hopefully, bring full transparency to the Mueller Report while still respecting investigations that are still ongoing.

          And the timing seems right seeing as the GOP in the Senate is going forward with its investigation into Hunter Biden. We ALL have a right to now what went down on BOTH sides. Even thought there is zero evidence of wrongdoing by the Biden’s and a LOT of, what some have called “circumstantial” evidence against Trump and his campaign.

          Like

          1. That “but” should have been “bit”. I don’t disagree with your assessment, but just trying to find a more balanced approach to addressing the issues. Len’s post on the same topic would have been a better place to post your comment than as a whole new thread. IMHO.

            Like

  1. “Did not find sufficient evidence to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government….” Legally that spells exonerated. The only ties to Russia that were found were very old business related dealings that had nothing to do with the campaign. The judge may disagree but many courts disagree with each other. That is why we have an appeal process. This is a dead horse, stop beating it!!!

    Like

    1. @Bobr

      Re: “Legally that spells exonerated”

      Uh, no it doesn’t. Even a finding of Not Guilty in an actual trial is not “exoneration.”
      It simply means that the case was not proven, not that it did not happen.

      Re: “The only ties to Russia that were found were very old business related dealings”
      Uh, not true. I am sure you remember, for example, the infamous Trump tower meeting.

      And there were many, many more . . .

      https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Exonerated = absolved of wrong doing after consideration of the case. Yes, exonerated. The only thing people were charged with was lying about contact with Russians over business deals in the past. That dead horse still didn’t move.

        Like

      2. LMAO, the Moscow project??? It even starts off with a bold lie that the report established collusion. Mueller stated QUITE clearly that none was found. Damn, dead horse still didnt move.

        Like

        1. @Bobr
          The report found PLENTY of evidence of collusion but no smoking gun – nothing that would prove Trump’s personal criminal behavior beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, that is different than exoneration. Simple really.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Your eyes are brown. You know what that means. The DOJ had the report reviewed by numerous unbiased outside sources INCLUDING Mueller’s own team to determine FOIA content and findings. Barr had no influence in those reviews. The DOJ stands by its fidindings.

            Like

        2. @BobR

          Re: “Your eyes are brown. You know what that means.”

          Actually, I have no idea what that means. I suppose coming from you it is some sort of grade school or scatological insult?

          Like

  2. Collusion (actually conspiracy as there is no legal definition of collusion) was not LEGALLY proven. There was a lot of anecdotal evidence, but nothing provable.

    Obstruction, on the other hand, was cited 10 or more times in the report. And there’s the rub. We shall see after the judge reviews the unredacted report.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s