Discussion: Barr Trumpets 'No Collusion' Before Releasing Redacted Mueller Report

1 Like

after this performance I can see Barr being the fascistgop’s nominee for dictator in 2024. He certainly has the corruption chops needed.

5 Likes

“Barr appears to have hedged his description of “no collusion” slightly on this count, saying that “under applicable law” there would only be a crime if “the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy.””

Which of course no one was saying happened. He is trying to use the law to cover up all the bad things that happened.
Did drump know about the hacks? Did they help coordinate the release of the hacks? Did they cover up the fact that it was Russia and that they knew about it?

7 Likes

Rumor has it that Barr is changing his name to “Roy Cohn.”

7 Likes

Such BS.

If a guy robs a bank, tells you about it, has you help move the money around, and then you help cover up the bank robbery. Your fing guilty.

8 Likes

"Barr appears to have hedged his description of “no collusion” slightly on this count, saying that “under applicable law” there would only be a crime if “the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy.

7 Likes

Barr: drump didn’t help in the act of the hacking therefore no crime regarding that, and since there was no crime he can not possibly obstruct justice so nothing to see there either.

Then of course they spin this flimsy BS to make it sound like they are clean angels, when in fact its all just BS.

4 Likes

That is a legal theory that is at complete odds with the actual law, and with its application for the last half-century or so.

Ask Martha Stewart.
She knows.

5 Likes

I am sure they will imply this new legal theory to everyone. That you have to be found guilty of a crime before you can be charged with any obstruction of justice.

3 Likes

Proof: Barr colluded with Trump. Big time!

2 Likes

Ed Callahan is a former extreme right wing Assistant at the SDNY who quit his job there to become the main coordinator of the GOP’s successful effort to keep then Gov. Sara Palin’s official Governor’s emails (Troopergate) sent on Yahoo to avoid FOIA requests from being released during the 2009 Presidential Campaign. He is a political operative who joined the Trump DOJ immediately after Donald Trump was sworn in as president. It is telling that he is standing behind Barr, who is trying to stonewall the Mueller Report’s text just as Sara Palin’s emails were stonewalled until well after the Election.

5 Likes

The Barr conclusion: unfortunately, despite a storied legal career, Bob Mueller knows shit all about the law.

2 Likes

It’s never been about “collusion.” This is a fantasy, promulgated by Trump and his abettors. It’s about “obstruction of justice” and just because an OLC policy prevents the indictment of a sitting President, we, the people, through the House of Representatives still have recourse to vote a bill of impeachment. It is now my sincere hope that the House does so, even though there is little or no hope of conviction in Mitch McConnell’s Senate. Let’s air the dirty laundry in public.

1 Like

The longer this goes on the more I get the same sick feelings that I had in the Nixon/Watergate days.

This feels like a poorly written theater presentation: The most transparently corrupt president in our history spends over two years denying that anything happened (when, transparently, it did), his hand picked AG (serving as personal attorney) takes other a month spinning the results of a special counsel investigation that he refuses to release (confidentiality is sacred. Oh . . . And Nothing Happened!), Trump declares himself to be completely innocent, and the expectation is that we’re supposed to just stroll off with stupid smiles on our faces.

Until the full report gets pried out of the administration’s hands, nothing we hear is believable.

3 Likes

Hey, wait a minute! Since Nixon didn’t actually commit the Watergate break-in himself, he couldn’t possibly be guilty of a coverup or obstruction of justice.

Wow! Everybody’s been wrong all these years!

4 Likes

Which, of course, means something entirely different than “there would only be a crime only if…”

2 Likes

I ‘red flagged’ it, because according to AG ‘double chins’, it’s Assange’s fault that the Trump family became addicts and only he should pay the price.

2 Likes

:musical_note:
God damn, the pusher
God damn, I say the pusher
I said God damn
God damn the pusher man

You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
With the love grass in his hand
Oh but the pusher is a monster
Good God, he’s not a natural man
:musical_note:

2 Likes

I’m troubled by a niggling detail regarding this, and also wondering why no-one in the media is calling it out?

If you’ve read the report, you know that Mueller made it exceedingly clear that there was indeed “no collusion” because… he wasn’t using so-called “Collusion” as the standard, since there is no legal foundation defining crimes using that term. He instead used “conspiracy” as his standard.

In other words. It’s fucking semantics and Barr is knowingly playing games with it. The public is so conditioned now, and so focused on this “non-entity” label “collusion” that they think it’s synonymous with “conspiracy” (which apparently isn’t the case in legal terms), while the actual label, Conspiracy, is what the SCO was focused on. Mueller makes it CLEAR AS DAY in his report that COLLUSION wasn’t even considered at all.

So yeah, Barr repeats ad nauseam “no collusion” and gets away with it because technically, he’s telling the truth, but it’s not even actually a thing… more importantly, it never was a thing related to this case, except in the mind and rhetoric of our twisted president*…

Now, if someone said, OK, but what about CONSPIRACY, then Barr would have to answer that there was a great deal of evidence of conspiracy, but not enough to rise to the level where they could likely convict of conspiracy, or “intent to conspire” beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury… however there was plenty of evidence pointing to Conspiracy.

He also never mentioned that Mueller based his lack of indictment activity on the DOJ policy of “you can’t indict a sitting president” and he didn’t want to bring charges for something that wouldn’t be prosecuted. IOW, he (appropriately) left it to Congress to decide, since impeachment is the best, first pathway to the “indictment” of a president. After all, if you have enough to indict, you certainly have enough to impeach, right? Taking into consideration the entire body of evidence, perhaps Congress would see that impeachment is warranted.

Does that mean there was no conspiracy (aka ‘collusion’)? Nope. On the contrary, the report clearly states there was, but not necessariy rising to a criminal conspiracy.

Repeating “no collusion” over and over, is about as meaningful in this context as declaring “no hot dogs with mustard!” over and over. It has little actual relevance to the Special Council’s investigation…

It’s misleading and dishonest on Barr’s part. But in the short time he’s been AG, that pretty much sums up his entire tenure so far…

Well, that goes directly to the extradition of Assange, and the charges that he’s guilty of participating in the hacking that acquired the stolen emails handed to Trump & Co…

So, if Assange (“the publisher”) is found guilty of hacking those accounts… would that then make the “Conspiracy” prosecutable?

Given that this prosecution would also be overseen by AG Barr, Assange may get a pass after all since his testimony could end up indicting this president*…

1 Like