House Dems are trying to hold Barr in "contempt" for....Upholding the Law

Understood.

Ok even if you believe Mueller laid out a case for impeachment for obstruction of justice...without using the words "grounds for impeachment"...why was Mueller so insanely incompetent as to not explicitly state so in the report? Why all the semantic kabuki theatre verbal dancing?

Do you have any idea why he did not simply state, as Starr so easily did in his Starr report... "grounds for impeachment..."

After all, I would think Starr's report would be the standard roadmap for any similar special counsel seeking grounds for impeachment of a sitting president. Seeing as Starr's report led directly to an impeachment vote, Mueller had the crib notes right in front of him.

Why didn't Mueller follow the obvious roadmap? Why not state the grounds for impeachment explicitly instead of the numerous innuendos? I think you know, but do not want to state the obvious answer. 

One of the possible 2 answers makes no sense, and the other is plainly obvious to anyone but a deluded hack.

That is correct..it is not the job of a detective in the USA to clear someone of a crime. Either the detective arrests you, or you go home, because you are innocent by default in the USA.

If they cannot arrest you because of your privilege, then they send a report to someone who can arrest you and explicitly states the reasons why you would have been arrested. Because you cant arrest someone without a crime. Nor can you impeach someone without a crime. You impeach presidents in the USA for high crimes and misdemeanors.

You impeach a president in RUSSIA because orange man bad is Your political opponent.  

This probably isn't a concept a non-American can swallow easily.

You said that Mueller concludes there was nothing worthy of indictment.

This is straight up false - Mueller has explained why the president was not accused of a crime; and it is because Justice department guidance prevented him from doing so.

Actually I don't even care about that anymore, and I will concede to your pointless argument.

I still stand by the fact that Mueller found no Impeachable high crimes or misdemeanors, simply due to the fact that he never said the phrase "grounds for impeachment"

It's like asking a detective if you are under arrest for a possible crime... and Mueller essentially let the suspect walk away by not stating the phrase impeachable offense.

Stating "low crimes" and "almost misdemeanors" isn't enough for impeachment in the USA.

Perfect.

So you concede what you said was untrue.

I want you to explain why.

Youre sitting there at a computer desk, faced with a choice of saying something f that was true - and instead you opted to say something that was objectively untrue.

I’m interested in exactly what part of your thought process lead you to decide that while you could tell the truth - lying was a great way to defend your position.

Let’s also specifically point out that claiming that he found no grounds for impeachment is factually untrue - and explicitly contradicted by both the report and Muellers own comments. What you’re saying is objectively untrue.

Most of the Dems and TDS Rhinos in Congress do not want to start impeachment process.  They agree with Pelosi, who is actually being smart about not seeking it, but they also do not want to silence the few that do want to start impeachment.  Those people think he has broken the law, and keep stating it, but it would never be proven in court or during impeachment.  The Dems that do keep up the sherade of saying he broke many, many laws and it is laid out in the Mueller report.  This gives the media things to talk about, and to continue to talk about until the end of his term, then it will start all over when he is elected again, and will keep people on the track of hating him.  

She knows this because it will just blow up in Dems face, and be worse off when he is found not to have committed an impeachable offense, therefore less of a chance at winning the Dems take the next election. It will be more wasted time, just like the past 2 1/2 years.

At the time I was thinking indictments meant you have cleared the bar for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I was mistaken in my thinking of that. A special counsel can indict anyone for low crimes and almost misdemeanors apparently.

I did a complete word search for both the word impeachment and the phrase grounds for impeachment. You have access to the same public Mueller report. Enlighten me as to why that phrase is not there.

Oh but I think Trump has figured out that he can push for impeachment using tweets to egg on the most radical wing of the regressive left to help implode the left wing party. After all, the radical socialist left isn't exactly known for having a thick skin when it comes to Trump.

You say that they found no illegal conduct that was grounds for impeachment.

The report explicitly stated they would have said so were no indictable illegal conduct.

Mueller explicitly stated that as the president could not be indicted - he could not accuse him of crime.

This means your claim that the absence of accusation is proof of lack of evidence of crime is objectively false.


It’s so obviously and explicitly false to anyone who has any information at all - it can only be presume to willfully and deliberately dishonest.

You must have known your claim was untrue - yet said it anyway. This is actually an important point here: you lied on purpose despite knowing it is an obvious lie. Why would you so brazenly lie and continue to lie  in front of everyone, knowing it is easily and trivially provable that it was a lie?

Conceded. I concede that Mueller would have indicted a ham sandwich if he was allowed to.

Now answer me why Mueller never brought up a list of impeachable offenses as Starr did.

Mueller explained he could not accuse the president of committing a crime.

Mueller explained that it had not committed a crime - they would have said.


Thus: claiming that the Mueller report containing no exoneration - and no accusation shows there was no impeachable or indictable conduct is objectively false. You are continuing to lie


At this point it’s fairly obvious that neither facts nor reality matter to you. Only what you can spin to sound reasonable.

That position of Mueller is groundless as he is essentially saying he is not legally allowed to do his job. 

Starr had no problem stating impeachable offenses, as IT WAS HIS JOB to do so...explicitly...to discover grounds for impeachment. Starr was never told that he could not accuse the president of high crimes or misdemeanors.... because Clinton could not defend himself...

If we were to go down the road Mueller states, it would make impeachment virtually impossible, as Congress would not be allowed to accuse a president of an impeachable offense for the exact same reason Mueller stated he could not accuse a president of an impeachable offense.

Mueller's position was that he could not state grounds for impeachment because the president would not have an opportunity to defend himself....well the president still would not have an opportunity to defend himself if a member of Congress stated grounds for impeachment (which many already have)

So either Mueller is right, and all the Congress is in violation of the law, or Mueller is full of it and was looking for excuses as to why he did not do his expected job delivering explicit impeachable offenses to the rabid left.

Mueller didn’t say congress could not accuse the president. that is factually false.

He said a criminal justice investigation is unable to accuse the president.

0.o https://youtube.com/watch?v=a-1_9-z9rbY

“The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office,” Barr said, referring to the Justice Department policy laid out by its Office of Legal Counsel. “But he could’ve reached a decision whether it was criminal activity, but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained.”
Barr added: “I am not going to argue about those reasons but when he didn’t make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as heads of the Department to reach that decision.”
“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller added. “That is the office’s final position.”
Mueller added Wednesday that it would be “unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”

Mueller's team came to believe that making any sort of impeachment referral to Congress also would fall under the category of accusing the president of a crime, according to people familiar with their discussions.

So basically Mueller was just explaining why he was never going to be able to do the job he was appointed to do...find impeachable offenses and state those offenses. This is a stark contrast to the Starr report that explicitly stated impeachable offenses. But the reasoning is still bullshit and hinges solely on DOJ guidelines about being "fair" and has nothing to do with legal bindings. if it was truly "unfair" to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge... then the Congress is similarly "unfair" to hold hearings on impeachable offenses for the same exact reason, which is clearly a bullshit position as well.

Note that Mueller didn't state any legal bindings as to why he COULD NOT DECLARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES...he simply used one word. unfair.

How disappointing to the regressive left. All of their hopes dashed by the use of a single word...unfair...

No he didn't say that about Congress, he just interpreted the DOJ guidelines in a bullshit manner. 

Barr agrees.

What Mueller should and should not have done, and what you (or Barr for that matter) think he was allowed to do is not relevant to what we’re talking about.

We’re talking about what the meaning of the report was.

You are claiming that the report meant the president did not commit crimes worthy of indictment.

The author of the report, and the report itself expressly said this is not what the report meant.

This is my issue - what you said was so flagrantly false - that I cannot fathom why you felt the need to say it.

Doj guidelines are just that. Mueller was allowed to decide what was "fair" or "unfair"

He took the bullshit way out.

What Mueller should and should not have done, and what you (or Barr for that matter) think he was allowed to do is not relevant to what we’re talking about.

You made specific claims about what the Report meant.

Those claims were objectively false - and so blatantly false that you realistically would have known they were false. You intentionally lied

You sat down at your computer or phone - and specifically and intentionally decided to say something that was untrue.

Whether or not your current argument - which is tangential, and largely unrelated to the point I’m talking about - is correct or not, does not in any way, shape or form change what Mueller objectively meant by his report. What was included in the report, and what was stated later by Mueller clearly and objectively stated that the Mueller report categorically did not conclude what you said it does.

You brazenly lies: for no reason, and I’m interested in why you lied.

Are you simply serially dishonest? Where you more interested in trying to sound like you had an argument that you simply ignored what wastrue? Or is what is true largely immaterial to your thinking? That love for the party trumps facts and trumps the objectively reality that we live in, that demonstrates your original claims were flat out false?

It is relevant. Mueller is a traitor to the radical left for swinging in Trump's favor just like Comey for saying Hillary might have been wrong to shred emails after the Russians hacked them.

Mueller let his rabid base down, just like Trump did when he promised his base that Mexico was going to pay for the wall.

Barr clearly said Mueller could have ignored the guidelines and stated indictable offenses without indicting. That's a fact.

Whatever it is you are harping on doesn't hold water. You do know what a guideline is right?

It’s not relevant.

Whether Mueller should or shouldn’t have claimed the President should have been impeached does not change the fact: that according to both the report - and Mueller himself - the report does not conclude there was nothing worthy of prosecution.

You lied.

You’re continuing to lie.

You keep lying.

Is Barr lying when he said this in the article?

I don't think so, but it is typical PAR for the course for the rabid regressive left to reword differences of opinion as lies.

All part of the toolbox in the Alinsky rules for radicals to silence your political opponents. Everyone who disagrees is a liar or a racist or whatever overused hackneyed trope is popular with the rabid left.

If Barr claims Mueller exonerated Trump because he didn’t specifically accuse him of a crime: then yes he is lying - just as you are currently

As I have said repeatedly - only to be ignored - The report and Mueller explicitly they could not accuse the president of a crime was because he felt the rules prevented him from doing so. The report and Mueller express my stated things the other way round - that they would refuse to say he committed a crime, but would definitely say if he did not.

Thus you, Trump, Barr - or anyone - who claims that lack of an accusation in the report is an exoneration is a flat out dishonest liar.

I agree, it's not the job of a Detective to exonerate anyone. They either find criminal offenses, or they do not, There is no in between.

Thankfully, Barr never said that was Mueller's job. I would call you a deliberate liar, but that Alinsky tactic is specifically reserved for the radical regressive left, the smearing censorship terms such as "liar" and "racist."

So why did you lie?

Ironically it's an actual lie to deceptively label someone a liar while knowing that you have no evidence that the person is trying to decieve you. 

Such is the mindset of the paranoid and delusional to assume everyone with a difference of opinion is trying to decieve you.