…was all over AG Barr over not seeing the underlying evidence in the Mueller report before making his decision to not charge? Seems these 560 former prosecutors disagree with her.
“Conduct outlined in the Mueller report would lead to multiple felony charges against anyone else, according to at least 560 former federal prosecutors.”
So do we need the underlying evidence or nah? I suspect these 560 former prosecutors are writing Congress now to tell them to stop any attempt by the Dems to get the underlying evidence.
…was all over AG Barr over not seeing the underlying evidence in the Mueller report before making his decision to not charge? Seems these 560 former prosecutors disagree with her.
“Conduct outlined in the Mueller report would lead to multiple felony charges against anyone else, according to at least 560 former federal prosecutors.”
So do we need the underlying evidence or nah? I suspect these 560 former prosecutors are writing Congress now to tell them to stop any attempt by the Dems to get the underlying evidence.
Not sure what you are getting at here… seems to me they agree with Kamala. What am I missing?
It is a nitpick by him and centers on the underlying evidence, the stuff not written in the report but that which was used to generate the report. He is just trying to draw out some venom. The 560 or so prosecutors also did not read the underlying evidence before making their conclusion. There is little there there. Just as there was little of Harris’ gotcha moment about the evidence discrepancy in Barr’s writing.
I don’t think it was unreasonable of Harris to suggest Barr might have wanted to review the underlying evidence before making such an important decision.
especially when Barr reaches a different conclusion than 560 prosecutors (and Andrew Napolitano) who have only seen the redacted report. Not unreasonable to ask whether he has looked at the docs forming the basis of the report to find out whether it was something that hasn’t been made public that led him to reach a different conclusion.
I don’t think it was unreasonable of Harris to suggest Barr might have wanted to review the underlying evidence before making such an important decision.
I can’t argue reasonableness here in that Barr did say in his letter that it was the “evidence” that caused him to conclude. And he is now on record that evidence was not reviewed.
The OP’s point is now made that the validity of the current letter with a different conclusion by a bunch of prosecutors is as deficient as Barr’s tainted conclusion.
Nitpicking semantic lawyering sucks. But then each and every time Trump opens his mouth I am reminded of the significance of words.
I mean those 560 prosecutors would love to look at all the evidence, but they can only base it on the report and there is enough evidence in the report to support their conclusion. Barr on the other hand had access to all the evidence, but chose not to look. So not exactly a fair conclusion on your part.
…was all over AG Barr over not seeing the underlying evidence in the Mueller report before making his decision to not charge? Seems these 560 former prosecutors disagree with her.
“Conduct outlined in the Mueller report would lead to multiple felony charges against anyone else, according to at least 560 former federal prosecutors.”
So do we need the underlying evidence or nah? I suspect these 560 former prosecutors are writing Congress now to tell them to stop any attempt by the Dems to get the underlying evidence.
Not sure what you are getting at here… seems to me they agree with Kamala. What am I missing?
…was all over AG Barr over not seeing the underlying evidence in the Mueller report before making his decision to not charge? Seems these 560 former prosecutors disagree with her.
“Conduct outlined in the Mueller report would lead to multiple felony charges against anyone else, according to at least 560 former federal prosecutors.”
So do we need the underlying evidence or nah? I suspect these 560 former prosecutors are writing Congress now to tell them to stop any attempt by the Dems to get the underlying evidence.
Not sure what you are getting at here… seems to me they agree with Kamala. What am I missing?
X2???
Did these 560 former federal prosecutors make their conclusions based solely on the Mueller report, and not on any underlying information?
…was all over AG Barr over not seeing the underlying evidence in the Mueller report before making his decision to not charge? Seems these 560 former prosecutors disagree with her.
“Conduct outlined in the Mueller report would lead to multiple felony charges against anyone else, according to at least 560 former federal prosecutors.”
So do we need the underlying evidence or nah? I suspect these 560 former prosecutors are writing Congress now to tell them to stop any attempt by the Dems to get the underlying evidence.
Not sure what you are getting at here… seems to me they agree with Kamala. What am I missing?
X2???
Did these 560 former federal prosecutors make their conclusions based solely on the Mueller report, and not on any underlying information?
I think I see… If they have based it solely on the Mueller report then there would be no reason for Congress to investigate further?
…was all over AG Barr over not seeing the underlying evidence in the Mueller report before making his decision to not charge? Seems these 560 former prosecutors disagree with her.
“Conduct outlined in the Mueller report would lead to multiple felony charges against anyone else, according to at least 560 former federal prosecutors.”
So do we need the underlying evidence or nah? I suspect these 560 former prosecutors are writing Congress now to tell them to stop any attempt by the Dems to get the underlying evidence.
I don’t think it was unreasonable of Harris to suggest Barr might have wanted to review the underlying evidence before making such an important decision.
It may not be SOP, but yes, I think it’s reasonable to expect the person making the charging decision to at least review the report in depth, which is highly doubtful given how poorly he seemed to understand what was contained therein. It’s particularly relevant when said person seems to characterize the findings very differently from the person charged with generating the report.
Also notable is that this is the level the OP and his fellow Trumpkins have to go to deflect from their Boy King’s misdeeds. “Hey look! Five hundred plus former prosecutors all agreed that the report was sufficient to charge him with obstruction of justice, but that crazy Democrat POTUS candidate nobody thought she caught Barr in a trap!”
What is the significance of this letter/memo being signed by former prosecutors? Is it stating that because Trump is POTUS he cannot be charged though were he not POTUS he would be?
OR is it stating the only reason he’s not being charged is because he’s POTUS and the DOJ don’t want to charge for political reasons? But he could/should be charged?
If the former then seems a moot point…he is a sitting POTUS and (presumably) can’t be charged. Whether or not he would be charged otherwise is irrelevant. If the latter then is the effort to convince the DOJ to charge? I highly doubt that will work.
So, is it just more political fodder to stir the hate and provide some red meat to the Dem 2020 candidates?
I suppose the third choice is he’s not being charged because there’s no underlying crime (as discussed ad nauseum by JSA on the legal details). In which case it’s also a moot point.
What is the significance of this letter/memo being signed by former prosecutors? Is it stating that because Trump is POTUS he cannot be charged though were he not POTUS he would be?
OR is it stating the only reason he’s not being charged is because he’s POTUS and the DOJ don’t want to charge for political reasons? But he could/should be charged?
If the former then seems a moot point…he is a sitting POTUS and (presumably) can’t be charged. Whether or not he would be charged otherwise is irrelevant. If the latter then is the effort to convince the DOJ to charge? I highly doubt that will work.
So, is it just more political fodder to stir the hate and provide some red meat to the Dem 2020 candidates?
I suppose the third choice is he’s not being charged because there’s no underlying crime (as discussed ad nauseum by JSA on the legal details). In which case it’s also a moot point.
