It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Any Attempt To Impeach AG Barr Is Obstruction Of Justice

page: 3
71
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2019 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Senator John Cornyn tweeted the same today.


Senator John Cornyn @JohnCornyn · 7h

“Barr is investigating Democrats. Democrats call for Barr to resign. According to Nadler, that’s obstruction of justice!


twitter.com...

It would be great if AG Barr could get these investigations into Spygate/Russian Hoax taken care of and the criminals charged before 2020.




edit on 4-5-2019 by EchoesInTime because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Boy, the Democrats are going at Barr today with everything they can in the news. That congressional committee is a joke, they didn't even read what Barr had gave them, they want the totally full version. If any part of that version gets public that is not in the redacted version, even by the Senators mentioning it in the session, they should be charged with treason for endangering ongoing investigations of a very sensitive high level government nature. Senators can be charged with Treason, they are not protected from that, If I was a congressman I would refuse the unredacted version because you know it is going to be leaked out or discussed with people who do not have security clearance. Automatically guilty, do not collect a paycheck if you pass go.

I think the Congressmen feel they are above the laws that govern them, just like Hillary Clinton felt. Time to dump all of our nations politicians, both sides. I call for this to happen, if it is my reality, I want all of congress recalled. You can't target one side, you have to dissolve it all.

Good thing this is not my reality, my reality is more real than the one we live in.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Sookiechacha

This is what one of the propaganda outlets has to say regarding Barr's possible impeachment:


Barr’s remarks are unlikely to meet the legal requirements to make out a case of perjury or even a false statement to Congress. However, impeachment need not be based on a crime. Pelosi says, in essence, his conduct in misleading Congress disqualifies him from office; the remedy, if one believes that, is impeachment.

...

Impeachment proceedings for Barr should be seriously considered, if for no other reason than it will help lay the predicate for possible impeachment hearings for Trump. It buys time. It educates the public. He will be a blot on his record and his most noteworthy “accomplishment.” And if we want to maintain our constitutional system, it’s a necessity.

Let’s see if Barr blinks and agrees to show. If not, Democrats should have at it.


Get that?

"Impeachment need not be based on a crime... It buys time... He (sic) will be a blot on his record..."

More butthurt and smear attempts are all it is. This would be laughable if it weren't the so called leaders of our country engaging in this activity.

Where's than damned meteor?





edit on 4-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Well, to be fair, Barr did lie under oath. Whether that instance rises to the threshold of impeachment or not is kind of sketchy, especially since Jeff Sessions lied, and wasn't impeached.

If they really want to impeach Barr they need to try harder.
Honest question, what did he lie about? I haven't been following this snip show as closely as I used to (call it burnout if you will), so I am genuinely curious.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

He was right about Clinton 😆



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Well, to be fair, Barr did lie under oath. Whether that instance rises to the threshold of impeachment or not is kind of sketchy, especially since Jeff Sessions lied, and wasn't impeached.

If they really want to impeach Barr they need to try harder.
Honest question, what did he lie about? I haven't been following this snip show as closely as I used to (call it burnout if you will), so I am genuinely curious.


Remember how right after Barr's memo was released, on March 24th, and there were rumors swirling around that Mueller's team was complaining about Barr's summary? Well, Rep Charlie Crist asked Barr if knew what their concerns were, on April 9th. Barr testified under oath "No, I don't".

Well, it turns out that Mueller's office wrote to him on March 25th and again on March 27th. The letters outlined what his office thought was missing and misleading in Barr's summary, and how it could be fixed by releasing the 2 executive summaries, that were prepared for public consumption. So, Barr did know about their concerns, Not only that, but gave Bob Mueller and call and discussed his concerns with him over the phone! Therefore, he was not "candid", honest or completely truthful in his sworn testimony. In other words, he lied.

We only found about those communications on May 1st, so that's why we're all abuzz!




edit on 4-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

He actually did answer true bwaaaaahahahaha
Context and exact words are everything 😆
Crist question//Barr answer



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Basically, what he's saying, while avoiding the truth, is that he overruled Mueller's team's recommendations. He never disclosed to Crist that he received 2 letters and had had a phone call with Bob Mueller, discussing the team's concerns. He knew that they were concerned that the omission was causing the public to be misled, and the letter reiterated their recommendation to Barr to release the executive summaries.

When the Attorney General overrules or disagrees with a Special Counsel's conclusions and recommendations, that kicks off another procedural set of rules, including that he must notify Congress of the disagreements, and the reason for overruling a Special Counsel's conclusions and recommendations.


edit on 4-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No Perjury

No Obstruction

No Schifft 😆




posted on May, 4 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Barr Denied Knowing Mueller's Stance On Report Summary 2 Weeks After Mueller Confronted Him www.news9.com...


Almost two weeks after his call with Mueller, Barr denied knowing where Mueller stood on his characterization of the investigation's findings.

"Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?" Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland asked on April 10 before a congressional committee.

"I don't know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion," Barr responded.


If Bob Mueller didn't support AG Barr's conclusions, then Mueller had been overruled by the AG. And that's what Barr did when he cleared Trump of obstruction, based on Trump's righteous frustration, instead of remaining neutral and passing the issue off to Congress, like Mueller did.








edit on 4-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Barr is Mueller's boss dude.

Get over it.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The committee is for oversight, they don't decide who gets prosecuted or for what charges. Mueller investigation and report made NO CONCLUSIONS on obstruction, so that is the AG's job. Barr didn't have evidence to charge anyone or prosecute. He didn't even have to make the report public because there was no crime. The report was made public anyway.

Barr hasn't lied, the democrats are desperately trying to harm his credibility.

But, it's fun to watch them destroy themselves.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername


Attorney General’s Special Counsel Regulations
www.brookings.edu...

Well, it's a little off topic, but you're wrong about Barr being able to decide on obstruction, when Mueller did not, and referred the issue to Congress.


Our project recommended a fuller grant of independence to special counsel, noting that “[t]he bedrock provision of the Watergate regulation was the pledge of independence to the special prosecutor.” That regulation granted the special prosecutor “full authority” to carry out a complete range of investigative and prosecutorial actions, including grand jury and charging decisions, decisions to contest assertions of executive privilege, and the handling of all aspects of trials and appeals. Importantly, it further pledged that “[t]he Attorney General will not countermand or interfere with the Special Prosecutor’s decisions or actions.”



The Attorney General’s regulations are silent about reporting on impeachment matters. The project report specifically recommended that the provision in the Independent Counsel Act on impeachment reports to the House not be carried forward. At the same time, we made clear that “nothing in [the project’s proposed regulation] prevents Congress from obtaining information during an impeachment proceeding.”



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nothing in Mueller's Letter(s) said Mueller didn't support Barr's "conclusions" 😎

Still no perjury or obstruction 😎

......except maybe ..



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Get over it.


They can't.

Even if Mueller came in and confirmed everything Barr said, they'd shift the goalposts to something else; like the pages were stapled funny.

I mean, I appreciate going down swinging, but this is getting to be beyond ridiculous.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

They can try to impeach the president. Good luck with that.





posted on May, 4 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Well, to be fair, Barr did lie under oath. Whether that instance rises to the threshold of impeachment or not is kind of sketchy, especially since Jeff Sessions lied, and wasn't impeached.

If they really want to impeach Barr they need to try harder.
Honest question, what did he lie about? I haven't been following this snip show as closely as I used to (call it burnout if you will), so I am genuinely curious.


Remember how right after Barr's memo was released, on March 24th, and there were rumors swirling around that Mueller's team was complaining about Barr's summary? Well, Rep Charlie Crist asked Barr if knew what their concerns were, on April 9th. Barr testified under oath "No, I don't".

Well, it turns out that Mueller's office wrote to him on March 25th and again on March 27th. The letters outlined what his office thought was missing and misleading in Barr's summary, and how it could be fixed by releasing the 2 executive summaries, that were prepared for public consumption. So, Barr did know about their concerns, Not only that, but gave Bob Mueller and call and discussed his concerns with him over the phone! Therefore, he was not "candid", honest or completely truthful in his sworn testimony. In other words, he lied.

We only found about those communications on May 1st, so that's why we're all abuzz!





Yep, exactly what this thread is not about...just machination and very twisted people.
What is more of a bother is that there are so many of them here at ATS, and who are so full of boke that it is ruining this site...sad!



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Remember how right after Barr's memo was released, on March 24th, and there were rumors swirling around that Mueller's team was complaining about Barr's summary? Well, Rep Charlie Crist asked Barr if knew what their concerns were, on April 9th. Barr testified under oath "No, I don't".


He absolutely did not lie. He did express his understandable confusion as to what all that crazy doublespeak from Mueller was supposed to mean. His letter was as convoluted as his phone conversation with Barr was. Bizarre desperation. The contortions are boggling. You'd almost feel embarrassed for the deep state and MSM hand-puppets if this wasn't so damn constitutionally freaking serious.

In other news: Barr, I do believe, is the real deal. Heads are gonna roll for once. There's certainly a question of if the highest of the high criminals will pay, but some of those Comey-level traitors are going down in flames. Brennan I think is a real candidate.


The evidence that's public already is clearly damning. I'm guessing that declass and an ungloved IG Horowitz in combination with our bad ass AG Barr is gonna lay a hurting on some deep state goobers. Huber might even turn out to be a real deal and if that's true Orange Is The New Globalist Lackey. MAGA.
edit on 4-5-2019 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Sookiechacha

They can try to impeach the president. Good luck with that.




It looks to me like impeachment proceedings are the only way that "they" can access the complete Mueller report, and other evidence and documentation that they're asking for, based on this:


The Attorney General’s regulations are silent about reporting on impeachment matters. The project report specifically recommended that the provision in the Independent Counsel Act on impeachment reports to the House not be carried forward. At the same time, we made clear that “nothing in [the project’s proposed regulation] prevents Congress from obtaining information during an impeachment proceeding.”



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT




He absolutely did not lie.


Neither did McCabe. He simply wasn't "candid".




top topics



 
71
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join