William Barr is in deep trouble

Keyser76

Freshman
Apr 7, 2010
11,912
58
0
Lol, laughing ain't crying, he will always have his fanboys on here, who cares if they understand.
 

Keyser76

Freshman
Apr 7, 2010
11,912
58
0
Didn't you promise to show us your tax returns? Where are you on that?
Lol, I ain't hiding nothing skippy, that all you got? And who is "us"? you got a mouse in your pocket or is the lil mean girls for Trump club really a thing on here? Tell ya what, I'll bring a copy to the WVU/Texas game. Winning doesn't seem to be thrilling ya'll too much, did ya read Donnies 58 tweets this morning? Nothing says stable like a manic tweet storm at 5 am, I hear all the firefighters love him!
 

EERs 3:16

Redshirt
Oct 17, 2001
73,677
25
0
Lol, I ain't hiding nothing skippy, that all you got? And who is "us"? you got a mouse in your pocket or is the lil mean girls for Trump club really a thing on here? Tell ya what, I'll bring a copy to the WVU/Texas game. Winning doesn't seem to be thrilling ya'll too much, did ya read Donnies 58 tweets this morning? Nothing says stable like a manic tweet storm at 5 am, I hear all the firefighters love him!
you're a liar...got it...say no more..no need to
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,233
3,298
113
Lol, I ain't hiding nothing skippy, that all you got? And who is "us"? you got a mouse in your pocket or is the lil mean girls for Trump club really a thing on here? Tell ya what, I'll bring a copy to the WVU/Texas game. Winning doesn't seem to be thrilling ya'll too much, did ya read Donnies 58 tweets this morning? Nothing says stable like a manic tweet storm at 5 am, I hear all the firefighters love him!
Obsessing over tweets, good lord. ****, I’m glad I have purpose in my life.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,233
3,298
113
It’s almost like you all think Barr didn’t think this through before hand.
 

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
He thought through it and decided to violate his oath and independence with the president intentionally. He now needs to resign or also be impeached, imo.
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,556
40
31
He thought through it and decided to violate his oath and independence with the president intentionally. He now needs to resign or also be impeached, imo.
How is it not clear to people that congress has no intention of doing its job? Not with the obstruction. Not with Barr. Allowing Acting heads. Giving full tariff control. There is nothing to fear for the executive branch. Resign or impeachment? Pffffffffffttttt.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0

 

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
How is it not clear to people that congress has no intention of doing its job? Not with the obstruction. Not with Barr. Allowing Acting heads. Giving full tariff control. There is nothing to fear for the executive branch. Resign or impeachment? Pffffffffffttttt.
I fully agree and have also stated such. My comments are strictly what I believe should happen, not even close what I think will happen.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,233
3,298
113
How is it not clear to people that congress has no intention of doing its job? Not with the obstruction. Not with Barr. Allowing Acting heads. Giving full tariff control. There is nothing to fear for the executive branch. Resign or impeachment? Pffffffffffttttt.
You mean Congress is playing political football? Get out of town.
 

tjebarr

Senior
Feb 3, 2007
25,122
917
0
Tweet from Susan Glasser (@sbg1)
Susan Glasser (@sbg1) Tweeted:
Ah 2019. Here is the Attorney General of the United States, testifying under oath:
'There is a distinction between saying to someone 'go fire' Mueller and 'have him removed'
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about the critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine the central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations." Robert Mueller, March 27, 2019

Barr testified before Congress on April 9 and was specifically asked "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?" His response was "I don't know."

Clearly he knew Mueller didn't support his conclusion. He had it in writing. Lying piece of ****.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,233
3,298
113
"The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about the critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine the central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations." Robert Mueller, March 27, 2019

Barr testified before Congress on April 9 and was specifically asked "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?" His response was "I don't know."

Clearly he knew Mueller didn't support his conclusion. He had it in writing. Lying piece of ****.
Nothing in that letter says it doesn’t support the report, just that it didn’t fully capture the context...no ****. The report that we’ve all read doesn’t fully capture the context of some of the “instances” and discussions either.

Mueller had his chance to Definitively determine, and he did, that conspiracy didn’t occur. If you all want harangue over obstruction, be my guest. He could’ve said definitively that obstruction occurred as well. He didn’t.

At this point, it’s just noise.
 

tjebarr

Senior
Feb 3, 2007
25,122
917
0
Nothing in that letter says it doesn’t support the report, just that it didn’t fully capture the context...no ****. The report that we’ve all read doesn’t fully capture the context of some of the “instances” and discussions either.

Mueller had his chance to Definitively determine, and he did, that conspiracy didn’t occur. If you all want harangue over obstruction, be my guest. He could’ve said definitively that obstruction occurred as well. He didn’t.

At this point, it’s just noise.

 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,233
3,298
113
Oh look, a tweet. Yay!!!

This is the part where I say: You’ve got him now!
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,233
3,298
113
And you didn’t watch the video, otherwise you’d realize the tweet text didn’t match the “context” of the response.
 

Shirley Knott

Redshirt
May 26, 2017
12,831
0
0
Nothing in that letter says it doesn’t support the report, just that it didn’t fully capture the context...no ****. The report that we’ve all read doesn’t fully capture the context of some of the “instances” and discussions either.

Mueller had his chance to Definitively determine, and he did, that conspiracy didn’t occur. If you all want harangue over obstruction, be my guest. He could’ve said definitively that obstruction occurred as well. He didn’t.

At this point, it’s just noise.
Mueller reverts to the FBI standard-"WE only investigate, WE don't determine"...
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,233
3,298
113
Mueller reverts to the FBI standard-"WE only investigate, WE don't determine"...
They did and determined Collusion and Conspiracy didn’t occur. Don’t give a damn about obstruction as it didn’t hamper the investigation.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,233
3,298
113
Bigtime. Now we're at 'obstruction bobstruction'. It's the Art of the Deal man.
It’s not “now we’re at”. It’s where we’ve always been. Go back and look at my post history on the subject. It was collusion or bust. You all set the bar.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
It’s not “now we’re at”. It’s where we’ve always been. Go back and look at my post history on the subject. It was collusion or bust. You all set the bar.
According to its authorizing document, which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation's scope included allegations that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." It included a criminal investigation which looked into potential obstruction of justice charges against Trump and others within the campaign and administration.
 

tjebarr

Senior
Feb 3, 2007
25,122
917
0
According to its authorizing document, which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation's scope included allegations that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." It included a criminal investigation which looked into potential obstruction of justice charges against Trump and others within the campaign and administration.

Devil Doggie
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,233
3,298
113
According to its authorizing document, which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation's scope included allegations that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." It included a criminal investigation which looked into potential obstruction of justice charges against Trump and others within the campaign and administration.
You all include this **** like it’s a shock and surprise to us. We know. Mueller was provided everything he asked for and it did not hamper him in being able to make a determination on collusion. He made it. I do not care about the obstruction aspect as it didn’t impact Mueller’s ability to conduct the investigation. Enjoy the sound bites, that’s all you’re going to get out of it.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
You all include this **** like it’s a shock and surprise to us. We know. Mueller was provided everything he asked for and it did not hamper him in being able to make a determination on collusion. He made it. I do not care about the obstruction aspect as it didn’t impact Mueller’s ability to conduct the investigation. Enjoy the sound bites, that’s all you’re going to get out of it.
Yeah, I’d downplay obstruction too if I were a Biff supporter. There are a whole pile of them in Mueller’s report that will be further investigated. Your best play is equate obstruction to jay walking.
 
Last edited:

Mntneer

Sophomore
Oct 7, 2001
10,192
196
0
Yeah, I’d downplay obstruction too if I was. Biff supporter. There are a whole pile of them in Mueller’s report that will be further investigated. Your best play is equate obstruction to jay walking.

If obstruction was a given. Then Mueller would have charged. Period.

He didn't because he knows in court it wouldn't be a case. However, he also knows that the House doesn't need as much to seek an impeachment and is leaving that decision up to them. Similar to how Comey claimed that while he knew Hillary broke the law, getting a convection in court would be unlikely.