Again a mischaracterisation. Mueller didn't refuse, he believed he was bound by department policy that he wasn't allowed to and that indeed Barr's assessment contravenes this policy. In any case, you didn't answer the question about why you (uncritically) accept Barr's assessment. Why is that?

You do this all the time and it's annoying. You never answer questions.

You asked seven questions. I answered many of them. But I never answer questions? Your lies are annoying.

I’m not a lawyer, but Barr’s assessment makes sense: that little problem of proving corrupt intent, especially in an investigation with no underlying crime, is difficult if not impossible. With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Barr is the top legal advisor in the United States. Excuse me while I defer to his judgement.

So why do you (uncritically) accept Mueller’s judgement? Why do you discount and discredit Barr’s?

Challenging you to compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary is not an accusation. To make it easier compare Mueller's own summary to Barr's and get back to us.

I have. So what’s partisan about Barr’s judgement again?

Challenging you to compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary is not an accusation. To make it easier compare Mueller's own summary to Barr's and get back to us.

I have. So what’s partisan about it again? — NOS4A2

Are they in agreement? Does Barr accurately represent what Mueller said?

Here is one of many comparisons that can be found online:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/mueller-report-william-barr-excerpts.html

According to Barr’s testimony to Congress, Barr talked to Mueller on the phone and asked whether his letter (so-called summary) was inaccurate. Mueller said “No”. Is Mueller wrong?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?459922-1/william-barr-testifies-mueller-report-senate-judiciary-committee&start=2455

Your party may be imploding a little bit:

1. During the campaign Donald Trump promised that Mexico was going to pay for the wall.
2. The US Department of Defense is diverting an estimated $3.6 billion in military construction funds to help build the wall.
3. It appears Donald Trump once again lied to the American people.

Are you concerned? If not, share with the taxpayer your logic?

As I’ve previously stated I’m an unaffiliated voter. Do you know what that means?

Hey, he tried. What more can you ask for?

Fair enough. But it begs more questions:

1. Trump used the Mexican border wall payment promise to help get elected.
2. He was largely unsuccessful at that campaign promise.
3. Donald Trump said he was going to drain the Swamp from such broken promises.
3. Arguably he is now part of the Swamp team.

Honestly does that concern you?

He was largely unsuccessful at getting Mexico to pay for the wall, but through pressure of the Mexican president, the threat of tariffs, he effectively made Mexico into an ally in the illegal immigration crisis. They are cracking down on illegal immigration, using their own resources, and apparently it’s working very well. Thanks, Mexico!

Once again fair enough. But, Trump's deportation numbers are down compared to the previous administration.

What’s wrong with that?

Well to be clearer, most supporters including independent moderates like myself never had an issues with separating families as a deterrent to illegal immigration. The concerns would be two-fold:

1. Last year why didn't he just hold a news conference and explain to the public his rationale for tough love treatment/deterrent, and impart his deep empathy of such treatment. He could have sold it better to the public, but it can't seem to separate public relation skills versus negotiation and diplomacy.

2. Since he sold to the voters he would enforce our immigration laws , it appears contradictory since his deportation numbers are below the previous administrations numbers.

As I’ve previously stated I’m an unaffiliated voter. Do you know what that means? — NOS4A2

As an apparent libertarian your political views align with the current administration to a large degree. Trump is not truly conservative, liberal, or even libertarian for that matter. The best description of his politics might simply be ‘dictator wannabe’. He’ll do anything to gain power, basically.

Hey, he tried. What more can you ask for? — NOS4A2

He lied. We can ask for less empty promises and threats, because it diminishes the office and makes us look like idiots to the rest of the world.

I must say your argument is very persuasive...

It's kind of funny ( and ironic) his base is all against political correctness and you hit the nail on the head accordingly...

Rather than compare the summaries you take Barr's word for it. You are either incapable of or unwilling to see how their accounts differ. Either way there is no point in continuing.

You asked seven questions. I answered many of them. But I never answer questions? Your lies are annoying. — NOS4A2

You answered yes that you were aware of several documents and statements yet nothing in your answers reflect actually knowledge of them. That's why I followed up with a substantive question that you now say if because he's the expert on this matter. I already anticipated that with another question: what if reasonable people disagree? Well?

I think we are going to be hearing a lot more about the unitary executive theory and the extent and limits of presidential power. Trump seems to think that he can say and do whatever he wants and although Barr's position is more nuanced it is not so different. The first battle on this front will be their response to subpoenas and the request for information. So far they have ignored them.

One of the issues that will be addressed is with regard to obstruction of justice. Barr claims that the primary statute does not apply to the president. Whatever the merits of his claim I think we will see legislation proposed on the question of presidential powers and limits. Whether or not such legislation will be passed depends on whether Republicans remain in the majority in the next election and whether the next president will be a Democrat or Republican. A Republican majority will be far more likely to pass such legislation with the prospect of a Democratic president.

The key paragraph from the Ukraine call:

I would like you [Zelensky] to do us a favour though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … the server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney-General (William Barr) call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Here's the rundown on CrowdStrike. In short, Trump believes that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was actually behind the whole Wikileaks of DNC emails fiasco. And this is straight out of the Kremlin playbook - Russia planted the idea that really, the alleged Russian interference in the Presidential campaign was the work of the Democrats. Then all these Alt-right and Q-ANON nutcases picked it up along with all their other conspiracy theory rubbish. And Trump is desperate to believe it! He so much wanted that to be true, so he can turn the whole Mueller investigation back on the Democrats. So desperate, that he's had Rudy Giuliani charging around the Ukraine trying to find 'evidence' of what was only ever a disinformation campaign in the first place. That's what's lead to this whole situation - hoist by his own petard.

Rather than compare the summaries you take Barr's word for it. You are either incapable of or unwilling to see how their accounts differ. Either way there is no point in continuing.

Barr’s letter wasn’t a summary. He went over this in his testimony.

You told me Barr was partisan. I asked how. You said Barr’s “summary” was different. That’s neither proof nor even an argument in regards to Barr’s partisanship. There is no point in continuing with those who can only accuse.

I think we're seeing the end of the Trump presidency. — Wayfarer

More likely wishful thinking. (I'm right there wishing with you, though :smile: )

You answered yes that you were aware of several documents and statements yet nothing in your answers reflect actually knowledge of them. That's why I followed up with a substantive question that you now say if because he's the expert on this matter. I already anticipated that with another question: what if reasonable people disagree? Well?

I’m not a lawyer, but Barr’s assessment makes sense: that little problem of proving corrupt intent, especially in an investigation with no underlying crime, is difficult if not impossible. With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Barr is the top legal advisor in the United States. Excuse me while I defer to his judgement.

So why do you (uncritically) accept Mueller’s judgement? Why do you discount and discredit Barr’s?

As an apparent libertarian your political views align with the current administration to a large degree. Trump is not truly conservative, liberal, or even libertarian for that matter. The best description of his politics might simply be ‘dictator wannabe’. He’ll do anything to gain power, basically.

Someone has to turn this ship around. It looks like Trump is the one doing it.

He lied. We can ask for less empty promises and threats, because it diminishes the office and makes us look like idiots to the rest of the world.

We’ve had enough of the eloquent lawyers speaking in glittering generalities and pontificating on our shared humanity. All they could do was talk and be politically correct. Meanwhile the rest of the world bled us dry and we became a shell of ourselves. The office was diminished and sold to the highest bidder a long time ago.

There is a DOJ investigation going on to understand the activities of U.S. and foreign intelligence services as well as non-governmental organizations related to the 2016 election and beyond. This investigation is multi-faceted and large in scope. The man heading up that investigation, John Durham, has his sights on Ukraine. The Dems, the CIA, and the deep-state republicans are sweating. This whistleblower charade is their last-ditch effort.

The whistleblower report was gossip, deep-state dinner theater. Zero first hand knowledge. It mentions names that Trump doesn’t, and even cites twitter and the NYT. It’s a CIA charade.

I’m not a lawyer, but Barr’s assessment makes sense: that little problem of proving corrupt intent, especially in an investigation with no underlying crime, is difficult if not impossible. With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Barr is the top legal advisor in the United States. Excuse me while I defer to his judgement.

So why do you (uncritically) accept Mueller’s judgement? Why do you discount and discredit Barr’s? — NOS4A2

Again, you didn't answer it and are just repeating yourself. What if reasonable people disagree? What then? How do you suggest to resolve this on the particular subject of corrupt intent? And while you're at it, what's the legal standard to impeach? Is corrupt intent required? In other words, is it even relevant?

As to Mueller's judgment; this is just a silly attempt to distract from your lack of arguments. What's Mueller's judgment on this matter again? Oh right, he doesn't have one...

The whistleblower report was gossip, deep-state dinner theater. Zero first hand knowledge. It mentions names that Trump doesn’t, and even cites twitter and the NYT. It’s a CIA charade. — NOS4A2

Talk about uncritically accepting a story.

Meanwhile the rest of the world bled us dry and we became a shell of ourselves. — NOS4A2

This is another of Trump's taking points. I dont expect you actually believe this, but on the off-chance that you do: in what way is America "bled dry"? I thought the economy was doing great?

Before Christmas, I’m thinking. He’s becoming an electoral liability.

Before Christmas, I’m thinking. He’s becoming an electoral liability. — Wayfarer

He's probably not going to be removed, Wayfarer. He has powerful and seasoned allies.

Yeah all those people in the State Department, and Justice, and the Intel community, and greater Republican Party - they all love him so much, don’t they? They could never think of being any more disloyal to him, than he has been to them. They’ll all take a bullet for him, throw themselves under a bus for him, won’t they. They owe it to him.

Lindsay Graham has already outlined the strategy. The NRA is consulting. What does the State Dept. have to do with it?

Oh yes, let’s all quake before Lindsay Graham and Wayne LaPierre. What titans they are. Lindsay’s strategy: ‘hey, it’s a big fat nothingburger’. What genius. How could anyone withstand that rhetorical firepower.

Oh yes, let’s all quake before Lindsay Graham — Wayfarer

Pretty much.