Re: Kamala Harris. All I Can Say Is, If Two Or Three of The Other Democratic Senators Had Yielded

[TrollBuster9090]

Last edited Thu May 2, 2019, 02:41 AM - Edit history (1)

...If two of three of the other Democratic Senators had yielded their time to Harris, Bill 'Bullfrog' Barr would be in jail now. I hope they'll bear that in mind next time. Kudos to Harris for doing an incredible job.

[Chin music]

1. All the Ds did a great job. Together we are INDIVISIBLE.

Trust and believe.
Take the Pledge. Be Better.

[hlthe2b]

2. I'm sure "little lindsey" would have found a way to block that from happening...

Why the hell can't SC launch a damned effective primary challenge to that cretin...?

[dem4decades]

9. I heard his approval numbers among Republicans in SC went from 49% to 70% after he became a Trump

shill.

[ms liberty]

3. So other, some more senior, Senators should have

Yielded their time to the junior Senator from California? Uhh, no. Good or not, it just doesn't work that way.

[coti]

4. The video wasn't as good as I hoped it would be

His answers to the two main points I heard her trying to make I thought made sense:

1) He didn't review the source evidence- not the factual findings- for the report because he assumed the factual findings in the report were true, which, if not making a charge, is probably the way to do it (though his analysis of what is and isn't obstruction was completely absurd and obviously biased); i.e., he didn't evaluate the credibility of the factual findings- presumably only those in favor of charging- because the conclusions he drew assumed they were true. Arguably, with there being (supposedly) evidence (such as re intent) cutting both ways, credibility of evidence needed to be evaluated.

2) As for Rosenstein being conflicted to make decisions, he was supervising the whole investigation for over a year, after Sessions recused himself. If he had a conflict that wouldn't allow him to make decisions, hopefully it would have gotten raised in that time. I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect Barr to start looking at Rosenstein as if maybe he shouldn't be involved in the investigation months and months later.

[Perseus]

6. The issue with Rosenstein is not about supervising the investigation

The issue with Rosenstein was about him making decisions about obstruction of justice when Rosenstein himself is a witness. By being a witness he could not contribute with the so called summary, and of course that Barr should have known that, although he has shown to have a very selective memory.

He could not remember if someone in the WH had "suggested" he investigate "someone".

Barr MUST BE IMPEACHED, then placed in a nice cell, but don't clean it, leave the rats in there, he will be good company to them.

[coti]

7. With any disqualifying conflicts he shouldn't have been supervising anything at all

"Making decisions around obstruction of justice" is treated just the same as supervising the investigation day-to-day, because that supervision has an enormous impact on the outcome of the case.

But yes, I agree that Barr should be impeached. His legal "analysis" is totally dishonest and he's acting as Trump's lawyer, not as the AG.

[Dirty Socialist]

5. I wouldn't have asked Barr

If he read the report. I would have assumed that he would have read it. Silly me!

[watoos]

8. Too bad they didn't yield to Hirono

Harris did ok too. Where was Al Franken?
I feel bad for Leahy, I can’t understand him.

[LakeArenal]

10. Al Franken would have done a great job.

Alas, he was not there.

[question everything]

11. no!

[ROB-ROX]

12. CALIFORNIA'S PREVIOUS ATTORNEY GENERAL

The stupid toad Barr was out of his league talking to this lady. This women can out think and out do any GOP nitwit. They all are quarter midgets compared to this lady.......She only gets better with TIME.....