Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, why wouldn't Trump want the man who exonerated him to testify?

Great question.

You answered your own question. Trump is exonerated. There is no need for questioning.

Even Barr said Mueller didn’t exonerate Trump. Reading is fundamental.

And yet he is! Huh, how about that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Steele lied, no indictment...

Leaks that Michael Isikoff reported was used for the investigation.

Russia must of used Steele to interfere.

Mueller omitted the real results and is a political hack according to the Federalist.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/06/major-report-omission-shows-mueller-either-incompetent-political-hack/

Find other news sources, that one is brainwashing you.

Says the person who believes every lie by the NYT and WAPO...

Anonymous wrote:Steele lied, no indictment...

Leaks that Michael Isikoff reported was used for the investigation.

Russia must of used Steele to interfere.

Mueller omitted the real results and is a political hack according to the Federalist.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/06/major-report-omission-shows-mueller-either-incompetent-political-hack/

Find other news sources, that one is brainwashing you.

Steele lied, no indictment...

Leaks that Michael Isikoff reported was used for the investigation.

Russia must of used Steele to interfere.

Mueller omitted the real results and is a political hack according to the Federalist.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/06/major-report-omission-shows-mueller-either-incompetent-political-hack/

More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.ebc6314258d9

Things ain't looking too good for Trump, Barr, and Rosenstein. Hmmmm....

Anonymous wrote:Barr's lies have put him in peril.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/442260-democrats-schedule-contempt-markup-for-barr-over-mueller-report

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Monday took their first formal step toward holding Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, deepening a feud over special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

The committee scheduled a markup of a contempt citation for Barr over his refusal to provide Mueller’s full report to Congress for this Wednesday morning, setting up an explosive week on Capitol Hill.

The markup, slated for Wednesday at 10 a.m., comes after Democrats gave the Justice Department (DOJ) a 9 a.m. Monday deadline to provide the report as well as the underlying evidence.

I'm sure he is shaking in his boots.
Reality is.... he did not have to provide ANY of the report. He chose to provide all but the redacted parts.
This should go over like a lead balloon.

Barr's lies have put him in peril.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/442260-democrats-schedule-contempt-markup-for-barr-over-mueller-report

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Monday took their first formal step toward holding Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, deepening a feud over special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

The committee scheduled a markup of a contempt citation for Barr over his refusal to provide Mueller’s full report to Congress for this Wednesday morning, setting up an explosive week on Capitol Hill.

The markup, slated for Wednesday at 10 a.m., comes after Democrats gave the Justice Department (DOJ) a 9 a.m. Monday deadline to provide the report as well as the underlying evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, why wouldn't Trump want the man who exonerated him to testify?

Great question.

You answered your own question. Trump is exonerated. There is no need for questioning.

Even Barr said Mueller didn’t exonerate Trump. Reading is fundamental.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, why wouldn't Trump want the man who exonerated him to testify?

Great question.

You answered your own question. Trump is exonerated. There is no need for questioning.

Anonymous wrote:Wait, why wouldn't Trump want the man who exonerated him to testify?

Great question.

Wait, why wouldn't Trump want the man who exonerated him to testify?

Anonymous wrote:Wonder what Trump is afraid of coming out...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/us/politics/trump-mueller-testimony.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

President Trump said on Sunday that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, should not testify before Congress, setting up another confrontation with Democrats over presidential authority and the separation of powers.

On Twitter, he argued that Mr. Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, which found no conspiracy between Moscow and Mr. Trump’s campaign but did not exonerate the president on possible obstruction of justice, was conclusive and that Congress and the American people did not need to hear from Mr. Mueller. “Bob Mueller should not testify,” he said. “No redos for the Dems!”

I don't think he is afraid of anything.
I think this was a response to the claim, by Rep. David Cicilline that Mueller had tentatively agreed to testify before the House on May 15, and then promptly walked back that claim.

Wonder what Trump is afraid of coming out...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/us/politics/trump-mueller-testimony.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

President Trump said on Sunday that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, should not testify before Congress, setting up another confrontation with Democrats over presidential authority and the separation of powers.

On Twitter, he argued that Mr. Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, which found no conspiracy between Moscow and Mr. Trump’s campaign but did not exonerate the president on possible obstruction of justice, was conclusive and that Congress and the American people did not need to hear from Mr. Mueller. “Bob Mueller should not testify,” he said. “No redos for the Dems!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barr has lost trust and his officials cannot be trusted to speak truth regarding what Mueller said during the phone call.

Only Mueller can say in his conversation were. So, why is DOJ trying to stop Mueller from testifying?

The answer is self evident.

Weren’t you the guys telling us it was all going to come out in the mueller report? Didn’t that colossal moron John Brennan tell us that collusion would be the tip of the iceberg?
And now we have the report and it’s no soup for you.
And now you’re saying that the report is wrong and bill barr can’t be trusted and the only righteous man in Washington, Bob Mueller, needs to testify in front of congress to tell us, what exactly?
That you all can’t read and his 2 year report really does exonerate the president?
Can’t wait.

Who can't read?

Muzzling Don McGahn.

President Trump said Friday he expects to decide in the coming week whether he'll invoke executive privilege to prevent former White House counsel Don McGahn from testifying before congressional lawmakers.

"That’ll all be determined over the next week or so," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office during a meeting with Slovakian Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini.

Trump has in recent days indicated he is likely to block McGahn from testifying after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena him to appear before the panel.