It was actually Barr who saved Trump from obstruction of justice charge. He based his defense on the interpretation of the statuses
the following (actually very elegant) way:
In order for a person to obstruct justice, there must be some justice to obstruct. Hence, if the alleged obstructer did not
commit the underlying crime being investigated, then his so-called obstruction did not impair justice; it just impaired a fruitless
investigation...
Obstruction of justice is defined:
an act that "corruptly or by threat or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or
endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."
Rudy Giuliani said Trump's threat to Michael Cohen's father-in-law was not obstruction of justice necause no one can argue Trump
was trying to influence Cohen's potential testimony to Congress with this threat.
There should be a crime before there is an obstruction. If the President hasn't committed a crime he isn't committing obstruction. He also
isn't obstructing if he is operating under the powers given him by the Constitution (if and only if his intent is not corrupt).
Trump's tweet said to "watch Cohen's father in law', insinuating father in law might be guilty of crimes himself. False public accusations of criminal activities, especially when those accusations can influence
witness testimony against you can be defamatory. But whether this Trump's statement legally qualifies as a threat is more a
difficult question to answer. While definitely questionable and an immoral statement, it can be formally viewed as a heads up about
the father in laws activities to the law enforcement.
Corrupt or politically motivated prosecutors and the obstruction of justice charge
In hands of corrupt prosecutors "obstruction of justice" charge became kind of universal opener, allowing to charge any
person with the process crime at will. Real dream statute for Lavrenti Beria. As such it is a very dangerous instrument and it
requires "check and balances" against abuse. So, generally, if there is no underling crime or individual was entrapped,
his attempt to impede investigation should not be considered as the obstruction of justice.
This is clearly the case for RussiaGate, which was an attempt to entrap Trump with ties to Russia using FBI and CIA agents
(Moscow tower project originated in FBI and Sater was an FBI mole, Papadopoulos entrapment was probably conducted as a joint
operation of CIA , FBI and MI6, Carter Page was FBI mole from the very beginning, Veselnitskaya meeting was originated by a person
probably connected to MI6 -- Rob Goldstone). I think that Barr expressed the same sentiment, only in more politically correct form.
But this is not the case for other Trump's alleged crimes, including financial one.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is a process crime, consisting of obstructing prosecutors or other
(usually government) officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting
the course of justice.
Obstruction also applies to overt coercion of court or government officials via the means of threats or actual physical harm, and
also applying to deliberate sedition against a court official to undermine the appearance of legitimate authority.
Generally, obstruction charges are laid when it is discovered that a person questioned in an investigation, other than a suspect,
has lied to the investigating officers.
However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent can be used to allow any person questioned by police merely
to deny answering questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so. (In such a case, the investigators may
subpoena the witness to give testimony under oath in court, though the witness may then exercise their rights, for example in the
Fifth Amendment, if they believe their answer may serve to incriminate themselves.) If the person willfully and knowingly tried to
protect a suspect (such as by providing a false alibi) or to hide from investigation of their own activities (such as to hide their
involvement in another crime), this may leave them liable to prosecution. Obstruction charges can also be laid if a person alters,
destroys, or conceals physical evidence.[1] Obstruction charges may also be laid in unique situations such as refusal to aid a
police officer, escape through voluntary action of an officer and refusing to assist prison officers in arresting escaped convicts.
Obstruction can include crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. It is
misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office. Most commonly it is prosecuted as a crime for perjury by a non
governmental official primarily because of prosecutorial discretion.
Notable examples
Bill Clinton was impeached by the United States House of Representatives in 1998 for obstruction of justice charges based on
allegations Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit. This made
Clinton only the second U.S. president to be impeached after Andrew Johnson. He was later acquitted by the Senate.
Richard Nixon was being investigated for obstruction of justice for his alleged role in the cover-up of the break-in at the
Watergate hotel during his re-election campaign in 1972. Although it is unknown whether Nixon had foreknowledge of his re-election
committee's "dirty tricks" campaign against Democratic presidential candidates that led to the break-in, he was aware of it after
the fact and paid money to keep the participants quiet.
Former Vice-Presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice in March 2007 for his role in the
investigation of a leak to reporters by Richard Armitage of the identity of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame. His prison sentence was
commuted by President George W. Bush in July 2007, so that Libby was no longer required to serve a two-and-a-half-year prison
sentence, but was still required to pay a $250,000 fine, be recorded as a convicted felon, obey probation terms, and be disbarred.
Donald Trump pardoned Libby on April 13, 2018.
Conrad Black was convicted of obstruction of justice in July 2007[2] for removing 13 boxes containing financial records from his
office in Toronto after they had been sealed by a court order, returning the boxes a few days later.
Barry Bonds was convicted of obstruction of justice on April 13, 2011 for his testimony in front of the grand jury during the BALCO
steroid scandal.[3] The conviction was later overturned by an appellate court.[4]
In United States v. Binion, malingering (feigning illness) during a competency evaluation was held to be obstruction of justice and
led to an enhanced sentence.[5]
Hillary Clinton and obstruction of justice
"Anticipatory obstruction of justice" has recently appeared on the horizon in cases such as US v. Wolff.[6] However, the
operative section, 1519, passed in 2002, has thus far languished in quasi-obscurity. Titled “Destruction, Alteration or
Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations and Bankruptcy,” the provision was passed under Section 802 of the Sarbanes–Oxley
Act of 2002. The text of the statute is relatively straightforward:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsified, or makes a false entry in any record,
document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any
matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under Title 11, or in relation
to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Aside from Section 1519's 20-year maximum prison sentence (no small benefit to the government in big-dollar fraud loss cases such
as Wolff), its primary appeal is that it uniquely removes certain key proof burdens from prosecutors’ collective shoulders. Prosecutors charging violations of Section 1519 must still establish either of the following:
The accused knowingly did the obstructive act with the intent to affect the investigation or proper administration of any
matter within the jurisdiction of any U.S. department or agency or any case filed under Title 11; or
The accused knowingly did the obstructive act at least “in relation to or in contemplation of any such matter or case”.
Not on the list, however, is the requirement that prosecutors demonstrate to the finder of fact which specific “matter or case”
the accused attempted to obstruct. That is a significant benefit to the government.[7]
While there can be multiple motivations for obstruction, Barr asserted that the president
has constitutional authority to supervise proceedings and if a proceeding was not well
founded , groundless ,based on false accusations, the president does not have to sit there
and allow it to run its course. The president can terminate the proceeding and this would not
be corrupt intent because he is being falsely accused and he would be worried about the
impact on his administration.
Barr ends with 'and we now know he was being falsely accused'.
Apart from the legal case politically it would be understood in the same way by the Trump
voters. The charge of obstruction is false if the original accusations were false.
"... If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a " witch hunt ," and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case - that would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding out the truth. ..."
"... But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent - accused of a murder you didn't commit. Not only that, imagine you knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn't commit. ..."
"... Imagine that this cloud of the murder you knew was never committed hangs over you, month after month, until it drags on for years. It's distracting you from your ability and authority to do the job in the public's interests. But every time you speak publicly to defend yourself and proclaim your innocence, the media and your political enemies declare you to be a liar and say you are obstructing the investigation. ..."
"... If Mueller is right, then Trump knew from the start that he didn't conspire with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Nonetheless, he became the target of a supposedly independent investigation which, it turned out, included top team members who expressed personal disgust and hatred for him as well as a desire to take him out. ..."
"... This cloud of supposed collusion, a crime that never happened, hung over Trump month after month until it dragged on for years. For someone who's innocent, it would obviously begin to look like the fix was in. ..."
"... In the end, Trump wasn't the liar on this major point; instead, his critics were the ones who were sorely mistaken . They accused the president of the worst sort of treachery but, according to Mueller, Trump was telling the truth all along when he said there was no collusion with Russia. ..."
A friend of mine who is - I'll just say it - a devoted Trump-hater recently was talking about
President Trump 's obstruction and asked what I thought.
After listening to his views, I told him there's plenty about which to criticize the president, as is true of any political leader.
But the obstruction
charge doesn't make logical sense. I used an analogy to explain why. When I finished, this friend still hated Trump -- but surprised
me by saying, "Nobody's ever explained it that way. That makes sense. You should write about it."
Obviously, I don't kid myself that this analogy will "make sense" to everyone. But after listening to both sides and looking
at the publicly available evidence, here's how I see it :
If you were a person of some authority and murdered someone, and prosecutors set out to investigate, and if you spoke publicly
against the investigation, proclaiming your innocence and calling the probe a "
witch hunt ," and if you worked behind the scenes to use your influence to fire the lead investigator on the murder case - that
would seem to be a pretty clear case of obstruction of justice. You, as a guilty man, would be trying to stop authorities from finding
out the truth.
But imagine, on the other hand, that you are innocent - accused of a murder you didn't commit. Not only that, imagine you
knew there was no murder to begin with because you saw the victim walking around after the supposed murder. Then, imagine you found
yourself the target of the murder investigation by a team that included people who had declared you to be their sworn enemy and
expressed strong desires to take you out. Then, imagine this team that included biased investigators began leaking false information
to the national media to implicate you in this crime that you knew you didn't commit.
Imagine that this cloud of the murder you knew was never committed hangs over you, month after month, until it drags
on for years. It's distracting you from your ability and authority to do the job in the public's interests. But every time you speak
publicly to defend yourself and proclaim your innocence, the media and your political enemies declare you to be a liar and say you
are obstructing the investigation.
It begins to look like the fix is in.
Under these circumstances, you wouldn't be human if you didn't possess a desire to stop a potentially conflicted investigation
by your political enemies into a crime that was never committed - least of all by you . Since you are innocent, your attempts to
stop an unfair investigation could be fairly seen as an attempt to see justice done, not to obstruct it.
If special counsel Robert Mueller is correct and
there was no coordination of any kind between any American
and Russia, then the latter analogy seems more applicable to President Trump than the former.
If Mueller is right, then Trump knew from the start that he didn't conspire with Russian President
Vladimir Putin . Nonetheless, he became the target of a
supposedly independent investigation which, it turned out, included top team members who expressed personal disgust and hatred for
him as well as a desire to take him out.
Extensive information about the probe, some of it false, was leaked to and reported by an unquestioning national press. Every
time Trump spoke up for himself and -- according to Mueller, in the end -- rightly declared his innocence, his enemies accused him
of being a liar and cited nonexistent, secret evidence.
This cloud of supposed collusion, a crime that never happened, hung over Trump month after month until it dragged on for years.
For someone who's innocent, it would obviously begin to look like the fix was in.
Trump's alleged conversations about trying to switch out Mueller, as documented in interviews with the special counsel, could
fairly be interpreted as attempts to seek justice, not to obstruct it.
The story would be entirely different, of course, if Trump had turned out to be Putin's agent -- and for two years, I and many
others fully suspected that could be the outcome of the Mueller probe, based on all the leaks and reporting. But it wasn't the case.
Those who think Trump is unfit for office, or who otherwise oppose him, might carry more weight if they publicly acknowledge
that they chased their tails for two years and, when they finally snagged it, realized they hadn't captured the enemy. Then, they
could more credibly move forward to another focus, such as targeting the Trump policies they find objectionable.
In the end, Trump wasn't the liar on this major point; instead, his critics were the ones who
were sorely mistaken . They accused the president of the worst sort of treachery but, according to Mueller, Trump was telling
the truth all along when he said there was no collusion with Russia.
"... Perhaps what Pelosi understands is that what Americans want Congress to focus on is bread and butter issues and a forward-looking agenda. Gallup polling released in November of 2018 found that 80% of voters said health care was extremely or very important to their vote; the Russia investigation, the nexus of many of the impeachment calls against President Trump, was 12th among issues polled, sitting at just 45%. ..."
Upon taking control of Congress in 2006, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi declared that
impeachment of then-President George W Bush was " off the table
."
Her remarks dismayed many critics of Bush, who continued to press Pelosi and other
Democratic leaders to pursue impeachment against the Republican president. They pointed to the
Bush administration's warrantless surveillance, the illegal war in Iraq, and the use of
torture.
Articles of impeachment were authored by Ohio Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich, who
netted a
small group of co-sponsors for his resolution. But as we all know, no impeachment
proceedings were ever launched against Bush, and the administration's officials escaped any
accountability from its successors. President Obama
famously said he preferred to "look forward as opposed to looking backwards" when it came
to accountability on issues like torture and wiretapping.
To many onlookers, the approach by Democratic leadership towards President Donald Trump
seems to be a case of deja vu. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly rebuffed calls to
begin impeachment proceedings against the president. "I'm not for impeachment Impeachment is so
divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and
bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's
just not worth it,"
she said in March .
Compared to Bush, the logic of impeaching Trump is far less straightforward. There are real
concerns about whether Trump is violating the emoluments clause and his contempt of Congress,
but neither of these issues compare to Bush's illegal behavior, which severely violated the
rights of millions of Americans and others. Although House Democrats are frustrated by Trump's
attempt to block their subpoenas and investigations of his financial dealings across the world,
they do not have a clear-cut case of high crimes and misdemeanors that could set the stage for
a successful impeachment – the same way warrantless surveillance or waterboarding
presented one.
Impeachment is a sort of last resort the legislative branch has to deploy against a
president who is acting outside the boundaries of the law. It is important for Congress to
never declare that impeachment is off the table – as Pelosi did in 2006 – because
it sends a message to the executive branch that its members cannot be held legally accountable.
That sort of impunity would be antithetical to our system of checks and balances.
But what Pelosi is arguing this time around is much more reasonable. She supports
Congressional oversight and investigations into the Trump administration and the president's
personal financial dealings as a way to expose possible wrongdoing. And she is leaving the door
open to impeachment if the facts suggest that it is necessary.
These investigations can inform the American public about the way Trump is choosing to
govern and allow them to make an educated choice in the 2020 election, without setting off what
could be an extremely polarizing and contentious impeachment proceeding that is unlikely to
succeed.
It is true that the president is stonewalling some of these investigations, and that's one
reason some Democrats are warming to an impeachment inquiry that they believe would allow them
to get at information they currently can't obtain.
Yet within the halls of Congress,
the votes don't seem to be there for an impeachment, according to the House's third-ranking
Democrat, South Carolina's Jim Clyburn. Meanwhile, the US Senate is run by Kentucky Republican
Mitch McConnell, who would never go along with an effort to remove the president.
Opening an impeachment inquiry would start a process many Americans would see as an
attempt to circumvent the 2020 election – denying voters the ability to have the final
say on Trump's conduct as president. Americans simply aren't ready for as divisive a
process as trying to impeach the president; even many who are critical of Trump don't support
impeaching him. A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in April
found that only 37% of Americans support opening an impeachment inquiry.
Perhaps what Pelosi understands is that what Americans want Congress to focus on is bread
and butter issues and a forward-looking agenda. Gallup
polling released in November of 2018 found that 80% of voters said health care was
extremely or very important to their vote; the Russia investigation, the nexus of many of the
impeachment calls against President Trump, was 12th among issues polled, sitting at just
45%.
This doesn't mean that Congress shouldn't investigate the conduct of the Trump
administration or the president's personal financial dealings as they relate to the public
interest. It is important for the public to have all the relevant information in order to make
educated choices in the upcoming election. And if Trump continues to stonewall these
investigations, voters have every right to punish him for it.
It is also well past time for Congress to pass reforms that could prevent abuses of
presidential power in the future. While then-Judiciary Committee chair Michigan Democratic
Representative John Conyers declined to start impeachment proceedings against Bush, he did introduce
legislation to establish a commission on war powers and civil liberties; sadly, it did not
go anywhere. If Pelosi is serious about investigating and holding the executive branch
accountable, she could help set up a similar commission that could help create reforms in the
law to rein in an unaccountable executive in the future.
But ultimately it is voters who will decide President Trump's fate. The votes in Congress
aren't there for impeachment, and Americans aren't convinced that it is justified based on the
facts. Pelosi is wise to avoid invoking this nuclear option, which would only further polarize
a country that is increasingly at odds with itself over political differences. We have a
democratic process to empower Americans to choose their leaders. Attempting to short-circuit
the 2020 election would harm America's democracy, not enhance it.
The disgraceful team of partisan investigators hired by Dirty Cop Robert Mueller just disgraced themselves
further through a series of unforgivable leaks to the fake news media.
Obviously angry over the fact President Trump is so innocent they could not even come up with a way to frame him,
"Some of Mueller's investigators," the far-left
New York
Times
reports, "have told associates that
Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more
troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated."
Told associates
*wink-wink* -- Oops, I had no idea *wink-wink* it would make the front page of the
Times
! *digs toe in dirt*
These sleaze bags are also
leaking
(through more "associates!") to the far-left
Washington Post.
"Members of Mueller's team have complained to close associates that the evidence they gathered on obstruction was
alarming and significant," the
Post
reports. "'It was much more acute than Barr suggested,' said one person,
who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity."
Of course, and just like the entire Russia Collusion Hoax, none of these complaints makes a lick of sense because
it was not just Barr who signed off on the four page Mueller Report summary that cleared Trump of collusion and
obstruction; Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also signed off on the summary and Rosenstein, if you recall, is
the original Dirty Cop who appointed Mueller in the first place.
What's more, when you are talking about a special counsel, this kind of exoneration is almost always
unprecedented. In the past, these investigations have always hit pay dirt, always -- by hook or crook -- found a way
to justify their existence, which was no doubt Mueller's plan when he hired only partisan Democrats to join his hunt.
But these Dirty Cops found nothing on Trump, nada, bupkis -- a big, fat, stinkin' zero.
Oh, sure they found some old crimes no one cared about until the accused went to work for Trump.
Oh, sure they found a few Russians who spent a few bucks on Facebook ads, most of them in opposition to Trump.
Oh, sure they destroyed the life of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn by threatening his son over a contrived process
crime.
Trump, however, is so freakin' innocent they couldn't even rig a frame for him, so now Mueller's Dirty Stinkin'
Cops are pouting and bitter and vengeful and violating every known legal ethic to smear Trump in the court of public
opinion by way of the sleaziest kind of innuendo imaginable.
You see, these Dirty Cops know how it works
Every legal ethic and everything that makes America
America
says that if an individual has not been
charged with a crime, the legal system does not download on that person, does not release information about the
investigation against this person, does not try to makes a case against this person's reputation in the court of
public opinion.
If you recall, this is what disgraced former FBI Director James Comey did to Hillary Clinton. This is why everyone
believed she was going to be charged over her email server -- because Comey downloaded on her, publicly laid out her
crimes before telling us she would not be charged.
No matter what you think of Hillary or the crimes she committed, no matter how unjust the decision was to let her
off the hook, if someone is not going to be charged it is unethical and un-American for a lawman to do what Comey did
-- to lay out his case against her.
So what Mueller's Dirty Cops are trying to do here is put Trump and Barr in a Catch 22.
You see, if Barr does the right thing, if he is an honorable attorney general (and American), when he does release
what he can of the 400 page Mueller Report next week, other than the top-line findings (no collusion, no obstruction)
nothing else will be made public about Trump or anyone else who was not charged with a crime.
We don't do that in this country.
But now that Mueller's Dirty Cops have left this trail of slime, the Russia Collusion Hoax can live on forever!
Don't you see, there's more! More, I say! More!
In a tweet late Wednesday, Trump's legal counsel, Rudy Giuliani, got it exactly right after the leaks hit the fake
media.
"The NYT story about unspecified troubling findings in report is as accurate as the NYT saying Mueller's staff
didn't leak," Giuliani wrote. "Who leaked this Mueller's unethical staff. This proves they are Angry Democrats who
couldn't find or create evidence to support collusion or obstruction."
During a Fox News appearance, he went even further:
[These leaks] makes the point that we've been making for two years: Despite all of the media reports about how
holy and sanctimonious the Mueller team is, they are a bunch of sneaky, unethical leakers, and they are rabid
Democrats who hate the president of the United States.
And I can't tell you how much false information they leaked during the course of the investigation. How many
people are going to be indicted that didn't get indicted? How many -- how many blockbusters were there? Starting
with Papadopoulos and ending with Cohen, who turns out to be a serial liar. I mean, how could you have any
confidence in this?
If only through his presence and victory, Trump has accomplished an invaluable service in exposing the Justice
Department, the F.B.I., the corporate media, and the intelligence community as an un-American cabal of venal,
power-mad, entitled thugs with no respect for the rule of law or the Constitution.
Never again will these sleazy bastards be trusted, because they cannot be trusted. The corruption, the arrogance,
the incompetence, the desire to rule over us, to overturn elections that do not come out their liking
From Iraq to Trump -- these monsters can all go straight to Hell.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter
@NolteNC
.
Follow his Facebook Page
here
.
In summarizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian election interference,
Attorney General Bill Barr said there were two major questions the investigation examined:
whether there was coordination or collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian
government, and whether President Donald Trump sought to obstruct justice. The report did not
establish coordination or collusion.
That lack of proof on collusion is one of the reasons for not pursuing an
obstruction-of-justice prosecution, Barr said: There was no underlying crime from Russia
connections for Trump to cover up.
While Barr said this wasn't the only factor that played into the decision about whether to
prosecute, he explicitly cited it as one of them.
In the 24 hours after the Barr letter was released, we noticed a lot of cable TV debate
about whether someone can or can't be tried for obstructing justice if there is no underlying
crime. Put another way, can you obstruct justice if there was theoretically nothing to
obstruct? We decided to take a closer look.
We checked with 11 legal experts to nail down answers. Essentially all of these experts
agreed that obstruction can indeed be prosecuted without an underlying crime -- and has been in
the past, notably in the case of Martha Stewart.
Several experts added, however, that there are some important distinctions between these
historical precedents and what Mueller found. So the debate (sorry) will likely
continue.
What Barr wrote
What is obstruction of justice? It refers
to "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice," including
"proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees." The relevant type
in the Trump example is likely "obstruction of criminal investigations."
Three elements are generally required for a conviction on obstruction of justice: the
existence of a pending federal judicial proceeding; the defendant's knowledge of this
proceeding; and the defendant's corrupt intent to interfere with, or attempt to interfere with,
the proceeding.
Ultimately, Barr and Rosenstein determined that the three elements that are required to
prove obstruction were not met.
"So you can, in this situation, instruct someone to lie?" Feinstein asked.
"We felt that in that episode the government would not be able to establish obstruction,"
Barr replied. "If you look at that episode . . . the instruction said 'Go to [ Rod ]
Rosenstein, raise the issue of conflict of interest and Mueller has to go because of this
conflict of interest.' So there's not question that whatever instruction was given to McGahn
had to to do with conflict of interest . . . To be obstruction of justice the lie has to be
tied to impairing the evidence in a particular proceeding. McGahn had already given his
evidence and I think it would be plausible that the purpose of McGahn memorializing what the
president was asking was to make the record that the president never directed him to fire. And
there is a distinction between saying to someone, 'go fire him, go fire Mueller' and saying
'have him removed based on conflict. '"
At this point, Feinstein, speaking for all of us, asked, "And what would that conflict
be?"
To which Barr responded, "The difference between them is that if you remove someone for
conflict of interest, another person would be presumably . . . appointed," failing to
acknowledge that had McGahn complied with Trump's request, the president would have likely
continued to find "conflicts of interest" with every new special counsel.
Maybe Barr, the nation's top law-enforcement official, just isn't qualified to judge! "I'm
not in the business of determining when lies are told to the American people," he told Senator
Richard Blumenthal at another point in the hearing. "I'm in the business of determining when a
crime has been committed." And if the lie is the crime? Look, we're splitting hairs.
Elsewhere in the hearing, Barr:
Claimed Trump's attempt to get McGahn to remove Mueller wasn't corrupt ;
Said Trump's dislike of the investigation in general was a legitimate reason to
try to
fire Mueller ;
Said that
"[Mueller's] work concluded when he sent his report to the attorney general. At that point,
it was my baby;"
Special counsel Robert Mueller could be testifying before Congress as early as May 15, and
there is no shortage of questions as Attorney General William Barr takes jabs at his handling
of the Russia investigation. CNN's Jessica Schneider takes a closer look at their decades-long
friendship, meanwhile Erin Burnett discusses with David Priess and David Rivkin. #CNN#News
everyone is a little too friendly ...press & government should not be friendly, law
enforcement & government should not be friendly ...its not good, it leads to "friendly
favors", when there should be justice & clarity
"... I felt that I should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller's own language in doing that. ..."
"... (The letter was, in fact, strategically leaked to the Washington Post Tuesday night, right before Barr's Wednesday morning Senate testimony.) ..."
"... The fact that Mueller's staff was leaking like a sieve to the Times , the Washington Post , and NBC News does not mean they were sharing with the attorney general what the Times described as "their simmering frustrations." ..."
"... Barr decided that his way of making disclosure -- the findings followed three weeks later by the full report -- was superior to the proposal of Mueller's staff that their own summaries be released. You can disagree with Barr on that, but that's not grounds for a perjury claim. And it raises a point Barr made in his Senate testimony: The regulations do not require any disclosure of the special counsel's report (which is supposed to be a confidential Justice Department document, as is typical of Justice Department deliberations over whether to charge or decline to charge). The decision of what, if anything, to disclose, and how that should be done, is exclusively the attorney general's, not the special counsel's. Mueller's job was to make a prosecutorial judgment -- to charge or decline to charge obstruction. Mueller failed to do that. Since Mueller didn't do his own job, isn't it a bit presumptuous of his staff (through press leaks) to tell Barr how to do his? ..."
"... And now Democrats are using the letter as the launch-pad for The Big Lie that Barr lied, calculating that if they say it enough times, and their media collaborators uncritically broadcast these declarations, no one will notice that they never actually refer to the transcript of what they claim is the false testimony. ..."
"... "Don't know. Mueller is a black hat; on the Dem/ Globalist team - a fixer. ..."
The attorney general's testimony was clearly accurate...
I originally thought this was too stupid to write about. But stupid is like the plague
inside the Beltway -- one person catches it and next thing you know there's an outbreak at
MSNBC and the speaker of the House is showing symptoms while her delirious minions tote ceramic
chickens around Capitol Hill.
So I give you: the Bill Barr perjury allegation.
We are all entitled to our own opinions. But are we entitled to our own facts? Daniel
Patrick Moynihan's bon mot says no, but Washington makes you wonder. Like when spleen-venting
about the supposedly outrageous, unbelievable, disgraceful invocation of the word "spy" to
describe episodes of government spying is instantly followed by a New
York Times story about how the spying -- er, I mean, court-authorized electronic
surveillance -- coupled with the tasking of spies -- er, undercover agents -- green-lighted by
a foreign spy -- er, intelligence service -- was more widespread than previously known.
If I were a cynic, I'd think people were trying to get out in front of some embarrassing
revelations on the horizon. I might even be tempted to speculate that progressives were
trotting out their "Destroy Ken Starr" template for Barr deployment (which, I suppose, means
that 20 years from now we'll be reading about what a straight-arrow Barr was compared to
whomever Democrats are savaging at that point).
The claim that Barr gave false testimony is frivolous. That is why, at least initially,
Democrats and their media echo chamber soft-pedaled it -- with such dishonorable exceptions as
Mazie Horono, the Hawaii Democrat who, somehow, is a United States senator. It's tough to make
the perjury argument without any false or even inaccurate statements -- though my Fox News
colleague Andrew Napolitano did give it the old college try.
As recounted by The Hill , he twisted himself into a pretzel, observing -- try to follow
this -- that the attorney general "probably misled" Congress and thus "he's got a problem" . .
. although this purported dissembling didn't really seem to be, you know, an actual "lie" so .
. . maybe it's not a problem after all. Or something.
I assume that in his black-robe days,
Judge Nap would have known better. When meritless perjury cases are thrown out of court, judges
are often at pains to explain that the questioner who elicited the purportedly false testimony
bears the burden of clarity; the terms of the question dictate the evaluation of the answer. In
this instance, Barr's April 9 testimony before the House Appropriations Committee was true and
accurate; if a misimpression set in after, it is because the relevant questioning by
Representative Charlie Crist (D., Fla.) has been ignored or distorted.
Moreover, because perjury is a serious felony allegation, judges and legal analysts never
rely on a general, selectively couched description of the testimony -- much less on the likes
of Speaker
Nancy Pelosi's because-I-said-so refrain that Barr "lied to Congress" and "that's a crime."
The testimony must be examined, with emphasis on the words that were used (the questions as
well as the responses), and anything we can glean about the witness's demeanor (stingy? dodgy?
forthcoming?).
The mindless, no-need-to-check-the-record allegation against Barr goes like this: The AG
testified on April 9 that he had no idea why Special Counsel Mueller was upset over the way
Barr's March 24 letter described Mueller's report; but, in fact, Barr knew exactly why
Mueller was upset because he had received the latter's
March 27 letter complaining about Barr's missive.
Now, here is the exchange on which the perjury allegation is based, with my italics
highlighting key portions:
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, General, that members of the special counsel's
teamare frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your
March 24th letter . . . that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the
report's findings . Do you know what they're referencing with that?
BARR:No, I don't. I think -- I think . . . I suspect that they probably
wanted more put out , but, in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries or
trying to summarize because I think any summary, regardless of who prepares it, not only runs
the risk of, you know, being under-inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would
trigger a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await everything coming out at
once. So I was not interested in a summary of the report. . . . I felt that I should
state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use Special Counsel Mueller's own language
in doing that.
When we look at the actual words of this exchange, Barr's testimony is clearly accurate. And
I don't mean accurate in the hyper-technical, Clintonesque "depends on what the definition of
is is" sense. I mean straightforward, unguarded, and evincing a willingness to
volunteer information beyond what the question sought.
Crist did not ask a general question about Mueller's reaction to Barr's letter; he asked a
specific question about the reaction of Mueller's "team" to the Barr letter's description of
"the report's findings." Regarding the March 24 letter's rendering of this bottom line --
namely, Russia meddled, Trump did not collude, and Mueller failed to resolve the obstruction
question -- Barr said he did not know what Mueller's staff was complaining about.
Barr has known Mueller for nearly 30 years; when Mueller was the Criminal Division chief in
the Bush 41 Justice Department, he reported to Barr, who was attorney general. It should come
as no surprise, then, that Barr was not getting his information from Mueller's staff; he
was getting it from Mueller directly . Nor should it come as any surprise that, before
releasing his March 24 letter to the public, Barr gave Mueller an opportunity to review it; nor
that Mueller declined that opportunity -- given that he knows Barr well, and knew Barr would
not misrepresent the report (especially given that the report would soon be public).
Three days after Barr announced the report's conclusions, Mueller sent his letter,
undoubtedly written by his staff. Mueller could simply have called Barr on the phone, as he has
done a million times; but the staff's partisan Democrats wanted a letter, which makes for much
better leak material. (The letter was, in fact, strategically leaked to the Washington Post
Tuesday night, right before Barr's Wednesday morning Senate testimony.) The day after
receiving Mueller's March 27 letter, Barr called Mueller and pointedly asked whether he was
claiming that Barr's March 24 letter articulating Mueller's findings was inaccurate. Mueller
responded that he was making no such claim -- he was, instead, irritated by the press coverage
of Barr's letter. Mueller suggested the publication of additional information from the report,
including the report's own executive summaries, to explain more about why he decided not to
resolve the obstruction issue. But he did not claim Barr had misrepresented his findings. (See
Barr's Senate testimony , starting at 39-minute mark.)
Again, Barr's contact was with Mueller, not Mueller's team. His exchanges with Mueller gave
Barr no basis to know about any objection to his description of the report's findings -- from
Mueller or anyone else. The fact that Mueller's staff was
leaking like a sieve to the Times , the Washington Post , and NBC News does not mean they
were sharing with the attorney general what the Times described as "their simmering
frustrations."
That is what Barr said in answer to Crist's question about the report's findings. But to
avoid the misimpression that he was parsing words deceptively, Barr volunteered his perception
that Mueller's staff wanted more information from the report to be publicized. That was
consistent with what can be inferred from Barr's phone call with Mueller on March 28. And it
was not news: Crist's questions were based on the aforementioned press accounts of leaks from
Mueller's staffers. They were irked at the bad press they were receiving over Mueller's
abdication on the question whether there was a prosecutable obstruction case, and they had
groused that there was much more to their report than Barr's letter conveyed. Of course, Barr
never disputed this; as he repeatedly explained, he undertook to render the conclusions, not
summarize the entire 448-page report.
Barr decided that his way of making disclosure -- the findings followed three weeks
later by the full report -- was superior to the proposal of Mueller's staff that their own
summaries be released. You can disagree with Barr on that, but that's not grounds for a perjury
claim. And it raises a point Barr made in his Senate testimony: The regulations do not require
any disclosure of the special counsel's report (which is supposed to be a confidential Justice
Department document, as is typical of Justice Department deliberations over whether to charge
or decline to charge). The decision of what, if anything, to disclose, and how that should be
done, is exclusively the attorney general's, not the special counsel's. Mueller's job was to
make a prosecutorial judgment -- to charge or decline to charge obstruction. Mueller failed to
do that. Since Mueller didn't do his own job, isn't it a bit presumptuous of his staff (through
press leaks) to tell Barr how to do his?
Could what happened here be more obvious?
Mueller received fawning press for two years on the expectation that he would slay Trump.
Then, on March 24, Democrats and the media learned not only that there was no collusion case
(which was no surprise) but that Mueller had been derelict, failing to render a judgment on the
only question he was arguably needed to resolve: Was there enough evidence to charge
obstruction? Journalists proceeded to turn on their erstwhile hero. This sent him reeling, and
it brought to full boil the anger of Mueller staffers, who wanted to charge Trump with
obstruction based on the creative (i.e., wayward) theory they had been pursuing -- namely, that
a president can be indicted for obstruction based on the exercise of his constitutional
prerogatives if prosecutors (including prosecutors who are active supporters of the president's
political opposition) decide he had corrupt intent. The staffers put their pique in a letter
that could be leaked, and Mueller was sufficiently irked by the bad press that he signed it.
And now Democrats are using the letter as the launch-pad for The Big Lie that Barr lied,
calculating that if they say it enough times, and their media collaborators uncritically
broadcast these declarations, no one will notice that they never actually refer to the
transcript of what they claim is the false testimony.
Democrats are unnerved. Attorney General Barr is pursuing an inquiry into the Obama
administration's decision to conduct a foreign counterintelligence investigation of the Trump
campaign. The time is now, they figure, to reprise the Ken Starr treatment: the ad hominem
withering of an accomplished, highly capable official -- in this instance, one who is daring to
press questions that would have been answered two years ago if an incumbent Republican
administration had spied on -- er, monitored -- a Democratic presidential campaign.
Don't know. Mueller is a black hat; on the Dem/ Globalist team - a fixer.
His report shows they were not investigating these last 2 years but rather composing the
"Insurance Plan".
Mueller smoked up the origins of the Russian collusion - failing to clarify the Misfud
story that FBI claimed was the foundation of the investigation. He did not investigate the
Steele Dossier or clean up the FISA abuse issue. His team failed again to examine the DNC
server and rather just parroted the Crowdstrike propaganda.
The Mueller team used the fake leaked News stories as a substitute for investigating the
facts.
"Don't know. Mueller is a black hat; on the Dem/ Globalist team - a fixer.
His report shows they were not investigating these last 2 years but rather composing
the "Insurance Plan".
Mueller smoked up the origins of the Russian collusion - failing to clarify the Misfud
story that FBI claimed was the foundation of the investigation. He did not investigate the
Steele Dossier or clean up the FISA abuse issue. His team failed again to examine the DNC
server and rather just parroted the Crowdstrike propaganda.
The Mueller team used the fake leaked News stories as a substitute for investigating the
facts."
Rod Rosenstein is toast!! .....another one bites the dust!
Rosenstein resigns yesterday...AG Barr testifies in front of the Senate tomorrow....it
is all over for the dems folks! Then comes the Comey report and his indictment within a week,
then the FISA declass, then the IG Report which will be MASSIVE!!!, then the Huber Report
with his 720 prosecutors working on the 90,000 indictments that will become unsealed!
These people are going to hang. The coup has been stopped. The deep state is surrounded.
OUR BORDER IS BEING MANNED WITH OUR MILITARY EVEN AS YOU READ THIS! Trump is building
the Wall! The entire thing is going to be seen on public TV this summer. Trump said you will
see:
The FISA declass...which will take down the House! That means Obama, Hillary, Comey,
Lynch, Rosenstein, Biden, all of the perps who you already know in the FBI, Brennan ,
Clapper, McCabe, Mueller, the democrats, Waters, Schiff, Nadler, Swalowswell, Nadler, Pelosi,
the lousy lying MSM...all of them! And lots more!
Trump said he is going to declass everything! The FISA, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE!!!
Everything! Trump is going after them, and they are surrounded. No place to hide, Hillary!
No place to hide, Obama and all of your creeps. You are going to jail, or the hanging tree.
One way or another, you are done!
FISA declass.
OIG Report Horrowitz.
302's
*HUGE COMEY REPORT COMING OUT IN TWO WEEKS! INDICTMENTS COMING!!- Prosecutor Joe
Digenova! Leaking classified information to the press, lying to the FISA COURT!!
... ... ...
The FISA court Judges have just turned over the documents showing that they were lied
to by Comey, Rosenstein, etc.
New Spygate Revelation: The Corruption Is Leading Right Back To The 'Scandal-Free'
Obama White House
Trump is closing every avenue of escape, money laundering, pedo stuff, criminal CEO's,
politicians, etc.
Trump has ALL of Hillary's emails, including those that Obama had
Trump will declass 911, JFK, aliens, who Obama really is, his citizenship status of the
country he was born in, everything!
Trump has Wikileaks sources....; )) ...soon he will have Assange
Trump has all of their communications....; )) ALL OF THEM!
Obama had thousand of Hillary's emails (49,000) and ran the entire op from his office
in the White House
Hillary-"if Trump gets in we will all hang!", as she screamed at everybody on election
night!
... ... ...
*Bill Maher just turned on Adam Schiff....says "he is stalking Trump!"...
*Washington Times reporter Bob Woodward says "the Steele Dossier is a bunch of
garbage!"
Easy to surmise the goal of the Mueller SC was to smear the Prez with shadow Russian
accusations thru the 2018 elections, then submit a report with obstruction scenarios that the
Dem House could use to impeach.
Mueller's team was angry that AG Barr outfoxed them and concluded 'NO Obstruction' based
upon the Law.
The Dem House is now stuck. Barr deflated their impeachment plan.
All they have left is: rant, pant and hyperventilate for the cameras.
I think the allegation made against Barr will be basically that he "lied' by omission
.
According to the Trump-deranged Russophobes,
Barr could have made a case for impeachment if he had used the redacted
parts of the report instead of hiding them (as Mueller's letter is deceptively used to
claim),
and if Barr had not been "biased" in favor of Trump.
The allegation is a fabrication of course, when even the redacted parts were available to
senior committee members.
However, from a PR point of view, thanks to the limited reasoning power of many
citizens,
Trump/Barr is supposedly expected to "disprove" hypothetical negatives to the public
[i.e. that redacted non-public parts of the report could not have been used toward
impeachment,
that Barr was not "biased",
and that nothing in the published report could properly be used by Congress to further
"investigate" toward impeachment when anything could be used by Congress as
"suspicious" warranting further "investigation".]
All of the allegations comprise just another "pack of lies", fake issues,
a smokescreen diversion away from the brazen theft.
Unfortunately, the paranoia and prejudices will continue to be manipulated to serve
Disagree that Kamala painted a tight corner. She is all about histrionics, dramatic
accusations to appear "tough". She is the sado-masochistic Senator inquisitor.
If you examine her questions they are usually irrelevant. As here. The point of the SC was
to examine the evidence, not the AG. The AG reviews the report presented to determine if it
is sufficiently salient.
AG Barr is a careful thinker. Kamala is a 'gotcha' inquisitor. AG Barr was looking at the
trap Kamala was setting and figuring out how not to step into it while also answering
direct.
Note Kamala cuts off her victims' answer whenever they avoid her traps.
These are the actions of people who are deathly afraid of the investigations AG Barr is
conducting. Probably because those investigations threaten to catch multiple high-ranking
politicians and other government officials in a treasonous campaign to destroy the elected
president.
EDIT: In fact some of the very people mounting this anti-Barr campaign might even be
implicated in the illegal scheme to conspire with multiple foreign governments against the
elected president.
Judge Nap sure did a 180 on his loyalties didn't he? He used to be a Trump supporter. Now
he goes out of his way to **** on him and twist facts to make it look like Trump is doing
something nefarious. FOX is in the process of destroying itself. You'll know it's complete
when they fire Hannity and Tucker. The Murdoch sons suck ***!
"... 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. ..."
"... This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017). ..."
"... Mueller lost any credibility that he might have had after he proved he was not interested at all in the Steele Dossier, along with the DNC/Hillary Campaign financing it. Talk about collusion with a foreign agent! ..."
I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and
executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to
remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had
marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can
be released publicly.
Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public
consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide
these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.
As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the
afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report
accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. 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 new public confusion about
critical aspects of the results of our investigation.
This threatens to undermine a central
purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public
confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May
17, 2017).
While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is
appropriate for public release - a process that our Office is working with you to complete that
process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate
the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions
about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for
public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter.
Mueller lost any credibility that he might have had after he proved he was not
interested at all in the Steele Dossier, along with the DNC/Hillary Campaign financing it.
Talk about collusion with a foreign agent!
Despite Robert Muller's (one the US DARK STATE/WAR STATE's special Henchman) 2 years, 50
millions dollar extensive investigations effort, he has not uncovered any evidences that will
exonerate Donald Trump, and prove his innocence, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Donald Trump
did not colluded with the Russians and did not obstructed justice.
This means undeniable complicity in Donald Trump's part, in colluding with the Russians
and obstructing justice.
Attorney General Barr should extend Special Prosecutor Robert Muller's mandate to
Investigate Donald Trump's collusion with Communist Leaders to influence the 2020
Election.
There is a vast amount of evidences that Trump has COLLUDED the communists countries such
China, N. Korea, Vietnam and Russia, during his two years in Office, in order, to influence
public opinions and attempt to swing the results of 2020 elections.
Trump has frequently visited those COMMUNIST countries, and meet with North Korean
Dictator Kim Jun-En for multiple times.
Trump has dinner with the Commie Emperor/Dictator Xi, in Argentina, and talk with him on
the phones many times.
And Trump has meet in Russian Dictator Putin, many times.
In short, the overwhelming evidences of Trump's COLLUSION with those COMMUNIST countries
to influence the 2020 election, leaves NO room for doubt.
Therefore, the IMPEACHMENT of Donald Trump must proceed, immediately, from Muller's
conclusion of his investigations.
A length JAIL TERM is appropriate for his BRUTAL BETRAYAL of THE TRUST, the American
People, has placed upon him.
And it is time to restore Hitlery as our lawfully elected POTUS, in the White House.
* * *
For the Trumpards, who might be too stupid, to get this post as a Satire , let me state
explicitly that this a Sarcastic Satire . So no more stupid comments on my state of mind.
Sarcastic - Someone who is sarcastic says or does the opposite of what they really mean in
order to mock or insult someone.
Satire - a technique used by writers to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of
an individual or a society, by using humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule. It intends to
improve humanity by criticizing its follies and foibles.
A SC's job is to gather evidence and either charge a crime or not, depending on what
evidence exists. That's it.
Thus if no charge was filed, insufficient evidence exists to support the allegation.
Under no circumstance is a prosecutor supposed to publicly impugn the character of someone
who has been investigated and not charged. Or suggest that they're guilty of anything in any
way.
"There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our
investigation."
Wasn't the the goal Heir Mueller?
Find NO Collusion but NOT exonerate on obstruction to give the small minds (Steverino
comes to mind) enough ambiguity to keep running with the ball. these people are desperate,
from their actions they appear very afraid. Subpoenaing Tiffany Trump's debit card
transactions from college? Remember when it was cruel to point out how freeking fugly Chelsea
was? And now you can rifle through a President's kids bank transactions? WTF?
"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." (Mullers' letter to Barr)
So when Barr and the spokeswoman of the Justice Department continue to repeat that Mueller
did not criticize the content of Barr's summary letter, they are lying.
This partisan ZH report is shamelessly misleading readers. Even WaPo admitted in its
report that Justice Department officials said Mueller was "concerned that news coverage of
the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about
the special counsel's work", Justice Department officials told the Post .
Mueller was actually more concerned about the spin being put on the letter by the
corporate media .
You'll get a more accurate picture from Prison Planet than from ZH.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
