So no beefs with the imperial presidency mode?

Obama declared executive privilege to protect Eric Holder from contempt of Congress after Holder refused to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious investigation. It went to court and Obama and Holder lost, and ultimately nothing came from it despite the executive privilege being overturned. Barr's case is actually stronger as he is legally not allowed to just release grand jury testimony against people who are not being charged and the risk of leaks is rather high considering how many leaks there have been in this case already. The court may indeed decide that public interest overrules the usual laws on grand jury testimony, but that doesn't mean anything will come from it even if the courts rule that some members of Congress should see the entire report. Barr is covering his skin pretty well by forcing this to go to court. There is a very strong case that Congress is demanding that he violate the law, and by forcing a court order he'd be off the hook for any consequences of turning over legally protected and classified information.

I see this whole thing as a circus. The House is trying to keep the collusion narrative alive even though it has long since fallen apart, are shifting the blame to Barr when it was Mueller who didn't deliver what they wanted no matter how hard he and his team tried. The claim of a coverup is absurd when the whole country has access to the majority of the report and the entirety of its conclusions. Yes, Trump looks really bad. He's a volatile, amoral narcissist who is a terrible boss and often a horrible human being. But that's largely stuff we already knew. Releasing more embarrassing but ultimately non-prosecutable information from the report is not going to change anything. Congress can impeach without a criminal prosecution, but the Senate will not go along with it, and if legally protected grand jury testimony is leaked, or another ongoing investigation is affected by a leak, that's on those Congressmen pushing Barr.

^ yep.

but Trump supporters simply no longer believe facts.


it's why I doubt the bombshell reporting that he lost over a BILLION dollars in a 10 year period, and for most of those years paid zero taxes -- will not make a dent in their belief that he's a Businessman Billionaire.

You have obviously either not read it, not understood it, or are acting dumb on purpose. The report in no way blew up in anyone's face or exonerates him. Like at all.

Or maybe people who don't agree with you understand the difference between immoral and illegal and actually know what the relevant laws say, like Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).



"Traditionally, the grand jury has conducted its work in secret. Secrecy prevents those under scrutiny from fleeing
or importuning the grand jurors, encourages full disclosure by witnesses, and protects the innocent from
unwarranted prosecution, among other things. The long-established rule of grand jury secrecy is enshrined in
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which provides that government attorneys and the jurors themselves,
among others, “must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.” Accordingly, as a general matter,
persons and entities external to the grand jury process are precluded from obtaining transcripts of grand jury
testimony or other documents or information that would reveal what took place in the proceedings, even if the
grand jury has concluded its work and even if the information is sought pursuant to otherwise-valid legal
processes.

At times, the rule of grand jury secrecy has come into tension with Congress’s power of inquiry when an arm of
the legislative branch has sought protected materials pursuant to its oversight function. For instance, some courts
have determined that the information barrier established in Rule 6(e) extends to congressional inquiries, observing
that the Rule contains no reservations for congressional access to grand jury materials that would otherwise
remain secret. Nevertheless, the rule of grand jury secrecy is subject to a number of exceptions, both codified and
judicially crafted, that permit grand jury information to be disclosed in certain circumstances (usually only with
prior judicial authorization). Perhaps the most significant of these for congressional purposes are (1) the exception
that allows a court to authorize disclosure of grand jury matters “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial
proceeding,” and (2) the exception, recognized by a few courts, that allows a court to authorize disclosure of
grand jury matters in special or exceptional circumstances. In turn, some courts have determined that one or both
of these exceptions applies to congressional requests for grand jury materials in the context of impeachment
proceedings, though there is authority to the contrary."

Taken directly from a report by the Congressional Research Service. It's a real law that Congress cannot just ignore willy-nilly and traditionally requires a court order to get around.

As for the materials of the report itself, the conclusions are what matters. On collusion it is an exoneration, as the investigation could not establish strong enough evidence for a prosecution, let alone a conviction, after 2 years. the report itself says after laying out the evidence "Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

On the matter of obstruction, Trump's now infamous 'this is the end of my presidency' line is actually his strongest defense, as in the full quote he goes on to explain how he believes the special counsel will prevent him from implementing his agenda, and does not say that he fears it will uncover anything. Obstruction laws are written in such a way that intent matters, and that concern about his ability to function as president rather than fear of jail time or have illegal activity uncovered makes a huge difference in determining intent. Even lying to the press is not illegal - though it is hella immoral. Lying becomes a crime when it is done to agencies like the FBI, to Congress, or under oath. The investigators did everything they could to prove an obstruction case, going so far as to state that public tweets and statements could be an undo influence, and they still didn't recommend prosecution. The fact that Barr has a narrower, and likely more legally accurate, definition of obstruction that does not include stating things in public is not a sign of him shilling for the president. If Pelosi wants to accuse him of lying to Congress, which would be a crime, she needs to show the exact lie.

Please point me in the way of that sweet Russian collusion...