Duru za Siasa: Marekani (U.S) Chini ya Donald J. Trump

[El Jefe]

Barr jana kashemsha vibaya sana manake maswali mengi aliokuwa anaulizwa hata yale straight forward ya kujibu NDIO au HAPANA amekuwa akizungusha maneno na kupiga chenga bila kutoa majibu...

Kwa mfano swali gani AG Barr "alizungusha maneno na kupiga chenga bila kutoa majibu"?

 

[Mwalimu]

Kwa mfano swali gani AG Barr "alizungusha maneno na kupiga chenga bila kutoa majibu"?

Sikiliza kipande kidogo cha mahojiano hapo chini uniambie kama Barr anajibu maswali anayoulizwa kiufasaha au anazungusha maneno, hata anapoulizwa maswali straight ya YES or NO yeye anazunguka

 

[El Jefe]

Sikiliza kipande kidogo cha mahojiano hapo chini uniambie kama Barr anajibu maswali anayoulizwa kiufasaha au anazungusha maneno, hata anapoulizwa maswali straight ya YES or NO yeye anazunguka

Ukimsikiliza vizuri, alikuwa anajaribu kukumbuka "anyone" na kuchambua neno "suggest" kwenye swali la Sen. Kamala. Halafu alivyoanza kujibu "I will say that no one....." Kamala akamkatisha. Mkuu haya maswali sio ya kukurupuka kujibu YES or NO bila kuelewa "context" ya swali.

 

[Mwalimu]

Ukimsikiliza vizuri, alikuwa anajaribu kukumbuka "anyone" na kuchambua neno "suggest" kwenye swali la Sen. Kamala. Halafu alivyoanza kujibu "I will say that no one....." Kamala akamkatisha. Mkuu haya maswali sio ya kukurupuka kujibu YES or NO bila kuelewa "context" ya swali.

Mkuu haya maswali yalikuwa ni straight forward ambayo kwa mtu ambaye hana cha kuficha hakupaswa kuwa na kigugumizi kuyajibu;
HARRIS: Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested you open an investigation into anyone?
BARR: .... ah ...
HARRIS: Seems like something you should be able to answer
BARR: I don't know ...

 

[Mwalimu]

Harris: Sir, I’m asking a question. In your March 24th summary, you wrote that, quote, after reviewing the special counsel's final report, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. Now the special counsel's investigation produced a great deal of evidence. I’m led to believe it included witnesses and notes and emails and witnesses and congressional testimony, witness’s interviews which were summarized in the FBI 302 forms, former FBI director Comey memos and the president's public statements. My question is in reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?

Barr: No. We took --

Harris: Did Mr. Rosenstein?

Barr: No, we accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate and made our --

Harris: So you accepted the report as the evidence.

Barr: Yes.

Harris: You did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report?

Barr: No.

Harris: Did Mr. Rosenstein review the evidence that underlines and supports the conclusions in the report, to your knowledge?

Barr: Not to my knowledge. We accepted the statements in the report and the characterization of the evidence as true.

Harris: Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report?

Barr: No.

Harris: No. Yet you represented to the American public that the evidence was not, quote, sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense --

Barr: The evidence presented in the report -- this is not a -- this is not mysterious process, in the Department of Justice we have cross memos and declination memos every day coming up and we don't go and look at the underlying evidence.

Harris: Sir, would you support --

Barr: We take the characterization of the evidence as true.

Harris: As the attorney general of the United States, you run the Department of Justice. If any attorney's office around the country, the head of that office, when being asked to make a critical decision, about in this case the person who holds the highest office in the land, and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the evidence?

Barr: That is a question for Bob Mueller. He’s the U.S. Attorney. He’s the one who presents the report.

Harris: But it was you who made the charging decision, sir.

Barr: What --

Harris: You made the decision not to charge the president.

Barr: No. In a cross memo and declination memo --

Harris: You said it was your baby. What did you mean by that?

Barr: It was my baby to let -- to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public.

Harris: And whose decision was it -- who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice.

Barr: Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor, in this case it was the attorney general and the deputy attorney general who decide on the final decision. And that is based on the memo as presented by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Harris: I think you've made it clear you've not looked at the evidence. We could move on.

 

[Mwalimu]

Harris: Have you consulted with the career DOJ ethics officials about the appropriateness of you being involved or recusing yourself from the 14 other investigations that have been referred out?

Barr: On what basis?

Harris: Conflict of interest. Clear conflict of interest.

Barr: What is my conflict of interest?

Harris: I think the American public has seen quite well you are biased in this situation and not objective and that is the conflict of interest.

Barr: I haven't been the only decision-maker here. Let’s take the deputy attorney general who was approved 94-6 with specific discussion on the floor would be responsible for supervising the Russia investigation.

Harris: I’m glad you brought up that.

Barr: And he has 30 years experience and we had a number of senior prosecutors in the department involved in this process, both career and non-career --

Harris: Yes, I’ve read the process, sir. I have another question. And I’m glad you brought that subject up because I have a question about that. Earlier today in response to senator graham, you said, quote, you consulted with Rosenstein constantly, unquote, with respect to the special counsel investigation and report. But deputy attorney general Rosenstein is a key witness in the firing of FBI Director Comey. Did you consult -- with -- I’m not finished. Did you consult with DOJ ethics officials before you enlisted Rod Rosenstein to participate in a charging decision for an investigation, the subject of which he's also a witness?

Barr: My understanding was that he had been cleared already to participate in it by the --

Harris: So you had consulted with them and they cleared it?

Barr: No, I think they cleared it when he took over the investigation.

Harris: Did you consult --

Barr: It is my understanding.

Harris: You don't know whether he's been cleared? Of a conflict of interest?

Barr: He would be participate field goal there was a conflict of interest.

Harris: So you're saying that it did not need to be reviewed by the career ethics officials in your office to determine if it was appropriate?

Barr: I believe it was -- I believe it was reviewed.

Harris: And what was the finding?

Barr: And I will also point that this seems to be a bit of a flip flop because when the president supporters were challenging --

Harris: Sir, the flip flop I think in this case is that you are not answering the question directly. Did the ethics officials in your office in the Department of Justice review the appropriateness of Rod Rosenstein being a part of making the charging decision on an investigation which he is also a witness in?

Barr: So, as I said, my understanding was he had been cleared and he had been cleared before I arrived.

Harris: In making a decision on the Mueller report?

Barr: Yes.

Harris: And the findings of whether or not the case would be charged on obstruction of justice? He had been cleared on that?

Barr: He was the acting attorney general on the Mueller investigation.

Harris: Had he been cleared to make --

Barr: I am --

Harris: By your side --

Barr: I’m informed that before I arrived he been cleared by the ethics officials.

Harris: Of what?

Barr: Of serving as acting attorney general on the Mueller case.

Harris: How about making a charging decision on obstruction of justice and the underlying offenses that include him as a witness.

Barr: That is what the acting attorney general’s job is.

Harris: To be a witness and to make the decision about being prosecutor?

Barr: Well, no but to make charging decisions.

Harris: I have nothing else my time has run out.

 

[El Jefe]

Mkuu haya maswali yalikuwa ni straight forward ambayo kwa mtu ambaye hana cha kuficha hakupaswa kuwa na kigugumizi kuyajibu;
HARRIS: Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested you open an investigation into anyone?
BARR: .... ah ...
HARRIS: Seems like something you should be able to answer
BARR: I don't know ...

Ni rahisi kudhani ni maswali "straightforward", ila kwa AG anayekutana na kuzungumza na watu wengi wa White House kuhusu chunguzi mbalimbali anapokutana na swali "has anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested you open an investigation into anyone?," ni swali linalohitaji ukumbuke vizuri. Kwa sababu huwezi kujua anayekuuliza ana ushahidi gani, kwahiyo, huwezi kukurupuka bila kujiridhisha.

Umeweka maswali na majibu ya Sen. Kamala na AG Barr kwenye post #826 ila hujaweka maswali na majibu ya hearing yote, huoni kama una "bias"?. Ina maana hicho ndicho kitu pekee ulichotoka nacho kwenye hearing ya SJC jana?

 

[Mwalimu]

Ni rahisi kudhani ni maswali "straightforward", ila kwa AG anayekutana na kuzungumza na watu wengi wa White House kuhusu chunguzi mbalimbali anapokutana na swali "has anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested you open an investigation into anyone?," ni swali linalohitaji ukumbuke vizuri. Kwa sababu huwezi kujua anayekuuliza ana ushahidi gani, kwahiyo, huwezi kukurupuka bila kujiridhisha.

Umeweka maswali na majibu ya Sen. Kamala na AG Barr kwenye post #826 ila hujaweka maswali na majibu ya hearing yote, huoni kama una "bias"?. Ina maana hicho ndicho kitu pekee ulichotoka nacho kwenye hearing ya SJC jana?

Mkuu suala sio kuwa na bias ila nimeweka kipande tu cha mahojiano na Sen Kamala kuonesha jinsi gani AG Barr alivyokuwa anababaika kutoa majibu na kimsingi mahojiano haya yameonesha madhaifu makubwa kwenye ofisi ya AG...
1) Amekiri kwamba hawakuangalia "underlying evidence" kwenye ripoti ya Mueler katika kufikia maamuzi yao kutomshitaki bwana mkubwa kwa obstruction of justice.
2) Amekiri kumshirikisha Rosenstein katika maamuzi ya ripoti ya Mueler wakati Rosenstein alikuwa ni mmoja wa mashahidi kwenye uchunguzi huo huo... na hakufanya jitihada zozote kuconfirm na ethics dept ya DOJ kitu ambacho ni conflict of interest.
3) Hakueleza mwanzoni kuhusu kupokea barua kutoka kwa Mueler mpaka ilipoibuka kwenye vyombo vya habari na ilikuwa inahoji maamuzi yake kwenye barua aliyoandika kwenye congress kumclear Trump.

Haya na mengineyo ni madhaifu makubwa kwa ofisi ya AG ambaye ameonekana kuwa biased na kusimama kama mwanasheria/wakili wa Trump badala ya kusimama kama AG.

Wewe pia uko huru kuweka mahojiano yote hapa jamvini au kuonesha kipande kingine kinachoonesha majibu tofauti ili kijadiliwe pia.

 

[El Jefe]

rump ni mbabe kwa silka na ni mtu aliyedekezwa na utajiri wa familia yao, Trump haamini kwenye kukosolewa bali anaamini kwenye kukosoa wengine hata kama kwa kutumia lugha mbaya. Yeye amekuzwa katika maisha yake kama bwana mkubwa mwenye akili nyingi sana na asiyehojika.

Trump anaamini kwenye "common sense", kwamba kitu kama kina maana au faida kwanini mtu ukikatae? Kwanini uingize siasa?

Ukichunguza hotuba za Trump ni zile zilizojaa majivuno na maneno ya kujaza sifa kuonesha kwamba kila analolifanya hakuna mwinginewe aliwahi kulifanya. Hali hiyo sasa inasemwa imemfikisha kuweka alama ya maneno ya uongo ama yasiyo sahihi aliyoyasema kufika zaidi ya 10,000 hivi sasa.

Kuna vitu ambavyo kweli amevifanya ambavyo hamna Rais aliyewahi kuvifanya? Hutaki avizungumzie kwa sababu akivizungumzia itakuwa ni "majivuno" na "sifa"?

Unaweza kuonyesha link ya chanzo cha taarifa inayosema Trump amefikisha uongo 10,000 hivi sasa?

Lakini hata yeye hakosi wa kumuunga mkono kwani wapo wazungu weupe wa mashambani wenye kuamini kwamba Marekani ni yao peke yao na ni wao tu ndiyo wanaostahili kuitawala. Hao ndiyo wafuasi sugu wa Trump.

Haya umelishwa na nani? Au umesikiliza vyombo vya habari vyenye mrengo fulani halafu ukayabeba kama yalivyo?

Trump anaungwa mkono sana na watu wabaguzi wa rangi na dini, watu wasio na elimu kubwa, wafanyabiashara za silaha na mafuta, na wanawake walioolewa wakaao majumbani (House wives).

Haya unayatoa wapi mkuu? Umeangalia demographics za counties ambazo Trump alishinda ukilinganisha na Hillary mwaka 2016?

Watu hao niliowataja wanajali zaidi maslahi ya kiuchumi hata kama haki za wengine hazizingatiwi wala masuala ya Mabadiliko ya tabia nchi yasipozingatiwa. Na ni watu kwa Kiswahili cha kisasa wanaopenda udaku.

Unafahamu kuwa Dems ni "anti-business" tofauti na Republicans?

Ungependa tuwaamini akina Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) aliyesema bila ushahidi mwaka huu kuwa dunia inaenda kuisha ndani ya miaka 12 "tusiposhughulikia" mabadiliko ya tabia nchi? Unakumbuka kuwa VP Al Gore pia aliwahi kusema kitu kama hicho miaka ya 2000 na hakikutokea?

Unafahamu mapendekezo yaliyomo kwenye "Green New Deal" ya Dems "kushughulikia" mabadiliko ya tabia nchi?

Lakini uzuri wa Marekani vyombo vyao haviwezi kuingiliwa moja kwa moja na hata bunge kwa sasa linalaumiwa na wamarekani wengi sana kwa kuingiza siasa za mirengo ya vyama kwenye bunge.

Congress kuingiza "siasa za mrengo wa vyama" kwenye mambo mengi wanayofanya hawajaanza leo, na ni moja ya madhaifu ya mfumo wa US. Hata suala la Mueller lilianzishwa kisiasa.

Kwa ivo sio leo wala Kesho suala hili la uchunguzi wa Muller litamalizwa, bali mwisho wake ni pale ama Trump atakavyoangushwa nalo ama litakavyokiangusha chama cha Democratic kwenye uchaguzi wa mwakani.

Suala la uchunguzi wa Mueller halina "merit" ya kuweza kumuangusha Trump labda kama kuna kitu kingine tofauti! Lakini pia Dems peke yao hawawezi kumuangusha Trump na viuchunguzi uchwara wanavyoanzisha, kwa sababu hawana idadi ya kuweza kufanya maamuzi hayo!

Trump mpaka sasa anajivunia Mahakama ya Rufaa ya nchi hiyo ambayo imejaa majaji wahafidhina kwani kati ya majaji 9 waliomo 5 ni wahafidhina. Trump Keshaiteka Republican na kuiweka kwapani na hakuna anayefurukuta mbele yake kwenye chama hicho.

Siasa za US ndivyo zilivyo, Dems waliapa kutomuunga mkono Trump kwenye chochote toka alivyoanza, unadhani nani amewaweka Dems "kwapani"? Unafikiri ni Trump ndiye aliyewafanya Republicans wasimuunge mkono Obama kwenye mapendekezo yake wakati wa uongozi wake?

Unafikiri ni kwanini toka zamani ni muhimu sana kwa wamarekani kuwa na majaji wengi wenye mrengo fulani kiitikadi kwenye U.S. Supreme Court na mahakama za rufaa?

 

[El Jefe]

Mkuu suala sio kuwa na bias ila nimeweka kipande tu cha mahojiano na Sen Kamala kuonesha jinsi gani AG Barr alivyokuwa anababaika kutoa majibu na kimsingi mahojiano haya yameonesha madhaifu makubwa kwenye ofisi ya AG...

Mkuu Mwalimu , swali limejibiwa au halijajibiwa? YES or NO?

1) Amekiri kwamba hawakuangalia "underlying evidence" kwenye ripoti ya Mueler katika kufikia maamuzi yao kutomshitaki bwana mkubwa kwa obstruction of justice.

Unahisi kuna kitu kilicho kwenye "underlying evidence" ambacho hakijawa reflected kwenye ripoti ya Mueller? YES or NO?

2) Amekiri kumshirikisha Rosenstein katika maamuzi ya ripoti ya Mueler wakati Rosenstein alikuwa ni mmoja wa mashahidi kwenye uchunguzi huo huo... na hakufanya jitihada zozote kuconfirm na ethics dept ya DOJ kitu ambacho ni conflict of interest.

Baada ya AG wa zamani Jeff Sessions kujitoa kwenye uchunguzi unaohusiana na Russia, Deputy AG Rosentein alianza kusimamia uchunguzi wa Special Counsel Mueller kwa baraka za Congress, Bill Barr alikuwa ni AG mda huo? YES or NO?

3) Hakueleza mwanzoni kuhusu kupokea barua kutoka kwa Mueler mpaka ilipoibuka kwenye vyombo vya habari na ilikuwa inahoji maamuzi yake kwenye barua aliyoandika kwenye congress kumclear Trump.

Je, kwenye barua ya Mueller kwenda kwa AG Barr kuna sehemu amesema kuwa Barr alipotosha umma? YES or NO?

Haya na mengineyo ni madhaifu makubwa kwa ofisi ya AG ambaye ameonekana kuwa biased na kusimama kama mwanasheria/wakili wa Trump badala ya kusimama kama AG.

Unaweza kujibu hili kwa uwazi kuwa Je, AG wa zamani Loretta Lynch alikuwa biased kwenye uchunguzi wa Hillary Clinton? YES or NO?

Wewe pia uko huru kuweka mahojiano yote hapa jamvini au kuonesha kipande kingine kinachoonesha majibu tofauti ili kijadiliwe pia.

Je, haya uliyoyaandika humu ndio masuala pekee uliotoka nayo kwenye mahojiano ya jana ya AG Barr kwenye SJC? YES or NO?

 

[Mwalimu]

Mkuu Mwalimu , swali limejibiwa au halijajibiwa? YES or NO?

Unahisi kuna kitu kilicho kwenye "underlying evidence" ambacho hakijawa reflected kwenye ripoti ya Mueller? YES or NO?

Baada ya AG wa zamani Jeff Sessions kujitoa kwenye uchunguzi unaohusiana na Russia, Deputy AG Rosentein alianza kusimamia uchunguzi wa Special Counsel Mueller kwa baraka za Congress, Bill Barr alikuwa ni AG mda huo? YES or NO?

Je, kwenye barua ya Mueller kwenda kwa AG Barr kuna sehemu amesema kuwa Barr alipotosha umma? YES or NO?

Unaweza kujibu hili kwa uwazi kuwa Je, AG wa zamani Loretta Lynch alikuwa biased kwenye uchunguzi wa Hillary Clinton? YES or NO?

Je, haya uliyoyaandika humu ndio masuala pekee uliotoka nayo kwenye mahojiano ya jana ya AG Barr kwenye SJC? YES or NO?

Mkuu swali limejibiwa au halijajibiwa? YES or NO?
NO-

Unahisi kuna kitu kilicho kwenye "underlying evidence" ambacho hakijawa reflected kwenye ripoti ya Mueller? YES or NO?
Rekebisha swali lako-underlying evidence zimejumuishwa kwenye ripoti ya Mueler lakini AG Bar hakuziangalia wakati anafanya majumuisho yake kwa barua aliyoandika kwa congress kumsafisha Trump. Barr mwenyewe amekiri kutoziangalia hizo underlying evidence.

Baada ya AG wa zamani Jeff Sessions kujitoa kwenye uchunguzi unaohusiana na Russia, Deputy AG Rosentein alianza kusimamia uchunguzi wa Special Counsel Mueller kwa baraka za Congress, Bill Barr alikuwa ni AG mda huo? YES or NO?
NO-Swali lililoulizwa sio kuteuliwa kwa Rosestein kabla ya Barr kuingia bali ushiriki wake katika kutoa maamuzi ya mwisho kwenye uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe ni shahidi-CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Na Barr hakuona umuhimu wa kufuatilia hili kabla.

Je, kwenye barua ya Mueller kwenda kwa AG Barr kuna sehemu amesema kuwa Barr alipotosha umma? YES or NO?
NO-Barua ya Mueler imeeleza wazi kwamba summary ya AG Barr haijatoa picha kamili ya ripoti ya uchunguzi

Unaweza kujibu hili kwa uwazi kuwa Je, AG wa zamani Loretta Lynch alikuwa biased kwenye uchunguzi wa Hillary Clinton? YES or NO?
Hili nashauri uanzishe uzi tofauti lijadiliwe halihusiani na mada hii

Je, haya uliyoyaandika humu ndio masuala pekee uliotoka nayo kwenye mahojiano ya jana ya AG Barr kwenye SJC? YES or NO?
NO-Na ndio maana nimekupa uhuru hata wewe uweke jamvini mahojiano yote au sehemu inayotoa picha tofauti na hii, hili ni jukwaa huru kwa wote kwa hiyo na wewe karibu uchangie.

 

[Mwalimu]

Barua ya Mueller kwa Barr

 

[El Jefe]

Tunaenda vizuri.

NO-

Umesema swali halijajibiwa, Je, kwa mfano, ukiulizwa swali halafu ukajibu "hujui" unakuwa hujajibu swali? YES or NO?

Rekebisha swali lako-underlying evidence zimejumuishwa kwenye ripoti ya Mueler lakini AG Bar hakuziangalia wakati anafanya majumuisho yake kwa barua aliyoandika kwa congress kumsafisha Trump. Barr mwenyewe amekiri kutoziangalia hizo underlying evidence.

Umesema "underlying evidence" zimejumuishwa kwenye ripoti ya Mueller, akitokea mtu akasema "underlying evidence" hazijajumuishwa kwenye ripoti ya Mueller yenye kurasa 448 huyo mtu atakuwa muongo? YES or NO?

NO-Swali lililoulizwa sio kuteuliwa kwa Rosestein kabla ya Barr kuingia bali ushiriki wake katika kutoa maamuzi ya mwisho kwenye uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe ni shahidi-CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Na Barr hakuona umuhimu wa kufuatilia hili kabla.

Unaamini ushiriki wa Rosenstein wa "kutoa maamuzi ya mwisho" na wa "kusimamia uchunguzi" wa Mueller vyote ni ushiriki unaoweza kuwa na "conflict of interest"? YES or NO?

Barua ya Mueler imeeleza wazi kwamba summary ya AG Barr haijatoa picha kamili ya ripoti ya uchunguzi

Umesema "barua ya Mueller imeeleza wazi kwamba summary ya AG Barr haijatoa picha kamili ya ripoti ya uchunguzi", ukisoma barua ya Mueller, anamaanisha sehemu za "introductions" na "executive summaries" za Volume I na II. Je, katika "redacted" report ya Mueller aliyotoa AG Barr kwa umma, hizo sehemu zipo? YES or NO?

Hili nashauri uanzishe uzi tofauti lijadiliwe halihusiani na mada hii

Hili suala halihitaji kufunguliwa uzi wa peke yake na linahusiana na mada hii. Nauliza tena, Je, kwa unavyoona wewe Mwalimu , AG wa zamani Loretta Lynch alikuwa biased kwenye uchunguzi wa Hillary Clinton? YES or NO?

 

[Mwalimu]

Tunaenda vizuri.



Umesema swali halijajibiwa, Je, kwa mfano, ukiulizwa swali halafu ukajibu "hujui" unakuwa hujajibu swali? YES or NO?



Umesema "underlying evidence" zimejumuishwa kwenye ripoti ya Mueller, akitokea mtu akasema "underlying evidence" hazijajumuishwa kwenye ripoti ya Mueller ya kurasa 448 huyo mtu atakuwa muongo? YES or NO?



Unaamini ushiriki wa Rosenstein wa "kutoa maamuzi ya mwisho" na wa "kusimamia uchunguzi" wa Mueller vyote ni ushiriki unaoweza kuwa na "conflict of interest"? YES or NO?


Umesema "barua ya Mueller imeeleza wazi kwamba summary ya AG Barr haijatoa picha kamili ya ripoti ya uchunguzi", ukisoma barua ya Mueller, anamaanisha sehemu za "introductions" na "executive summaries" za Volume I na II. Je, katika "redacted" report ya Mueller aliyotoa AG Barr kwa umma, hizo sehemu zipo? YES or NO?



Hili suala halihitaji kufunguliwa uzi wa peke yake na linahusiana na mada hii. Nauliza tena, Je, kwa unavyoona wewe, AG wa zamani Loretta Lynch alikuwa biased kwenye uchunguzi wa Hillary Clinton? YES or NO?

Taratibu tusichanganye mambo;

Umesema swali halijajibiwa, Je, kwa mfano, ukiulizwa swali halafu ukajibu "hujui" unakuwa hujajibu swali? YES or NO?


Umesema "underlying evidence" zimejumuishwa kwenye ripoti ya Mueller, akitokea mtu akasema "underlying evidence" hazijajumuishwa kwenye ripoti ya Mueller ya kurasa 448 huyo mtu atakuwa muongo? YES or NO?
YES-Barr mwenyewe amekiri kwamba hakuzipitia underlying evidence zilizopo kwenye ripoti wakati wa kufanya majumuisho yake kwamba hakuna kosa lililofanyika.

Unaamini ushiriki wa Rosenstein wa "kutoa maamuzi ya mwisho" na wa "kusimamia uchunguzi" wa Mueller vyote ni ushiriki unaoweza kuwa na "conflict of interest"? YES or NO?
YES-Hakupaswa kushiriki kwenye maamuzi katika uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe aliitwa kama shahidi-conflict of interest

Umesema "barua ya Mueller imeeleza wazi kwamba summary ya AG Barr haijatoa picha kamili ya ripoti ya uchunguzi", ukisoma barua ya Mueller, anamaanisha sehemu za "introductions" na "executive summaries" za Volume I na II. Je, katika "redacted" report ya Mueller aliyotoa AG Barr kwa umma, hizo sehemu zipo? YES or NO?
NO-Soma tena barua ya Mueller hususan paragraph hii: "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 con?dence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017)."
Kumbe ukiondoa barua hii ya tarehe 27 Mueler aliwasiliana na AG office siku mbili kabla kuelezea concerns hizo hizo!


Hili suala halihitaji kufunguliwa uzi wa peke yake na linahusiana na mada hii. Nauliza tena, Je, kwa unavyoona wewe, AG wa zamani Loretta Lynch alikuwa biased kwenye uchunguzi wa Hillary Clinton? YES or NO?
Uchunguzi dhidi ya Hillary hauhusiani na uchunguzi uliofanywa na Mueller na kuunganisha katika uzi huu ni kututoa kwenye reli kujadili mambo ya msingi kwenye uchunguzi huu. Hatuwezi kutumia uchunguzi wa Hillary ku-justify kilichofanyika kwa uchunguzi wa Trump hapo itakuwa tunapiga siasa. Ndio maana nimesema hio itengewe uzi tofauti na huu

 

[Mwalimu]

Umesema swali halijajibiwa, Je, kwa mfano, ukiulizwa swali halafu ukajibu "hujui" unakuwa hujajibu swali? YES or NO?

NDIO-Swali aliloulizwa halikupaswa kukosa jibu kutokana na nafasi yake kama AG. Tatizo lake halikuwa kutojua jibu la swali bali hakuwa tayari kutoa majibu pengine kwa sababu ya uoga au kuficha mambo fulani au kumlinda fulani.

 

[El Jefe]

Taratibu tusichanganye mambo;
NDIO-Swali aliloulizwa halikupaswa kukosa jibu kutokana na nafasi yake kama AG. Tatizo lake halikuwa kutojua jibu la swali bali hakuwa tayari kutoa majibu pengine kwa sababu ya uoga au kuficha mambo fulani au kumlinda fulani.[/B][/I]

Je unafahamu kuwa AG wa zamani Lorreta Lynch katika nafasi yake kama AG ameshawahi kuuliza swali kuhusu uchunguzi kwenye mahojiano na akajibu "hajui"?

YES-Barr mwenyewe amekiri kwamba hakuzipitia underlying evidence zilizopo kwenye ripoti wakati wa kufanya majumuisho yake kwamba hakuna kosa lililofanyika.

Kama "underlying evidence" zimejumuishwa kwenye "full report" ya Mueller, kwanini House Judiciary Committee chini ya mwenyekiti wake Jerry Nadler wali-issue subpoena ya "full report" na "underlying evidence" badala ya "full report" peke yake?

YES-Hakupaswa kushiriki kwenye maamuzi katika uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe aliitwa kama shahidi-conflict of interest

Kama Rosenstein "hakupaswa kushiriki kwenye maamuzi katika uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe ni shahidi", Je, aliwezaje kushiriki kwenye kuusimamia huo uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe ni shahidi?

NO-Soma tena barua ya Mueller hususan paragraph hii: "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 con?dence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017)."
Kumbe ukiondoa barua hii ya tarehe 27 Mueler aliwasiliana na AG office siku mbili kabla kuelezea concerns hizo hizo!

Usi-quote barua yote, nataka utafakari barua wewe kama wewe.

Barua ya Mueller ilikuja kabla ya kutolewa "redacted report" na AG Barr yenye kurasa 448. Kwenye barua ya Mueller, anasema summary ya AG Barr haija-capture "context, nature, and substance" ya kazi na hitimisho lake kwa maana ya "introductions" na "executive summaries" ya Vol I na II zenye kurasa 19.

Nakuuliza Mwalimu ,Je, Kama AG Barr alikuwa na nia ya kuficha ", kwanini baadae alitoa ripoti kwa umma (redacted) yenye hizo sehemu (kurasa 19) na kila kitu kwenye kurasa 448? Kwanini alimwambia Mueller kuwa anataka kutoa ripoti kwa umma, na kuwa hataki kuitoa ni "piecemeal"?

Uchunguzi dhidi ya Hillary hauhusiani na uchunguzi uliofanywa na Mueller na kuunganisha katika uzi huu ni kututoa kwenye reli kujadili mambo ya msingi kwenye uchunguzi huu. Hatuwezi kutumia uchunguzi wa Hillary ku-justify kilichofanyika kwa uchunguzi wa Trump hapo itakuwa tunapiga siasa. Ndio maana nimesema hio itengewe uzi tofauti na huu

Huu uzi ni masuala yote ya US chini ya Trump. Uchunguzi wa Hillary ulifanyika kabla na wakati wa kampeni za Urais za mwaka 2016. Hillary aliondolewa hatiani na FBI Director Comey wakati wa kampeni yake na Trump. Uchunguzi dhidi ya Trump ulianza kabla hajawa Rais, wakati wa kampeni za Urais na Hillary mwaka 2016, na baada ya kuwa Rais. Kwahiyo uchunguzi wa Hillary unaingia kwenye huu uzi. Kama huna jibu unasema huna, nimekuuliza maoni yako binafsi.

Pia, unamaanisha nini unaposema "Hatuwezi kutumia uchunguzi wa Hillary ku-justify kilichofanyika kwa uchunguzi wa Trump"?

 

[Mwalimu]

Je unafahamu kuwa AG wa zamani Lorreta Lynch katika nafasi yake kama AG ameshawahi kuuliza swali kuhusu uchunguzi kwenye mahojiano na akajibu "hajui"?
Majibu ya Lorreta Lynch

Kama "underlying evidence" zimejumuishwa kwenye "full report" ya Mueller, kwanini House Judiciary Committee chini ya mwenyekiti wake Jerry Nadler wali-issue subpoena ya "full report" na "underlying evidence" badala ya "full report" peke yake?

Kama Rosenstein "hakupaswa kushiriki kwenye maamuzi katika uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe ni shahidi", Je, aliwezaje kushiriki kwenye kuusimamia huo uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe ni shahidi?

Usi-quote barua yote, nataka utafakari barua wewe kama wewe.
Barua ya Mueller ilikuja kabla ya kutolewa "redacted report" na AG Barr yenye kurasa 448. Kwenye barua ya Mueller, anasema summary ya AG Barr haija-capture "context, nature, and substance" ya kazi na hitimisho lake kwa maana ya "introductions" na "executive summaries" ya Vol I na II zenye kurasa 19.

Nakuuliza Mwalimu ,Je, Kama AG Barr alikuwa na nia ya kuficha ", kwanini baadae alitoa ripoti kwa umma (redacted) yenye hizo sehemu (kurasa 19) na kila kitu kwenye kurasa 448? Kwanini alimwambia Mueller kuwa anataka kutoa ripoti kwa umma, na kuwa hataki kuitoa ni "piecemeal"?

Huu uzi ni masuala yote ya US chini ya Trump. Uchunguzi wa Hillary ulifanyika kabla na wakati wa kampeni za Urais za mwaka 2016. Hillary aliondolewa hatiani na FBI Director Comey wakati wa kampeni yake na Trump. Uchunguzi dhidi ya Trump ulianza kabla hajawa Rais, wakati wa kampeni za Urais na Hillary mwaka 2016, na baada ya kuwa Rais. Kwahiyo uchunguzi wa Hillary unaingia kwenye huu uzi. Kama huna jibu unasema huna, nimekuuliza maoni yako binafsi.

Pia, unamaanisha nini unaposema "Hatuwezi kutumia uchunguzi wa Hillary ku-justify kilichofanyika kwa uchunguzi wa Trump"?

Je unafahamu kuwa AG wa zamani Lorreta Lynch katika nafasi yake kama AG ameshawahi kuuliza swali kuhusu uchunguzi kwenye mahojiano na akajibu "hajui"?
Kwani swali aliloulizwa Lynch linafanana na aliloulizwa Barr kiasi cha kuhalalisha jibu ha SIJUI?

Kama "underlying evidence" zimejumuishwa kwenye "full report" ya Mueller, kwanini House Judiciary Committee chini ya mwenyekiti wake Jerry Nadler wali-issue subpoena ya "full report" na "underlying evidence" badala ya "full report" peke yake?
Bunge wamedai full report baada ya barua ya majumuisho kutoka kwa AG kwenda bungeni iliyotoa hitimisho kwamba hakuna kosa lililofanyika wakati ripoti imeonyesha mapungufu mengi. Na hii imethibitishwa sasa na barua ya Mueler inayoonesha wasiwasi huo huo juu ya upotoshwaji wa barua ya Mueler. Na ndio maana bunge sasa wanataka kumhoji Mueler mwenyewe awape his side of the story.

Kama Rosenstein "hakupaswa kushiriki kwenye maamuzi katika uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe ni shahidi", Je, aliwezaje kushiriki kwenye kuusimamia huo uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe ni shahidi?
Barr akiwa ndio bosi wa DOJ alipaswa kuhakikisha kwamba Rosestein amekuwa cleared kuhusu conflict of interest kabla ya kumhusisha kwenye kufanya maamuzi juu ya ripoti. Lakini hakufanya hivyo....

Usi-quote barua yote, nataka utafakari barua wewe kama wewe.
Barua ya Mueller ilikuja kabla ya kutolewa "redacted report" na AG Barr yenye kurasa 448. Kwenye barua ya Mueller, anasema summary ya AG Barr haija-capture "context, nature, and substance" ya kazi na hitimisho lake kwa maana ya "introductions" na "executive summaries" ya Vol I na II zenye kurasa 19.
Sijaquote barua yote nimeweka kipande tu cha barua... labda utueleweshe wewe umeelewa nini kwenye sentensi hii 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

Nakuuliza Mwalimu ,Je, Kama AG Barr alikuwa na nia ya kuficha ", kwanini baadae alitoa ripoti kwa umma (redacted) yenye hizo sehemu (kurasa 19) na kila kitu kwenye kurasa 448? Kwanini alimwambia Mueller kuwa anataka kutoa ripoti kwa umma, na kuwa hataki kuitoa ni "piecemeal"?
AG alikuwa anawajibika kisheria kuwasilisha ripoti bungeni lakini kabla ya kufanya hivyo aliwaandikia barua ya majumuisho ambayo kimsingi alikuwa anamclear bwana mkubwa kwamba hakuna kosa lililofanyika. Bunge baada ya kusoma ripori (redacted) wamegundua mapungufu mengi tofauti na conclusion ya Barr na ndio moja ya sababu ya kumuita jana kumhoji.

Huu uzi ni masuala yote ya US chini ya Trump. Uchunguzi wa Hillary ulifanyika kabla na wakati wa kampeni za Urais za mwaka 2016. Hillary aliondolewa hatiani na FBI Director Comey wakati wa kampeni yake na Trump. Uchunguzi dhidi ya Trump ulianza kabla hajawa Rais, wakati wa kampeni za Urais na Hillary mwaka 2016, na baada ya kuwa Rais. Kwahiyo uchunguzi wa Hillary unaingia kwenye huu uzi. Kama huna jibu unasema huna, nimekuuliza maoni yako binafsi.
Uchunguzi dhidi ya Hillary ulifanywa na FBI ambao mwishoni walifikia conclusion kwamba hakuna makosa, sasa whether walikuwa sahihi au la hilo ni suala lingine. Uchunguzi dhidi ya Trump umeanza 2017 baada ya uchaguzi ukisimamiwa na special counsel Bob Mueler kwa utaratibu tofauti na ilivyokuwa kwa Clinton... kama unataka tuzungumzie connection basi tuzungumzie pia ushahidi uliotolewa na Comey mbele ya Mueler ambao kimsingi umemkaanga bosi wake wa zamani.

Pia, unamaanisha nini unaposema "Hatuwezi kutumia uchunguzi wa Hillary ku-justify kilichofanyika kwa uchunguzi wa Trump"?
Swali aliloulizwa Loreta Lynch linafanana na aliloulizwa Barr?
Ungetusaidia sana kama ungeweka hapa swali zima aliloulizwa na jibu alilotoa... Na kwa nini tutumie jibu la Lynch kama justification kuhalalisha alichojibu Barr? Kulikuwa na ugumu gani kwa Barr kujibu swali aliloulizwa?

 

[El Jefe]

Kama "underlying evidence" zimejumuishwa kwenye "full report" ya Mueller, kwanini House Judiciary Committee chini ya mwenyekiti wake Jerry Nadler wali-issue subpoena ya "full report" na "underlying evidence" badala ya "full report" peke yake?

Bunge wamedai full report baada ya barua ya majumuisho kutoka kwa AG kwenda bungeni iliyotoa hitimisho kwamba hakuna kosa lililofanyika wakati ripoti imeonyesha mapungufu mengi. Na hii imethibitishwa sasa na barua ya Mueler inayoonesha wasiwasi huo huo juu ya upotoshwaji wa barua ya Mueler. Na ndio maana bunge sasa wanataka kumhoji Mueler mwenyewe awape his side of the story.

Hivi unaelewa swali? Why they need it is not part of my question.

Ulisema "underlying evidence" zimejumuishwa kwenye "full report". Kuna tofauti gani kati ya "full report" na "underlying evidence"? Na kwanini kwenye Subpoena ya House Judiciary Committee wanataka "full report" na "underlying evidence" badala ya "full report" peke yake?

Kama Rosenstein "hakupaswa kushiriki kwenye maamuzi katika uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe ni shahidi", Je, aliwezaje kushiriki kwenye kuusimamia huo uchunguzi ambao yeye mwenyewe ni shahidi?

Barr akiwa ndio bosi wa DOJ alipaswa kuhakikisha kwamba Rosestein amekuwa cleared kuhusu conflict of interest kabla ya kumhusisha kwenye kufanya maamuzi juu ya ripoti. Lakini hakufanya hivyo....

Elewa swali. AG Barr ameingia DOJ akakuta tayari Rosenstein anasimamia uchunguzi wa Mueller.

Nani alim-clear Rosenstein kusimamia uchunguzi wa Special Counsel ambao yeye ni shahidi kabla William Barr hajawa AG?

Usi-quote barua yote, nataka utafakari barua wewe kama wewe.
Barua ya Mueller ilikuja kabla ya kutolewa "redacted report" na AG Barr yenye kurasa 448. Kwenye barua ya Mueller, anasema summary ya AG Barr haija-capture "context, nature, and substance" ya kazi na hitimisho lake kwa maana ya "introductions" na "executive summaries" ya Vol I na II zenye kurasa 19.

Sijaquote barua yote nimeweka kipande tu cha barua... labda utueleweshe wewe umeelewa nini kwenye sentensi hii 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 [I/]

Ok, nimeelewa kwamba Mueller alitaka sehemu za "introductions" na "executive summaries" za Volume I na II ziwepo kwenye summary ya AG Barr ila hazikuwepo.

Swali kwako, kwenye "redacted report" aliyotoa AG Barr kwa umma yenye kurasa 448, hizo sehemu zipo au hazipo?

Nakuuliza Mwalimu ,Je, Kama AG Barr alikuwa na nia ya kuficha ", kwanini baadae alitoa ripoti kwa umma (redacted) yenye hizo sehemu (kurasa 19) na kila kitu kwenye kurasa 448? Kwanini alimwambia Mueller kuwa anataka kutoa ripoti kwa umma, na kuwa hataki kuitoa ni "piecemeal"?
AG alikuwa anawajibika kisheria kuwasilisha ripoti bungeni lakini kabla ya kufanya hivyo aliwaandikia barua ya majumuisho ambayo kimsingi alikuwa anamclear bwana mkubwa kwamba hakuna kosa lililofanyika. Bunge baada ya kusoma ripori (redacted) wamegundua mapungufu mengi tofauti na conclusion ya Barr na ndio moja ya sababu ya kumuita jana kumhoji.

Hapa unaelezea historia na hisia zako binafsi ambazo ni nje ya swali langu, swali ni hili, kwanini AG Barr alitoa ripoti kwa umma (redacted)? Kuna kanuni na sheria zozote za DOJ zilizomlazimisha kutoa ripoti hiyo kwa umma?

Huu uzi ni masuala yote ya US chini ya Trump. Uchunguzi wa Hillary ulifanyika kabla na wakati wa kampeni za Urais za mwaka 2016. Hillary aliondolewa hatiani na FBI Director Comey wakati wa kampeni yake na Trump. Uchunguzi dhidi ya Trump ulianza kabla hajawa Rais, wakati wa kampeni za Urais na Hillary mwaka 2016, na baada ya kuwa Rais. Kwahiyo uchunguzi wa Hillary unaingia kwenye huu uzi. Kama huna jibu unasema huna, nimekuuliza maoni yako binafsi.
Uchunguzi dhidi ya Hillary ulifanywa na FBI ambao mwishoni walifikia conclusion kwamba hakuna makosa, sasa whether walikuwa sahihi au la hilo ni suala lingine. Uchunguzi dhidi ya Trump umeanza 2017 baada ya uchaguzi ukisimamiwa na special counsel Bob Mueler kwa utaratibu tofauti na ilivyokuwa kwa Clinton... kama unataka tuzungumzie connection basi tuzungumzie pia ushahidi uliotolewa na Comey mbele ya Mueler ambao kimsingi umemkaanga bosi wake wa zamani.

Sijauliza kama uchunguzi ulikuwa sahihi au lah, nimekuuliza AG Lorreta Lynch alikuwa biased au lah kwenye uchunguzi wa Hillary Clinton? Nenda kwenye point.

Pia, unamaanisha nini unaposema "Hatuwezi kutumia uchunguzi wa Hillary ku-justify kilichofanyika kwa uchunguzi wa Trump"?

Swali aliloulizwa Loreta Lynch linafanana na aliloulizwa Barr?
Ungetusaidia sana kama ungeweka hapa swali zima aliloulizwa na jibu alilotoa... Na kwa nini tutumie jibu la Lynch kama justification kuhalalisha alichojibu Barr? Kulikuwa na ugumu gani kwa Barr kujibu swali aliloulizwa?

Hoja ya msingi ni kuwa Barr alijibu swali aliloulizwa, na Lorreta Lynch ukisoma hapa chini alijibu maswali aliyoulizwa.

Investigator: Did you ever discuss whether the Trump campaign should be defensively briefed on either Carter Page or George Papadopoulos? If they were under scrutiny, why didn’t the FBI and DOJ make Trump aware?

Lynch: I was certainly aware that it was an option, but I don’t know what, if anything, ever happened to that option. Without getting into specific discussions, it certainly is an option that one would consider, but I don’t know if those actions were ever taken.

Investigator: Were you aware that he [George Papadopoulos] was associated with the Trump campaign?

Lynch: You know, I knew that but, again, I don’t have specifics and certainly at that – thinking back to that time, I don’t know if I knew his role at that time in the campaign.[/i]

Je, baada ya kusoma hayo majibu ya Lynch unaweza kusema alibabaika kujibu?

 

[Mag3]

"[Mueller] has not said that he conducted the investigation in order to turn it over to Congress...That would be very inappropriate, that is not what the Justice Department does."

"I don't think Bob Mueller was suggesting the next step was for him to turn this stuff over to Congress to act upon,....That's not why we conduct grand jury investigations."

"I think that if he [Mueller] felt that he shouldn't go down the path of making a traditional prosecutive decision, then he shouldn't have investigated,...That was the time to pull up."

Naona na wewe unataka kulisha wana JF matango pori. Kwa ambao wameweza kusoma ripoti yote na underlying evidence wameona wazi kabisa kwamba ugomvi wa Mueller na Barr ni hatua ya Barr kutoa maelezo ya uongo. Barr hakusoma yote na mengi aliyoulizwa jana alikuwa akiyasikia kwa mara ya kwanza na yalimtisha kidogo.

Ripoti ambayo Mueller alitaka iwasilishwe Congress kama ilivyo ilikuwa ni ripoti waliyokwishaifanyia reductions zinazotakiwa kiutaratibu. Hii ndiyo sababu hakupendezwa kabisa na alichokuwa akifanya Barr kwani barua yake ya kwanza ilipotosha kila kitu kilichotakiwa kitolewe kwa umma.

Hiyo ndiyo sababu hata Republicans baada ya kugundua kuwa Barr aliwalisha matango pori katika juhudi za kumlinda Trump, walikuwa wanapiga chenga kujadili ripoti na badala yake wanawaingiza Clinton, Comey, Lisa n.k. kwenye mjadala. Hata mwenyekiti Graham alionekana kushtushwa na baadhi ya maswali kama ya Kamila Harris.

El Jefe, sijui Trump alikulisha nini...unamtetea utadhani uhai wako unamtegemea. Hadi leo hii msimamao wake ni kwamba haamini Urusi waliingilia uchaguzi wao wa mwaka 2016 na kwamba baada ya kumtizama Putin usoni anaamimi maneno yake zaidi ya wana usalama wa US! Barr hili anakwepa kulizungumzia kabisa...!

 

[Mwalimu]

Ndugu El Jefe

Nafikiri tunachanganya mambo mengi mno kiasi cha kuishia kupoteza mtiririko mzima wa mada iliyopo mezani kwa sasa hivi na hii haitusaidii chochote. Hebu tupitie facts moja baada ya nyingine kwa umakini kuhusu sakata la Senate, Barr na Mueler bila kuchanganya mambo mengine kwanza;

1) Ripoti ya Mueler
2) Barua ya Barr kwenda congress yenye majumuisho/conclusion kuhusu ripoti ya Mueler
3) Barua ya Mueler kwenda kwa AG kuhusu barua yake kwa congress (barua ambayo imejulikana sasa hivi)
4) Utetezi wa Barr kwa senate jana
5) AG kukataa wito wa kuhojiwa na congress leo
6) Wito wa senate kumita Mueler kwenda kuhojiwa na bunge
Etc