See, that’s why I actually don’t mind Trump that much. Of all the GOP Presidents in my lifetime, he’s (so far anyway) done the least amount of damage.

In other words, Barr is a lawyer.

From your own post:

Again, if you are not “OK” with casual lying in politics, you’re too naive to be in any discussion involving politics.

Collusion can be investigated. In a criminal context, it would likely be characterized as a conspiracy, but “collusion” is the word that’s been thrown around ever since this investigation started and, despite your protests, is referenced in Mueller’s report and was specifically mentioned by Barr in his press…

I’m sure if you launched a criminal investigation into W’s conduct when he was in the White House - perhaps a war crimes tribunal, for instance - you’d probably have a much greater impact on the conduct of future Adminstrations that whining over Trump’s relatively innocuous lies.

Here’s Rosenstein’s memo on the scope of the investigation and if you think the investigation of “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” doesn’t encompass collusion you’re delusional.

How is anything Barr testified about inconsistent with Mueller’s report? If you have a problem with what Barr did, then your problem is with the Mueller report, not his summary of it.

And I never said you said Trump’s lies are the worst in history. I simply wonder why you’re so up in arms about his relatively trivial lies when compared to other Administrations that have lied about things far worse.

It’s an impeachable offense which is not a crime.  A crime has a specific, definite meaning.  Lying to the public is not a crime.

First of all, Barr answered his question after Leahy clarified what he was talking about and his answer hardly could be deemed evasive. In fact, Barr specifically stated that the Trump campaign full expected to benefit from receiving what was given.

I haven’t justified lying. I’m simply saying if you’re so naive to believe that Trump’s lies are as bad as you seem to think they are you’re not very well-versed in recent US history.

Mueller didn’t think so and that’s why he concluded there was no evidence of collusion even though he specifically found the Trump campaign was frequently receptive to offers it received.

Had the questioner simply read that passage, then you’d be right. He didn’t and it was fair for Barr to respond by simply asking “What do you mean by receptive?”

If you want to cry about Trump “lying its ass off” then I think it’s fair to ask why you’re so concerned about it when, in context, it’s not nearly as damaging as other lies told by other administrations that resulted in far more harm to the country than anything Trump’s done.

The question was, to me, intended to refer to the Mueller report’s use of the word “receptive” in various places. The report uses the word with some frequency and says the Trump campaign was occasionally receptive to offers and sometimes not.

You can impeach a POTUS for being unfit for office, i.e., lying to the public.

I hate to break this to you, but every Adminstration lies its ass off. Trump’s people are just the worst at it. Not “worst” in that they do it more often but in that they are terrible at even trying to pass it off as the truth.

The last election wasn’t close.

But if the focus is on collusion with the Russians, to me the distinction makes a tremendous difference. Had Trump, Jr. gone up to Butina (or whoever) and said “Hey! Boy, would we be receptive to anything you’ve got on Hillary!” it would be far different than simply receiving a bunch of WikiLeaks stuff without any…