The Robert Mueller Investigation

[triplehorn 2664]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Well you have two "paths", Legal and Political. Mueller seems to be clear that the legal aspect was not met, but he's enough of a "Washington guy" to know that the ultimate "punishment" will be the political ramifications. Ultimately, the voters have the final say.

Quit saying that.  You can't speak to Mueller because you're going off of Barr's letter, not Mueller's report. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

I'm not an attorney, but isn't there still such a thing as obstructing the process of justice?  Say a CEO didn't like an investigation because of all the bad press it was generating for his company, even though he was innocent of the allegation being investigated, and he tried to interfere with the investigation just to make it go away.  That has to be obstruction, right?

I'm sure there is, but proving it can't be easy.

In your example, let's say I'm the CEO. And I say to my leadership team: "This investigation stinks. I sure wish it would go away. Don't go out of your way to cooperate in the downfall of our company".

How do you interpret this? Some would say "he's obstructing!" Others would disagree. 

Like most things, it depends on which side you stand with.

[wildcat09 29261]

1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

I didn’t say the political corruption is amusing, just this thread and you people shitting all over each other as usual.

I did say it is all entertaining, which doesn’t necessarily mean amusing. Rather it is like a massive train wreck, none of which bodes well for the country. A pox on all the houses, so to speak.

When your response to a situation that boils down to:

1. Republicans constantly lying in order to discredit the very concept of objective truth in a quest to turn this country into a neo-feudal state, and

2. Democrats truthfully point out #1

is to say "a pox on both their houses," you're enabling the Republican efforts to destroy the very concept of objective truth in a quest to turn this country into a neo-feudal state. Oh, and that's if we're lucky. If we're unlucky, the Republicans who want to turn it into a fascist state prevail.

[TexArcher 37524]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

I'm sure there is, but proving it can't be easy.

In your example, let's say I'm the CEO. And I say to my leadership team: "This investigation stinks. I sure wish it would go away. Don't go out of your way to cooperate in the downfall of our company".

How do you interpret this? Some would say "he's obstructing!" Others would disagree. 

Like most things, it depends on which side you stand with.

Right.  And Cohen was clear that Trump uses coded language in exactly that way.  And of course he doesn't use email or texts, which isn't suspicious at all.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

5 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Quit saying that.  You can't speak to Mueller because you're going off of Barr's letter, not Mueller's report. 

Do you really think that Barr is going to say something that is in opposition to what Mueller believes knowing full well that BOTH will be called before congress? 

Dude. I know you don't like the outcome, but be reasonable.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

Right.  And Cohen was clear that Trump uses coded language in exactly that way.  And of course he doesn't use email or texts, which isn't suspicious at all.

There's smoke, no question. But I think Mueller is smart enough to know that the voters will have the final say.

[GRHorn 105]

Did Hugo and Denny post on shag? Or did they just come into being over here?  I have been in and out over the years, but I still recognize JimmyJazz, Brisket, Bozo, Onboard, Anastasis, Fondren and others from over there. 

[TexArcher 37524]

4 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Do you really think that Barr is going to say something that is in opposition to what Mueller believes knowing full well that BOTH will be called before congress? 

Dude. I know you don't like the outcome, but be reasonable.

But Barr doesn't know what Mueller believes; Barr only knows that Mueller didn't find enough to indict.  That is not the same thing as exoneration.

Barr exonerated his boss because that's his job.

And it's interesting what Barr didn't exonerate his boss on.  It's very possible that the Republican victory lap is premature.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TexArcher

[triplehorn 2664]

5 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think the obstruction law has some underlying assumption that people don't want to be known as criminals, so the acts are assumed to be done in the dark of night.  Because it is in the dark of night, that is how you infer they had corrupt intent.  They are trying to hide their acts.

With shooting a guy, you intend to kill him and you did kill him.  You don't have to prove any sort of corruption there.

Like I said though (and like I bet Mueller thinks), I bet there is no guidance on the issue especially when considered that this is all done in the political sphere where it is clearly in Trump's interest to be seen as a fighter, which militates towards his intent being to bolster his political image. 

That's what I see as being the tough legal question. 

As another example of how compartmentalized Barr's letter is, note that it made no reference to "aiding and abetting".  Does Mueller's report present evidence to that effect?  We do not know.  If Trump/Trump campaign knew about Stone communicating with GRU cutouts around the hack and release, and didn't personally direct the actions, but were "understanding bystanders", that is not necessarily obstruction on Trump's part - it's more akin to aiding and abetting.  You learn of something like that and you take it straight to FBI, like McCain did with the copy of the dossier he received.

Brickhorn nailed it above about people being duped into focusing on criminality on two examples when there is a potential avalanche of other wrongdoing in the Mueller report.

It can't be understated how damaging it was for Barr to pre-empt the Mueller report with his letter and usurping Congress' duty on the evidence.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

2 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Barr doesn't know what Mueller believes; Barr only knows that Mueller didn't find enough to indict.  That is not the same thing as exoneration.

Barr exonerated his boss because that's his job.

Sure. Elections have consequences. The Dems control the House and can control the investigation from here if they want. But they need to measure if Mr. and Mrs. Average Voter care.

[seven 1366]

Barr misrepresenting mueller's conclusions would be infinitely stupid, even for this admin.

[triplehorn 2664]

3 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Barr doesn't know what Mueller believes; Barr only knows that Mueller didn't find enough to indict.  That is not the same thing as exoneration.

Barr exonerated his boss because that's his job.

It's becoming clear that you can't even say Mueller didn't find enough to indict.  His intent appears to have been to defer making that difficult call, but instead to lay out all the evidence in his report and submit it to Congress for deliberation .

[TexArcher 37524]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

Sure. Elections have consequences. The Dems control the House and can control the investigation from here if they want. But they need to measure if Mr. and Mrs. Average Voter care.

Agreed.  And if Mr. and Mrs. Average Voter don't care, then we're getting four more years of this.  The Dems need to move quickly to get that full report released before another season of Jersey Shore starts.

[EuroHorn 3204]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Are you ever not an insufferable cunt?

A gluten free one...

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

23 minutes ago, yoladu said:

yes, i am very curious about what exactly Mueller unearthed, if anything, that isn't already public knowledge.

Take the e-mail correspondence between Don Jr and Goldstone and the Trump Tower meeting. Is there more to that? A meeting Trump, et al, concocted a lie about the subject matter of once it was revealed. Is that explained?

Why all the lying about Russian contacts? Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc.

FISA warrants were issued, but bore no fruit?

Gates, Flynn, Cohen were awarded reduced sentences for their cooperation, yet nothing comes of it? That seems to be a bad return on that investment. Convicted felons getting reduced sentence for offering what exactly?

There was so much smoke. I would like to know exactly how and why Mueller determined there was no fire, according to AG Barr.

The thing people easily overlook is the meetings/contacts with the Russians were kompromat by themselves.  How do you make those meetings not compromising after the fact?  You make them public knowledge.

 Think about how we found out about the Don Jr Trump Tower meeting.  Don Jr. wasn’t tweeting out those incriminating emails to make himself look cool.  He was neutralizing compromising material the Russians had on him.  

We’ve seen this happen a few other times like when we almost instantaneously found out Trump leaked classified intel to the Russians in the Oval Office.  If that leak was never made public, it would have been kompromat the Russians could use on Trump later.  

Point is, a reason we know so much about all the shady contacts between the Trump people and the Russians likely has to do with neutralizing the compromising material.  

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It's becoming clear that you can't even say Mueller didn't find enough to indict.  His intent appears to have been to defer making that difficult call, but instead to lay out all the evidence in his report and submit it to Congress for deliberation .

Except Mueller knows that the AG has the "power" here. Do you think he forgot that? 

Frankly, we should be pissed at Mueller for not making the call. Imagine being charged with child molestation and the DA says "whelp, we don't know if triplehorn is guilty or innocent based on the evidence, but we aren't going to say one way or the other". If you were innocent, you'd be pissed.  

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

2 minutes ago, LOLOL said:

THE GOP VICTORY LAP IS OVER!!

because they won't release the report. 

It's a fraud. He's guilty. 

They haven't released it as was thought because it's a cover up.

Hahahaha you evil Trump fucks cheated. 

Hey look! Another sock!

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

The report was clearly a win for the Democratic Party. They were able to get control of the House in 2018. 

They used Mueller and impeachment as their compaign platform.  

This is the chance for the Democrats to put the hard break on the full left turn and go back to representing middle America. A return to ratioanlaizarion and logic. Rid yourself of the socialist stains, an easy fall guy. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[triplehorn 2664]

3 minutes ago, seven said:

Barr misrepresenting mueller's conclusions would be infinitely stupid, even for this admin.

Barr's 4 page letter created a massive space for public misunderstanding the Mueller report.  Barr's letter was extremely brief and was highly compartmentalized on the few things it addressed.  The compartmentalization is not incorrect, but to the average onlooker it gets interpreted with very different meaning.  The public making the wrong extrapolations is not Barr misrepresenting.  

[TexArcher 37524]

Oh, dear.  Here we go.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

Time to pause and have a group laugh:

[SimonBolivar 10932]

Just one poll out there (Rasmussen), but I expected a bigger jump for Trump but it's still early in the process.

 

Date	Approval Index	Strongly Approve	Strongly Disapprove	Total Approve	Total Disapprove
26-Mar-19	-8	36%	44%	47%	52%
25-Mar-19	-9	35%	44%	45%	54%
22-Mar-19	-9	35%	44%	45%	53%
21-Mar-19	-6	35%	41%	49%	49%
20-Mar-19	-9	34%	43%	48%	50%
19-Mar-19	-10	33%	43%	47%	52%
18-Mar-19	-8	34%	42%	47%	51%
15-Mar-19	-8	35%	43%	48%	51%
14-Mar-19	-5	36%	41%	49%	50%
13-Mar-19	-10	34%	44%	47%	52%
12-Mar-19	-10	34%	44%	47%	51%
11-Mar-19	-8	36%	44%	49%	50%
08-Mar-19	-5	37%	42%	50%	49%
07-Mar-19	-3	38%	41%	50%	49%
06-Mar-19	-7	35%	42%	48%	51%
05-Mar-19	-8	34%	42%	48%	51%
04-Mar-19	-7	34%	41%	47%	51%
01-Mar-19	-6	35%	41%	49%	49%

[jimmyjazz 45560]

24 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It can't be understated how damaging it was for Barr to pre-empt the Mueller report with his letter and usurping Congress' duty on the evidence.

I have a problem with this perspective.  Absent evidence that Barr is a complete hack motivated only by political concerns, I find it unlikely that he would intentionally craft his letter to deceive the public.  He's sure not going to be able to deceive experienced legal and law enforcement personnel.

I get it, even the Godfather had a lawyer, but to my knowledge Barr is a seasoned pro with a great deal of experience in Washington DC and no known skeletons in his closet.  He's a hard-core conservative who was a major player in the escalation of prison sentences related to drug crimes, something I find abhorrent when one digs in but hardly evidence of being a boot-licking enabler.

Why would he try to blur Mueller's findings with such carefully crafted language?  It's halfway to a child crossing his fingers behind his back to negate his lying.  Unless Barr is 100% confident that he can keep the entire Mueller report not only off the street but out of Congress' hands, I have to think he wasn't trying to obfuscate.  Of course, this raises the question of why a good attorney would be so careless with the language . . .

Edited March 26, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

Just one poll out there (Rasmussen), but I expected a bigger jump for Trump but it's still early in the process.

Having your AG exonerate you of conspiracy to inflate your poll numbers to own the libs. 

[lemonlime 5503]

24 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

 

Barr exonerated his boss because that's his job.

 

That's not his job.  Barr works for us.  We are his boss.  Not trump.    Barr exonerated trump, because trump's main hiring criteria is being a trump sycophant.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have a problem with this perspective.  Absent evidence that Barr is a complete hack motivated only by political concerns, I find it unlikely that he would intentionally craft his letter to deceive the public.  He's sure not going to be able to deceive experience attorneys and law enforcement personnel.

I get it, even the Godfather had a lawyer, but to my knowledge Barr is a seasoned attorney with a great deal of experience in Washington DC and no known skeletons in his closet.  He's a hard-core conservative who was a major player in the escalation of prison sentences related to drug crimes, something I find abhorrent when one digs in but hardly evidence of being a boot-licking enabler.

Why would he try to blur Mueller's findings with such carefully crafted language?  It's halfway to a child crossing his fingers behind his back to exonerate his lying.  Unless Barr is 100% confident that he can keep the entire Mueller report not only off the street but out of Congress' hands, I have to think he wasn't trying to obfuscate.  Of course, this raises the question of why a good attorney would be so careless with the language . . .

Barr might be a principled man but I have no reason to believe that letter was anything but an effort to protect the president from being held accountable for his malfeasance. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

8 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Just one poll out there (Rasmussen), but I expected a bigger jump for Trump but it's still early in the process.

I wonder if the Russia Report is in this poll data yet.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

That's not his job.  Barr works for us.  We are his boss.  Not trump.    Barr exonerated trump, because trump's main hiring criteria is being a trump sycophant.  

Lolol.  There isn't a single person in the Trump administration that works for the people of the United States.  They all work for Trump and for personal gain, and if the USA is damaged in the process, so be it.

[EuroHorn 3204]

[TexArcher 37524]

3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

That's not his job.  Barr works for us.  We are his boss.  Not trump.    Barr exonerated trump, because trump's main hiring criteria is being a trump sycophant.  

Theoretically his job is to work for us.  But he's a Trump appointee.  We all know what his real job is.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

Theoretically his job is to work for us.  But he's a Trump appointee.  We all know what his real job is.

Oh, I'm aware.  It just makes me crazy that we seem to all be accepting this as normal.  His real job should be to work for the American people.  

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, LOLOL said:

Release the report.

Prove the assumption of AG fraudulence wrong.

@immamac this guy is back, IP ban plz.

[Chrispy 132]

After listening to Schiff this morning, it seems the Democrats are hell bent on turning this Trump victory into a massacre. What dummies. 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

8 minutes ago, LOLOL said:

Barr wrote the memo discrediting the whole premise of obstruction. He called this -- he did it. He was a hired goon.

There is a difference between a belief that POTUS cannot obstruct justice and wordsmithing a letter to misrepresent the findings of a massive investigation.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There is a difference between a belief that POTUS cannot obstruct justice and wordsmithing a letter to misrepresent the findings of a massive investigation.

Don't feed the trolls.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

There is a difference between a belief that POTUS cannot obstruct justice and wordsmithing a letter to misrepresent the findings of a massive investigation.

“Mueller has evidence Trump obstructed justice.”

How is that not a big fucking deal? 

Because Barr made it not a big deal.

[SimonBolivar 10932]

5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

After listening to Schiff this morning, it seems the Democrats are hell bent on turning this Trump victory into a massacre. What dummies. 

At what point do they have to keep going to try and muddy the waters? Just keep repeated COLLUSION!!! until it becomes "true".

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

Just now, SimonBolivar said:

At what point do they have to keep going to try and muddy the waters? Just keep repeated COLLUSION!!! until it becomes "true".

I detect irony and sarcasm.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

“Mueller has evidence Trump obstructed justice.”

How is that not a big fucking deal? 

Because Barr made it not a big deal.

You're going to have to clarify.  Take a deep breath . . .

[triplehorn 2664]

32 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have a problem with this perspective.  Absent evidence that Barr is a complete hack motivated only by political concerns, I find it unlikely that he would intentionally craft his letter to deceive the public.  He's sure not going to be able to deceive experience attorneys and law enforcement personnel.

I get it, even the Godfather had a lawyer, but to my knowledge Barr is a seasoned attorney with a great deal of experience in Washington DC and no known skeletons in his closet.  He's a hard-core conservative who was a major player in the escalation of prison sentences related to drug crimes, something I find abhorrent when one digs in but hardly evidence of being a boot-licking enabler.

Why would he try to blur Mueller's findings with such carefully crafted language?  It's halfway to a child crossing his fingers behind his back to exonerate his lying.  Unless Barr is 100% confident that he can keep the entire Mueller report not only off the street but out of Congress' hands, I have to think he wasn't trying to obfuscate.  Of course, this raises the question of why a good attorney would be so careless with the language . . .

Well, there is evidence he's a complete hack.  Knowing full well the kind of person and potus Trump is, he still auditioned for the AG job last summer with a 19 page letter on how a sitting POTUS can't obstruct justice.  But I've also made the opposite supposition that Barr could have appealed to Trump as a trojan horse with no real intent of being Trump's fixer.

As another exercise to take the opposite stance, thinking of ways Barr may be trying to maintain order, imagine what Trump would have done had Barr NOT pre-empted the Mueller report and decided for Congress, by himself, that Trump didn't obstruct justice ?  In a fit of anomic rage, Trump could have attempted to fire Barr and Rosenstein on the spot (obviously beyond dumb and ineffective move but based on past experience, not out of the realm).  What then ?  It's dangerous.  That complete and utter 50 tweet Trump flip-out lasting an entire weekend a week ago?  What was that about ?

On that note, this is a crazy alignment of events - 3 weeks ago, when Mueller reportedly shared his findings with Barr/Rosenstein, the same day that Brennan made his prediction, Barr nominated DC US Atty Jessie Liu to be No.3 at DOJ.  You see where I'm going with this?  That crucial week, it's possible Barr knew he better arrange for back-up in the event Trump flipped out and ejected Barr/Rosenstein.  It's conceivable to me that Barr is not hell bent on burning it down, but is acting as a temporary Trump appeaser to help maintain basic order.  Honestly I can't believe I'm even wondering about it this way, but that's what Donald J Trump represents.

Edited March 26, 2019 by triplehorn

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

51 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, let's take this one step further.  Trump fired Comey.  What if instead of dancing around the point in various meetings with Russians and poorly conducted interviews he had called a press conference and said "Today I fired James Comey because I don't like the fact that he was investigating myself and members of my election campaign."

 Would that be obstruction of justice?

It seems like it, and it's hard for me to get my head around why his dissembling about it in reality was any better.  But the complicating factor there is his absolute right to fire Comey under the Constitution. 

That's different from the non-stop attacks on the prosecution he did throughout the process and other 'obstruction' we were talking about, which he doesn't have a Constitutional right to do.

IMO, that is the one act that most obstructed justice and was most designed to obstruct justice, but also the one that he had a privilege to do.  My guess is that is another of Mueller's tough questions.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Well, there is evidence he's a complete hack.  Knowing full well the kind of person and potus Trump is, he still auditioned for the AG job last summer with a 19 page letter on how a sitting POTUS can't obstruct justice. 

I agree that the unsolicited memo had a pretty obvious purpose, but it's entirely possible that he actually believes a sitting President can't obstruct justice.  It appears to be a defensible (if perhaps not widely held) legal opinion.

I want to focus on the wording of his letter:  why would an experienced attorney with seemingly strong credentials try to gaslight Congress?  The Democrats control the House.  There was no clear path towards success if all he was trying to do was fool everyone into accepting his flawed summary of Mueller's report.  The House Judiciary Committee was never going to take him at his word, particularly when his chosen language is so carefully limited.  It's one thing to fool the public, but to think he could fool those committee members?  No way.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

2 minutes ago, LOLOL said:

Upwards of 87% of the public want to see the report. 420 to 0 in the House.

McConnell ALONE is blocking for himself - his judges & Trump. If Barr blocks too ...

Fraud fraud fraud!

Jesus Christ, mods.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

It seems like it, and it's hard for me to get my head around why his dissembling about it in reality was any better.  But the complicating factor there is his absolute right to fire Comey under the Constitution. 

That's different from the non-stop attacks on the prosecution he did throughout the process and other 'obstruction' we were talking about, which he doesn't have a Constitutional right to do.

IMO, that is the one act that most obstructed justice and was most designed to obstruct justice, but also the one that he had a privilege to do.  My guess is that is another of Mueller's tough questions.

But your underlined part is why "high crimes" never meant whether the president committed a crime as set forth in the criminal code.  It was always a reference to abuse of power, whether there was an actual criminal violation or some other abuse of power worthy of impeachment.     "High" just means a crime specific to the office of the presidency.  Firing the head of the FBI who is investigating him is a "high" crime, even if trump couldn't possibly go to jail for it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23359]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're going to have to clarify.  Take a deep breath . . .

Look at this word salad twisting and turning Trump out of liability for obstructing justice.  It carefully says Mueller has evidence for and against obstruction of justice.  I read that as “Mueller has evidence Trump obstructed justice but that’s not important because “reasons”.”

What does the evidence against obstruction of justice look like?  The fact he didn’t fire Mueller? Lol okay. 

Why not pitch that debate to Congress as is the precedent (Nixon, Clinton).

It’s also ironic Rosenstein is dragged into this process when it was HIS memo used as the false pretext to fire Comey...the most egregious example of obstruction of justice.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

But your underlined part is why "high crimes" never meant whether the president committed a crime as set forth in the criminal code.  It was always a reference to abuse of power, whether there was an actual criminal violation or some other abuse of power worthy of impeachment.     "High" just means a crime specific to the office of the presidency.  Firing the head of the FBI who is investigating him is a "high" crime, even if trump couldn't possibly go to jail for it.

Yes, but we're talking about criminal obstruction of justice, not impeachable offenses.  I don't think anyone with a functioning brain stem thinks Trump hasn't at least reached the level of abhorrent behavior that Bill Clinton did when it comes to impeachment.

[lemonlime 5503]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, but we're talking about criminal obstruction of justice, not impeachable offenses.  I don't think anyone with a functioning brain stem thinks Trump hasn't at least reached the level of abhorrent behavior that Bill Clinton did when it comes to impeachment.

Yes. Exactly.  But that's why Barr shouldn't have put his opinion in. And why Mueller may have left it open ended.  The president has the constitutional right to fire the head of the FBI.  It's probably not a crime, as set forth in the United States Code.  It's still a high crime under the Constitution.  As are emoluments violations, tweets threatening free speech of others, making up supposed crimes political opponents committed (Obama wiretapping, eg.), and I could go on for days.  

[triplehorn 2664]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I agree that the unsolicited memo had a pretty obvious purpose, but it's entirely possible that he actually believes a sitting President can't obstruct justice.  It appears to be a defensible (if perhaps not widely held) legal opinion.

I want to focus on the wording of his letter:  why would an experienced attorney with seemingly strong credentials try to gaslight Congress?  The Democrats control the House.  There was no clear path towards success if all he was trying to do was fool everyone into accepting his flawed summary of Mueller's report.  The House Judiciary Committee was never going to take him at his word, particularly when his chosen language is so carefully limited.  It's one thing to fool the public, but to think he could fool those committee members?  No way.

Barr has tainted the well of American conscience in this most significant matter in our nation's history, not gaslit Congress. 

Congress knows what's up, and now they have to fight procedure and time to close the gap up understanding for the American public.  In a fight to the death, every day longer you survive gives you another chance to weasel out of a certain fate.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I agree that the unsolicited memo had a pretty obvious purpose, but it's entirely possible that he actually believes a sitting President can't obstruct justice.  It appears to be a defensible (if perhaps not widely held) legal opinion.

I want to focus on the wording of his letter:  why would an experienced attorney with seemingly strong credentials try to gaslight Congress?  The Democrats control the House.  There was no clear path towards success if all he was trying to do was fool everyone into accepting his flawed summary of Mueller's report.  The House Judiciary Committee was never going to take him at his word, particularly when his chosen language is so carefully limited.  It's one thing to fool the public, but to think he could fool those committee members?  No way.

His justification for not having an obstruction charge had nothing to do with Trump being President.  He based it on the fact that there was no indictment for an underlying crime so there must have been nothing to obstruct.

Not only is that an incorrect reading of obstruction of justice, it actually encourages people to obstruct.  If you obstruct openly and brazenly enough in Barr's world, you'd be able to destroy evidence, threaten prosecutors, prevent investigation of the underlying crime, and in doing so, eliminate the possibility of obstruction.

Trump actually went much further than Clinton did and the Mueller report will almost certainly bear that out.  If it does, impeachment should be in order as the precedent for it already exists.

Edited March 26, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[David Dennison 18661]

Just now, tjhooker said:

I can see this setting up for another magnificent overreach by the dems further empowering Trump. Mueller report will be released and it will be more of the same.  Except instead of attacking Barr it will move to Mueller as the shill and the report should be discounted.  Then dems will seize on some vague language or gray area and still call him guilty while the public laughs at them thinking this is ridiculous. 

You know the best way to find out if this is true?

Release the report. Don't stonewall.