The Robert Mueller Investigation

[BradInATX 9,208]

7 minutes ago, Eminence Front said:

He survived it because of Russian interference in our election. Which you do not care about as you are a fulsome traitor just like your ignoble president. 

Would you say that it's a put on?

[ChiTownDoc 21,101]

33 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

Why is Barr walking back his use of "summary" as representative of his memo ?

Because he likely purposely omitted accounting for evidence of other crimes manifest in the full report.  If his memo were a summary, the expectation is that other criminal conduct documented by Mueller would have been referenced by Barr.  

 There were 'things' Barr didn't include in his memo - things they're trying to edit, withhold, and hide.  And now Barr is being careful not to get caught being a part of it.

I’m surprised Barr is this stupid if that’s what’s happening.  I mean how the hell did he think the real report wasn’t going to come out?

I guess no matter what it says, the Right will say ‘exonerated’ and the Left will scream ‘guilty’ but it’s still odd for the AG to put out something so halfassed he’s already walking it back.  

[Junior Miller 1,502]

This country is a shithole. Nothing of positive note will ever be accomplished again by this government. Welcome to a shitty ass reality. 

[Jim Tom Pinch 120]

On 3/29/2019 at 6:30 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh, I’m well aware it’s procedural and legally acceptable. I’m saying it’s wrong.  It’s a president and his AG abusing their power trying to rule through law instead of behaving in good faith allegiance to the public and the rule of law. 

Mueller is the prosecutor and Trump appointed his own judge in Barr to get him off the hook, which he has done and is doing.  Nothing prevented Barr from handing Mueller’s report directly to Congress on day one. 

This isn’t right. 

The American people just changed Congress precisely to check this type of bullshit. 

It’s wrong that they’re obeying the law? Good Fucking Lord.

Fucking idiot.

[maninblack 7,974]

11 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

This country is a shithole. Nothing of positive note will ever be accomplished again by this government. Welcome to a shitty ass reality. 

Would you have said that during Obama or Bush's presidency? 

[TDunk 590]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I’m surprised Barr is this stupid if that’s what’s happening.  I mean how the hell did he think the real report wasn’t going to come out?

I guess no matter what it says, the Right will say ‘exonerated’ and the Left will scream ‘guilty’ but it’s still odd for the AG to put out something so halfassed he’s already walking it back.  

Apparently "Boomer" stupidity isn't limited to a state, it's a generational thing.  

Edited March 31, 2019 by TDunk
sux

[notre dame joe 172]

3 hours ago, Junior Miller said:

This country is a shithole. Nothing of positive note will ever be accomplished again by this government. Welcome to a shitty ass reality. 

 

that's why we need to build a wall before all our citizens flee to Socialist Central America.

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

5 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I’m surprised Barr is this stupid if that’s what’s happening.  I mean how the hell did he think the real report wasn’t going to come out?

I guess no matter what it says, the Right will say ‘exonerated’ and the Left will scream ‘guilty’ but it’s still odd for the AG to put out something so halfassed he’s already walking it back.  

Meh,  Barr was required to send the following report to Congress:

Quote

6.  

28 CFR § 600.9 - Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

• CFR
•  
•  
•  

prev | next

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.

(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

The rules don't require or contemplate a "summary," they require and contemplate what's bolded above.  Barr said there were no instances where proposed action was not pursued and he could have stopped right there.  But that would have caused a shitstorm, so he additionally addressed the question central to the investigation and the obstruction issue, both of which were more than arguably "declination of prosecution" decisions central to the Special Counsel report required by 28 CFR 600.8(c).  The prosecution decisions are obvious from the public record.

This parsing of Barr's report is just more black helicopters speculation that got us in this place in the first instance.  Everyone needs to hold their fucking water until the report comes out. 

I have finally figured out why the constant citations to the "rule of law" that are flying around don't quite resonate.  I get that no one should be above the law, but the majority of people flinging that phrase around have no clue what the law actually is, or give a rats ass about following it if it doesn't serve their purpose.

Although it is in response to your post, this isn't directed at you, ChiTown, or really anyone in particular. It's just a "concern troll."  👹👹

Edited March 31, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[horncyclist 1,386]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Meh,  Barr was required to send the following report to Congress:

The rules don't require or contemplate a "summary," they require and contemplate what's bolded above.  Barr said there were no instances where proposed action was not pursued and he could have stopped right there.  But that would have caused a shitstorm, so he additionally addressed the question central to the investigation and the obstruction issue, both of which were more than arguably "declination of prosecution" decisions central to the Special Counsel report required by 28 CFR 600.8(c).  The prosecution decisions are obvious from the public record.

This parsing of Barr's report is just more black helicopters speculation that got us in this place in the first instance.  Everyone needs to hold their fucking water until the report comes out. 

I have finally figured out why the constant citations to the "rule of law" that are flying around don't quite resonate.  I get that no one should be above the law, but the majority of people flinging that phrase around have no clue what the law actually is, or give a rats ass about following it if it doesn't serve their purpose.

Although it is in response to your post, this isn't directed at you, ChiTown, or really anyone in particular. It's just a "concern troll."  👹👹

I think he probably used that bolded part to justify making his no obstruction conclusion. He should have deferred to Congress instead. It was not Barr's determination to make. And as an AG appointed by the subject of the investigation, who got the job in part by arguing why the President's actions could not be obstruction, should have been recused from any decision regardless. This reeks of impropriety and subversion of justice.

I ask: what precedent are we setting here? Presidents can do whatever they want to interfere in an investigation that they are the subject of, so long as it's mainly done in public and there's no "underlying crime" directly implementing the president when such crime is narrowly defined? Everyone should be outraged at how this process has unfolded. The attack on the rule of law continues. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by horncyclist
for clarity

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

12 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I think he probably used that bolded part to justify his no obstruction conclusion. He should have deferred to Congress instead. It was not Barr's determination to make. And as an AG appointed by the subject of the investigation, who got the job in part by arguing why the President's actions could not be obstruction, should have been recused from any decision regardless. This reeks of impropriety and subversion of justice.

I ask: what precedent are we setting here? Presidents can do whatever they want to interfere in an investigation that they are the subject of, so long as it's mainly done in public and there's no "underlying crime" directly implementing the president when such crime is narrowly defined. Everyone should be outraged at how this process unfolded. The attack on the rule of law continues. 

Eh.  Within the context of the special counsel rules, it's his call to make.  Which is not to say Congress isn't free to make a different conclusion and impeach.  That's the constitutional structure.  It's moot anyway as there are no criminal charges to be brought against the President.  If you want to be mad, be mad at Mueller for declining to reach a conclusion.  I'm puzzled by that.

Your whole second paragraph is speculation.  Educated, but speculation nonetheless.  Objective indication is that we'll get the report and congress will get more of the report and I don't see the information about presidential obstruction being covered by the proposed redaction subjects.  We'll know soon enough.

Edited March 31, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eh.  Within the context of the special counsel rules, it's his call to make.  Which is not to say Congress isn't free to make a different conclusion and impeach.  That's the constitutional structure.  It's moot anyway as there are no criminal charges to be brought against the President.  If you want to be mad, be mad at Mueller for declining to reach a conclusion.  I'm puzzled by that.

Your whole second paragraph is speculation.  Educated, but speculation nonetheless.  Objective indication is that we'll get the report and congress will get more of the report and I don't see the information about presidential obstruction being covered by the proposed redaction subjects.  We'll know soon enough.

You keep looking at this through the purely legal lense while ignoring the very real political coverup.  Because protocol dictates a sitting president cannot be indicted, the law cannot hold a sitting president accountable, only Congress can through the political process of impeachment and removal.  

Mueller has satisfied his duties and finished his work product. He likely didn’t indict be because 1. Protocol 2. he wanted to lay out the facts before Congress and the American people.  He wasn’t required by law to write 400 pages but he did.  Why do you think he did that?  Legally, his report could have been one page, “no charges to be brought and here’s why.”

 The AG is actively working to conceal and delay the contents of Mueller’s work product from the American public and Congress while very deliberately putting his own political spin on it which happens to be favorable to the man who appointed him just a month ago. Because the only way a sitting president can be held accountable is through a political process, Barr is putting his big fat thumb on the scales of justice by warping public perception prior to the public seeing the underlying facts.

 While all this might be “very legal” it is not “very cool” and we should not have to tolerate it.  

Edited March 31, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[DDD Dad 14,251]

You keep looking at this through the purely legal lense while ignoring the very real political coverup.  Because protocol dictates a sitting president cannot be indicted, the law cannot hold a sitting president accountable, only Congress can through the political process of impeachment and removal.  
Mueller has satisfied his duties and finished his work product. He likely didn’t indict be because 1. Protocol 2. he wanted to lay out the facts before Congress and the American people.  He wasn’t required by law to write 400 pages but he did.  Why do you think he did that?  Legally, his report could have been one page, “no charges to be brought”. 
 The AG is actively working to conceal and delay the contents of Mueller’s work product from the American public and Congress while very deliberately putting his own political spin on it which happens to be favorable to the man who appointed him just a month ago. Because the only way a sitting president can be held accountable is through a political process, Barr is putting his big fat thumb on the scales of justice by warping public perception prior to the public seeing the underlying facts.
 While all this might be “very legal” it is not “very cool” and we should not have to tolerate it.  

When you conflate political and legal considerations you lose credibility. They are distinct.

[Message Board User 12,389]

 

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

When you conflate political and legal considerations you lose credibility. They are distinct.

Right.  I'm giving a legal-type analysis using the laws as they are, perhaps not as they should be. Morally or in some higher power sense it may be wrong, but currently it is proceeding according to the law.

Which is why this constant squawking about the "rule of law" is so absurd.  No one that invokes it seems to actually give a shit about the rule of law unless it helps their position.  The law in the US favors the accused, even when the accused is Donald J. Trump.

And, of course, the political arena provides its own remedies in this particular case.  I had kind of thought/hoped that the Mueller report would lend some legal and evidentiary basis to impeachment.  And it still very well may.

[ChiTownDoc 21,101]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Meh,  Barr was required to send the following report to Congress:

The rules don't require or contemplate a "summary," they require and contemplate what's bolded above.  Barr said there were no instances where proposed action was not pursued and he could have stopped right there.  But that would have caused a shitstorm, so he additionally addressed the question central to the investigation and the obstruction issue, both of which were more than arguably "declination of prosecution" decisions central to the Special Counsel report required by 28 CFR 600.8(c).  The prosecution decisions are obvious from the public record.

This parsing of Barr's report is just more black helicopters speculation that got us in this place in the first instance.  Everyone needs to hold their fucking water until the report comes out. 

I have finally figured out why the constant citations to the "rule of law" that are flying around don't quite resonate.  I get that no one should be above the law, but the majority of people flinging that phrase around have no clue what the law actually is, or give a rats ass about following it if it doesn't serve their purpose.

Although it is in response to your post, this isn't directed at you, ChiTown, or really anyone in particular. It's just a "concern troll."  👹👹

Oh no I have no issues with Barr’s report.  If he’s fine with that, roll it out.  Of course eventually we’ll all see most of it. 

I just find his language after the release really odd but I admit, I may be reading too much into that.  

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

Just now, Message Board User said:

 

But the public is not smart!  Brisket said so!  (sorry, dude, much love, couldn't resist).

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

16 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

When you conflate political and legal considerations you lose credibility. They are distinct.

I understand that but how can we say “no one is above the law” when a sitting president cannot be indicted? 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

15 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Oh no I have no issues with Barr’s report.  If he’s fine with that, roll it out.  Of course eventually we’ll all see most of it. 

I just find his language after the release really odd but I admit, I may be reading too much into that.  

Whole thing is kind of weird anyway.  The law on it is weird.  I mostly understand and have tried to explain why it may be weird, but I think we're seeing that the actual application of those rules is weirder than they look at first glance.

I think Mueller's lack of conclusion on obstruction may be a result of all the weirdness.  It may say something like, "between a lack of clarity on the law of obstruction as applied to the President, and the ambiguous nature of the evidence and the intent prong of the crime, it is difficult to conclude that an indictment would be in order if such process were available to me."

Edited March 31, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[DDD Dad 14,251]

This is playing out precisely as the SC regulations were written. The unintended consequence of avoiding another Monica Lewinski episode is what we now have in our lap.

I don’t know how you can conclude malfeasance on the part of Barr.

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

This is playing out precisely as the SC regulations were written. The unintended consequence of avoiding another Monica Lewinski episode is what we now have in our lap.

I don’t know how you can conclude malfeasance on the part of Barr.

It may well be coming (malfeasance), but totally agreed, it's going according to script currently.  That link you provided to Katyal's explanation of the rules was key to better understanding them.  I had previously thought they were just kind of a half-ass attempt to duplicate an independent counsel law internally.

Edited March 31, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

10 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I don’t know how you can conclude malfeasance on the part of Barr.

Congress has oversight authority and demanded the report.  Barr has so far refused to hand it over and used every excuse in the book to delay Congress exercising its oversight authority.   He doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Congress has oversight authority and demanded the report.  Barr has so far refused to hand it over and used every excuse in the book to delay Congress exercising its oversight authority.   He doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt. 

Congress' absolute oversight authority is not unlimited or unfettered as you seem to wish.  The "excuses" are completely legitimate and in accordance with the rules.

Quote

The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

You keep wanting to make this a special case because Trump. I can kind of get that.  But it's not consistent with the law.  The Congress has no general right to supervise or interfere with criminal investigations, or even to their work product when concluded.  In a non-Trump case, that makes perfect sense.  But you want to shortcut all that because Trump.  I get it, but admit that you're being ruled by your emotions, not by some adherence to the "rule of law."

Edited March 31, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[DDD Dad 14,251]

It’s been 9 days. I’m as skeptical as anyone but not reaching any conclusions at this point.

You’re out over your skis on this.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Congress' absolute oversight authority is not unlimited or unfettered as you seem to wish.  The "excuses" are completely legitimate and in accordance with the rules.

There’s no reason to believe Mueller didn’t provide Barr a sanitized version of the report so congress could see it, none.  They do it all the time when issuing reports and conclusions on investigations.  We’re assuming Mueller didn’t because Barr is using these policy excuses to delay Congress its oversight authority.  

So, yeah, I guess I was wrong in saying Barr doesn’t have any benefit of the doubt.

Bottom line is Congress needs to flex their muscles on both Mueller and Barr to get the facts in the public domain.  Barr has shown so far little interest in doing that and it’s troubling.

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There’s no reason to believe Mueller didn’t provide Barr a sanitized version of the report so congress could see it, none.  They do it all the time when issuing reports and conclusions on investigations.  We’re assuming Mueller didn’t because Barr is using these policy excuses to delay Congress its oversight authority.  

So, yeah, I guess I was wrong in saying Barr doesn’t have any benefit of the doubt.

Bottom line is Congress needs to flex their muscles on both Mueller and Barr to get the facts in the public domain.  Barr has shown so far little interest in doing that and it’s troubling.

Except for the part where he says he's going to release it mid April.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Except for the part where he says he's going to release it mid April.

That’s vague as fuck and is subject to change depending on how Barr “feels”.

Comey had his ass hauled up to the hill to PUBLICLY testify TWO DAYS after the conclusion of the Hillary Clinton investigation.  

The precedent isn’t on Barr’s side regarding investigations of intense public interest.

here’s the video:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe

Edited March 31, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[jimmyjazz 45,557]

9 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I’m surprised Barr is this stupid if that’s what’s happening.  I mean how the hell did he think the real report wasn’t going to come out?

This was my point when I got crossed up with a bunch of surlys for suggesting that Barr was walking a pretty odd tightrope with the language in that memo.  Lawyers of his achievement (admittedly some of it dubious) are very rarely careless with the language.  There was some reason for him to believe that his very careful wordsmithing would be sufficient and never superceded.  I don't get it.

[Amos Moses 795]

Good discussion@TwiceHorn, @DDD Dad,@horncyclist . Appreciate your analysis in this din of poo slinging nonsense.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

8 hours ago, Jim Tom Pinch said:

It’s wrong that they’re obeying the law? Good Fucking Lord.

Fucking idiot.

I mentioned that you could be disbarred for releasing grand jury documents. Other people have mentioned it. It is illegal to release this kind of stuff. But I'm not on the "orange man bad" train so my facts aren't their facts. Of course, they're still facts. 

 

[Foosters 17,731]

Lol Hammer talking about facts. 

[Dolemite 143]

34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Except for the part where he says he's going to release it mid April.

The only reason they want it released is to create an opportunity to claim it "creates more questions than answers". Dems will then dig up someone to testify as they did with Kavanaugh. Then on and on with the idea to stretch it out until 2020.

Grand Jury testimony can't be released although the Dems will gloss over that when they find what is given out is not the "full report".

So predictable. 

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

9 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Lol Hammer talking about facts. 

I get my facts wrong, then I correct myself. I don't engage in 400+ page discussion based on a hoax and hundreds of fake news stories, and then when the facts are made plainly obvious, protest that they aren't the facts.

I mean that's fucking next level crazy.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[horncyclist 1,386]

4 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

The only reason they want it released is to create an opportunity to claim it "creates more questions than answers". Dems will then dig up someone to testify as they did with Kavanaugh. Then on and on with the idea to stretch it out until 2020.

Grand Jury testimony can't be released although the Dems will gloss over that when they find what is given out is not the "full report".

So predictable. 

If there is evidence in the grand jury interviews that implicates the president in a crime or sub-criminal conduct against American interests, the public has a right to know. Given the public importance, Barr should be working to facilitate a process to allow at least some members of Congress an ability to review the full the report. Instead, he appears to be treating this as any other grand jury matter subject to 6(e). I don't think that is right.

And I do not think the democrats are the ones acting in bad faith here. Again, the public has a right know, through Congress if necessary to protect sensitive information but there must be public oversight. Barr's letter, listing four grounds for redaction and suggesting that Trump is going to let him making privilege claims on behalf of the administration suggests there is going to be an effort to suppress as much as possible. That is not what the situation calls for, and many are rightly skeptical of Barr's intent. If this was a democrat president, republicans would have impeached him or her already. Hell, they still want to lock Hillary up three years after Comey cleared her. Now, who's acting in bad faith?

[Gatorubet 30,098]

7 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

The only reason they want it released is to create an opportunity to claim it "creates more questions than answers". Dems will then dig up someone to testify as they did with Kavanaugh. Then on and on with the idea to stretch it out until 2020.

Grand Jury testimony can't be released although the Dems will gloss over that when they find what is given out is not the "full report".

So predictable. 

You are simply wrong.  Grand jury testimony can be be released. 

But lol at your brain coming up with a dismissive comment that hundreds of pages in a report do not need to be looked at when the man who covered up Iran-Contra for the GOP and who sought out the job by saying the POTUS can't legally obstruct says in a four page summary that no obstruction happened.   If Obama had not released a Benghazi investigation report and Holder issued a four page summary that everything was okey-doke, you and Crusher and Hammer would be stroking out and calling for impeachment.

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

48 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s vague as fuck and is subject to change depending on how Barr “feels”.

Comey had his ass hauled up to the hill to PUBLICLY testify TWO DAYS after the conclusion of the Hillary Clinton investigation.  

The precedent isn’t on Barr’s side regarding investigations of intense public interest.

here’s the video:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe

Interesting point.  I think Comey is differentiable on a number of fronts.  Politically, as you note, R's are just more ruthless than D's.  Also, because there was no rule in place requiring Comey to have any kind of report for potential public consumption, there was no issue of "jumping the gun" as there would be now, with the Rules and Barr's representations that the report will be forthcoming.

Legally, the Clinton matter was far less complex (one "defendant" and one set of actions) and it appeared that Comey was given and made a judgment call all on his own.  Easier to secure somewhat meaningful testimony in those circumstances, than these.**  Further, I think had the questioning delved into the matters intended to be redacted from the Mueller report (ongoing investigation, national security) Comey would have declined to answer, as he has on several occasions in slightly different contexts (those are verbal redactions).

**Without a report, it really is kind of difficult to formulate incisive questions of Mueller without invoking huge long narratives from him, which would be ok I guess, but not a congressional favorite because it would minimize bloviation time for the esteemed Representatives.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

It’s been 9 days. I’m as skeptical as anyone but not reaching any conclusions at this point.

You’re out over your skis on this.

I understand we’ve normalized accepting an administration that repeatedly lies to our faces on a daily basis.  

I understand we’ve normalized the President of the United States denying the many facts Mueller has put in front of our faces through his indictments. 

Pardon me for drawing conclusions from the lengthy fact pattern regarding Trump and Barr’s approach to the Mueller investigation.

I have no reason to be skeptical of Mueller’s work but the fact is:  we have only seen 73 carefully selected words from the final 400 page report because those are the only words Barr decided for us we should see. 

I will admit there is a possibility I could be wrong and Barr is acting in good faith but given the evidence available I am concluding Barr is protecting the President from the American people instead of the other way around. 

I don’t think I’m out over my skis

Edited March 31, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Dolemite 143]

Well, we know there is no evidence in the grand jury testimony because of the findings in the report. To say otherwise is to say, Mueller ignored evidence. 

Of course, the Dems are acting in bad faith and that is obvious because of the findings by Mueller which left no wiggle room.

Speaking of Clinton, hopefully, she lives long enough to get what she deserves. 

 

[Dolemite 143]

8 minutes ago, Eminence Front said:

 

Everybody predicted a cover up so you're right re predictability. Hell even Barr predicted he'd egregiously tip the scales for Trump -- and he did.

When did Barr say that?

[David Dennison 18,656]

Just now, Dolemite said:

Well, we know there is no evidence in the grand jury testimony because of the findings in the report. To say otherwise is to say, Mueller ignored evidence. 

Of course, the Dems are acting in bad faith and that is obvious because of the findings by Mueller which left no wiggle room.

Speaking of Clinton, hopefully, she lives long enough to get what she deserves. 

Just because he said he could not establish a case does not mean there is no evidence. In fact, quite the contrary. The report probably lays out what evidence exists and why Mueller thought it he could not make a case with it. The evidence may be inadmissible, it may come from witnesses with credibility problems, or it may come from individuals currently in Russia. 

We won't know how much evidence Robert Mueller did or did not find until we read the report. Barr did not answer the question in his summary.

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Just because he said he could not establish a case does not mean there is no evidence. In fact, quite the contrary. The report probably lays out what evidence exists and why Mueller thought it he could not make a case with it. The evidence may be inadmissible, it may come from witnesses with credibility problems, or it may come from individuals currently in Russia. 

We won't know how much evidence Robert Mueller did or did not find until we read the report. Barr did not answer the question in his summary.

Very very true and that's why it still might provide some basis for an impeachment, which need not bother with admissible evidence.

[Dolemite 143]

30 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You are simply wrong.  Grand jury testimony can be be released. 

But lol at your brain coming up with a dismissive comment that hundreds of pages in a report do not need to be looked at when the man who covered up Iran-Contra for the GOP and who sought out the job by saying the POTUS can't legally obstruct says in a four page summary that no obstruction happened.   If Obama had not released a Benghazi investigation report and Holder issued a four page summary that everything was okey-doke, you and Crusher and Hammer would be stroking out and calling for impeachment.

To release GJT you would have to prove the benefits of disclosure outweighs the consequences. Don't think that works here. But FWIW, I don't really a give a shit what they release. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Dolemite

[Dolemite 143]

16 minutes ago, Eminence Front said:

19 page memo.

Mueller btw didn't ignore evidence, Barr did, as per his 19 page memo outlining his theory that a President cannot constitutionally obstruct justice.

Well, we know that constitutionally the prez can't obstruct justice but the wording was clear that Barr didn't consider the constitution. 

Definition of obstruction of justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

Edited March 31, 2019 by Dolemite

[Dolemite 143]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Just because he said he could not establish a case does not mean there is no evidence. In fact, quite the contrary. The report probably lays out what evidence exists and why Mueller thought it he could not make a case with it. The evidence may be inadmissible, it may come from witnesses with credibility problems, or it may come from individuals currently in Russia. 

We won't know how much evidence Robert Mueller did or did not find until we read the report. Barr did not answer the question in his summary.

It's a big ole goofy world lol.

 

[Gatorubet 30,098]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

 The Congress has no general right to supervise or interfere with criminal investigations, or even to their work product when concluded.  In a non-Trump case, that makes perfect sense.  But you want to shortcut all that because Trump.  I get it, but admit that you're being ruled by your emotions, not by some adherence to the "rule of law."

I would argue that Congress has an enumerated Constitutional right to work product of a criminal investigation - if that work product may implicate their Congressional oversight and duty to investigate offenses that may implicate  impeachment.   'High crimes and misdemeanors'  is not synonymous with criminal conviction, and there is an equally good argument that a preponderance standard is the burden of proof in conviction in the Senate.   All of that can rightfully be seen as separating  impeachment from the constructs of criminal investigations, and therefore a reason not to view this as "interfere(ing) with criminal investigation".

There is no reason not to have a shortcut if Trump may have committed impeachable offenses.  Criminal indictments are about the rights of the individual criminal defendant.  Impeachment is about preserving and protecting the country from a leader unfit for office.   A criminal trial can drag on and society not be hurt, as they are cooling their heels in prison or out on bail.  Keeping a POTUS in office who should potentially be removed for improper impeachable behavior is a situation that cries out for speed and shortcuts.  

I mean, finding the proof to remove him or her only after they have left office is sort of not the point of impeachment.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Gatorubet

[retread 2,951]

Totally agree with horncyclist. The full, unredacted report has to be available at least to the gang of 8.

Like Twice said earlier, the process is following the law. It just seems very hinky that the DOJ and the current AG both hamstring themselves against indicting the President re: obstruction, but the current AG decided he wanted to decide in favor of Trump in that regard. As has been said, this does not preclude Congress from making its own judgments, but it still stinks imo.

Barr's words from the first letter ( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html )

Quote

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by retread

[Gatorubet 30,098]

3 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

Well, we know that constitutionally the prez can't obstruct justice but the wording was clear that Barr didn't consider the constitution. 

What stupid juice is Fox feeding these rubes?

[TwiceHorn 31,272]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

Totally agree with horncyclist. The full, unredacted report has to be available at least to the gang of 8.

Like Twice said earlier, the process is following the law. It just seems very hinky that the DOJ and the current AG both hamstring themselves against indicting the President re: obstruction, but the current AG decided he wanted to decide in favor of Trump in that regard. As has been said, this does not preclude Congress from making its own judgments, but it still stinks imo.

Barr's words

 

As a reminder, the current DOJ policy and the applicable regs were formulated 20 years and three administrations ago, and the policy based on a 45 year old statement maybe not quite reaching policy status.  I don't think any executive or his appointees are going to be real anxious to undo policies that favor the executive, much less Trump.  But it's not a particularly craven thing at this point.  Trump, Barr, Whitaker, Sessions, Rosenstein, none of them are responsible for the current policies.  There have been any number of Attorneys General, that could have overturned those policies, but didn't.

It does make for a bizarre environment for Mueller, and I guess everyone involved.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Also because this is the most unprecedented and possibly consequential investigation in US history. 

That’s probably why I’m so disgusted with Barr’s behavior in this process. 

 

[Gatorubet 30,098]

10 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Would you say that it's a put on?

The news slows.
People forget.

[Dolemite 143]

31 minutes ago, retread said:

Totally agree with horncyclist. The full, unredacted report has to be available at least to the gang of 8.

Like Twice said earlier, the process is following the law. It just seems very hinky that the DOJ and the current AG both hamstring themselves against indicting the President re: obstruction, but the current AG decided he wanted to decide in favor of Trump in that regard. As has been said, this does not preclude Congress from making its own judgments, but it still stinks imo.

Barr's words from the first letter ( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html )

 

3

If you are going to let Schiff look at it, then releasing it to the public is preferable because Schiff will leak it to the press and colorize it in the way he wants to.

He said, she said, etc. On and on.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Dolemite