The Robert Mueller Investigation

[retread 2951]

One could say the same about Nunes. It is very much less than ideal that we can't expect better from our representatives in Congress. Ds and Rs should be able to trust the other side in matters like this. /pollyanna

[Foosters 17731]

39 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. 

Definition of obstruction of justice.

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

Lol. 

Says matter of factly that presidents cannot obstruct justice per the constitution.

To back up his assertion, cites Wikipedia article that shows President Clinton being impeached for obstruction of justice.

[Dolemite 143]

Except that Nunes has no motive because of the findings in the Mueller report as characterized by Barr's summary.

However, our congress is a piece of shit in general and full of thieves so if you are going to release unredacted then give directly to the public.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

8 minutes ago, retread said:

One could say the same about Nunes. It is very much less than ideal that we can't expect better from our representatives in Congress. Ds and Rs should be able to trust the other side in matters like this. /pollyanna

There was a time not so long ago, that this actually happened.  I was alive but not quite savvy enough to know, but I think Ds and Rs in congress were mostly united on getting to the bottom of Watergate.  I'm virtually certain that, even if they weren't, there wasn't all this grandstanding.  I came home from K and first grade and that's all that was on from then til the 10 oclock news and my Mother watched every second of it it seems.

Edited March 31, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Dolemite 143]

Just now, Foosters said:

Lol. 

Says matter of factly that presidents cannot obstruct justice per the constitution.

To back up his assertion, cites Wikipedia article that shows President Clinton being impeached for obstruction of justice.

He perjured himself which is why he lost his law license for 5 years in Arkansas. 

 

[Foosters 17731]

2 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

He perjured himself which is why he lost his law license for 5 years in Arkansas. 

 

Um, ok?

He was impeached on one charge of obstruction of justice. That's a fact. Better do some more research on Wikipedia

[retread 2951]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There was a time not so long ago, that this actually happened.  I was alive but not quite savvy enough to know, but I think Ds and Rs in congress were mostly united on getting to the bottom of Watergate.  I'm virtually certain that, even if they weren't, there wasn't all this grandstanding.

Agree. I'm not sure I completely buy the stories of Tip O'Neill going over to have drinks with Reagan, but I think relationships were more amicable and productive.

As horrible as they were, the crucibles of WWII/Korea forged leadership and camaraderie that carried over into Congress.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

1 minute ago, retread said:

Agree. I'm not sure I completely buy the stories of Tip O'Neill going over to have drinks with Reagan, but I think relationships were more amicable and productive.

As horrible as they were, the crucibles of WWII/Korea forged leadership and camaraderie that carried over into Congress.

Great insight on that last.

[Message Board User 12389]

 

[triplehorn 2664]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

Spoiler

§ 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.

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."  👹👹

Keep in mind the Mueller investigation was a counterintelligence investigation as much as a criminal one.  I expect the now completed report lays out a narrative that necessarily will involve POTUS, WH staff and other associates, overlapping with past Russian incursions and their ongoing operations.  Mueller's investigation likely is as much about active compromise or not as it is about past or ongoing crimes.  

It appears Barr may have attempted to close off the Mueller report by "summarizing" it with a letter as a resolved criminal/legal outcome.  As such, all grand jury material, other evidentiary records, and sharing of report information that might impugn peripheral third parties should be restricted consistent with norms in criminal proceedings. 

But counterintelligence.  The question we face as a nation today is if our WH and top WH staff are actively compromised by a foreign power(s).  To me, it would be mendacious as hell (at a minimum) if in his summary letter, Barr knowingly excluded references to material linked to clear signs of compromise by focusing exclusively on only two narrow questions about one individual.  That right there is where Barr's "summary" walk-back begins.  He does NOT want to appear to knowingly be a part of a cover-up of known evidence of active compromise. 

And really, who doesn't see all the signs of active compromise already in plain view?  Extensive lying about Trump Tower Moscow.  Sanctions dropping and denying Russian hostility.  Secret meetings with Putin where Trump quite likely was subjected to exquisitely delivered 'understandings.'  

Barr's walk-back is him being careful what he lets touch him.

 

[Tom 2959]

18 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Lol. 

Says matter of factly that presidents cannot obstruct justice per the constitution.

To back up his assertion, cites Wikipedia article that shows President Clinton being impeached for obstruction of justice.

 

You misunderstood.  What Dolemite was getting at is only Democrats can be impeached for crimes.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour 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. 

Definition of obstruction of justice.

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

The constitution says the president can’t obstruct justice?  Does that mean he can’t obstruct Justice or he can but he gets to get way with it? 

You might wanna sit the rest of this one out. I hear there’s a dude on shaggy named badmofo though. You might be good talking to him. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

Keep in mind the Mueller investigation was a counterintelligence investigation as much as a criminal one.  I expect the now completed report lays out a narrative that necessarily will involve POTUS, WH staff and other associates, overlapping with past Russian incursions and their ongoing operations.  Mueller's investigation likely is as much about active compromise or not as it is about past or ongoing crimes.  

It appears Barr may have attempted to close off the Mueller report by "summarizing" it with a letter as a resolved criminal/legal outcome.  As such, all grand jury material, other evidentiary records, and sharing of report information that might impugn peripheral third parties should be restricted consistent with norms in criminal proceedings. 

But counterintelligence.  The question we face as a nation today is if our WH and top WH staff are actively compromised by a foreign power(s).  To me, it would be mendacious as hell (at a minimum) if in his summary letter, Barr knowingly excluded references to material linked to clear signs of compromise by focusing exclusively on only two narrow questions about one individual.  That right there is where Barr's "summary" walk-back begins.  He does NOT want to appear to knowingly be a part of a cover-up of known evidence of active compromise. 

And really, who doesn't see all the signs of active compromise already in plain view?  Extensive lying about Trump Tower Moscow.  Sanctions dropping and denying Russian hostility.  Secret meetings with Putin where Trump quite likely was subjected to exquisitely delivered 'understandings.'  

Barr's walk-back is him being careful what he lets touch him.

 

I think the Mueller report is, at the very least, going to layout the narrative the Russians were actively trying to compromise the Trump campaign in several ways.  All the known facts point to that conclusion.  

What we don’t know is how receptive, gullible, careless, or willing members of the Trump campaign, including Trump, were in that effort.  I don’t know if we’re going to get the full story but the parts we do get in the Mueller report are likely to be very embarrassing to Trump and his team.  Which probably explains why they’re trying to concealing it.

Considering Lisa Page and Peter Strozk had their careers and reputations ruined over some private text messages that somehow got leaked to the public in this process; it would be karma if the full Mueller report got released and devastating to team Trump’s reputation.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Dolemite 143]

40 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The constitution says the president can’t obstruct justice?  Does that mean he can’t obstruct Justice or he can but he gets to get way with it? 

You might wanna sit the rest of this one out. I hear there’s a dude on shaggy named badmofo though. You might be good talking to him. 

I guess he could rob a bank and tell the FBI not to investigate it so yeah I guess he can obstruct justice so I guess you win.

The inability to obstruct justice is only when he is exercising his duty of chief law enforcement officer.

But after what, 400+ pages of idiocy in this thread I don't see why it matters what anyone says now.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Dolemite

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t know if we’re going to get the full story but the parts we do get in the Mueller report are likely to be very embarrassing to Trump and his team.  Which probably explains why they’re trying to concealing it.

Embarrassing ?  In responding to the attack from R’s on HSCI,  Schiff’s use of the of the word “Corrupt” will probably end up being the most fitting.  And not just domestic corruption - the foreign counterintelligence variety that leads to active foreign compromise.  

Assessing and handling that threat is the direct responsibility of the Executive’s co-equal branch, Congress.  Bipartisan Congress requires the full Mueller report to accomplish that.

[Gatorubet 30098]

57 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

I guess he could rob a bank and tell the FBI not to investigate it so yeah I guess he can obstruct justice so I guess you win.

The inability to obstruct justice is only when he is exercising his duty of chief law enforcement officer.

But after what, 400+ pages of idiocy in this thread I don't see why it matters what anyone says now.

At the risk of introducing more Rush and Hannity sound bites, where did you  get the information that a POTUS can obstruct justice when acting in his official capacity and not be liable for that obstruction?   By that I mean, post a link with a SCOTUS (or at least a DC Circuit) decision, because anything other than that is, like, your opinion man.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

After this is all over we should figure out a way to make the DOJ more independent from the executive branch.  The idea a president can oversee the same branch of government investigating his possible criminal conduct seems dumb as fuck. 

[horncyclist 1386]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

After this is all over we should figure out a way to make the DOJ more independent from the executive branch.  The idea a president can oversee the same branch of government investigating his possible criminal conduct seems dumb as fuck. 

I think the solution is to adopt a better special counsel statute. That the regulations Mueller was appointed under limited his work was part of the problem here. Barr should have never been involved. Then again, maybe Mueller should have just made a prosecution decision on obstruction. That's still a little baffling. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

6 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Then again, maybe Mueller should have just made a prosecution decision on obstruction. That's still a little baffling. 

If Mueller made a prosecutorial judgement for indictment on obstruction it would have been seen as him putting his thumb on the scale because it’s the responsibility of Congress to determine whether or not the president committed an impeachable offense, not Mueller.

He wouldn’t want the end of a presidency to be placed on his shoulders alone.  

Congress wants special prosecutors to do their dirty work for them because they don’t want to hurt themselves politically searching for the facts.  Mueller shouldn’t be expected to make decisions for them regarding holding a sitting president accountable. 

[Dolemite 143]

23 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

At the risk of introducing more Rush and Hannity sound bites, where did you  get the information that a POTUS can obstruct justice when acting in his official capacity and not be liable for that obstruction?   By that I mean, post a link with a SCOTUS (or at least a DC Circuit) decision, because anything other than that is, like, your opinion man.

I am done. Go find it yourself. It wouldn't matter anyway since you are going to believe what you want to believe. 

[Red Five 40660]

Lulz

[Bama Chick 28596]

In America we call that “taking your ball and going home”.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Also, just because Mueller didn’t ESTABLISH a prosecutable case for a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government doesn’t mean he found no evidence of conduct that could be considered an impeachable offense in that area.  

We don’t know until we see the report.

However, it’s important to keep in mind not all crimes are impeachable offenses and not all impeachable offenses are crimes.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31272]

32 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I think the solution is to adopt a better special counsel statute. That the regulations Mueller was appointed under limited his work was part of the problem here. Barr should have never been involved. Then again, maybe Mueller should have just made a prosecution decision on obstruction. That's still a little baffling. 

The Special Counsel rules didn't limit his work.  The DOJ policy makes it pretty nugatory (I think this is a first for me) for Mueller to make a "prosecution decision" with respect to the President, whom he cannot prosecute.  Still very interested in what he said.

I think Hugo is right that congress is trying in this case to shift the dooky burden onto Mueller to get them off dead-center.  And I think he refuses to be such a pawn.  I don't think he would mince words on the evidence, though.

Special counsels have worked pretty well in the vast majority of cases, where the President isn't a target.  I'm in favor of some laws that cover things like who gets the report and how much and maybe tilts court review a little further toward public disclosure than FOIA laws might.

[SubliminalHorn 6674]

22 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

I am done. Go find it yourself. It wouldn't matter anyway since you are going to believe what you want to believe. 

Awww come on, Doley. Don’t run away just yet. Your pwnage was just getting good. You sure you don’t want to cite a case establishing what you’re claiming? 

[JimmyJames 12271]

17 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

In America we call that “taking your ball and going home”.

What is this phrase “taking ball and going home.”  It makes no sense.

You crazy Americans. You crack me up some of time. 

[Dolemite 143]

5 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Awww come on, Doley. Don’t run away just yet. Your pwnage was just getting good. You sure you don’t want to cite a case establishing what you’re claiming? 

Y'all hurting my feelings, and I am getting the fuck out. 

[retread 2951]

Can the President obstruct?

[Gatorubet 30098]

3 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Awww come on, Doley. Don’t run away just yet. Your pwnage was just getting good. You sure you don’t want to cite a case establishing what you’re claiming? 

Nice to know that when some future Democratic POTUS obstructs justice while acting pursuant to his or her duty as chief law enforcement officer, our Dolemite will step forward to silence the right when they call for investigation or impeachment...

A got-dang dauntless defender of the Constitution, that's what Dolemite is.

[SubliminalHorn 6674]

3 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

Y'all hurting my feelings, and I am getting the fuck out. 

Like forever? Praise be. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

51 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

Y'all hurting my feelings, and I am getting the fuck out. 

Does this mean tj is coming back to post? 

[notre dame joe 172]

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Special counsels have worked pretty well in the vast majority of cases, where the President isn't a target.  I'm in favor of some laws that cover things like who gets the report and how much and maybe tilts court review a little further toward public disclosure than FOIA laws might.

ummm no.  Every special counsel has gone beyond his mandate and sought out/created minor crimes just to convict someone to justify his appointment. If you enjoy them it's likely because they go after Rs a lot more than Ds.  Not surprising because one party is pro-Washington and the other is not.

[Horn Dog 9672]

3 hours ago, Dolemite said:

I am done. Go find it yourself. It wouldn't matter anyway since you are going to believe what you want to believe. 

 

3 hours ago, Dolemite said:

Y'all hurting my feelings, and I am getting the fuck out. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

43 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

 

ummm no.  Every special counsel has gone beyond his mandate and sought out/created minor crimes just to convict someone to justify his appointment. If you enjoy them it's likely because they go after Rs a lot more than Ds.  Not surprising because one party is pro-Washington and the other is not.

Umm, no.  The only one that conceivably went beyond was Whitewater.  Watergate and the rest up until now have been pretty cut and dry.   Maybe if you’re concerned that  one party keeps getting prosecuted for crimes, it’s because they commit crimes more often, and you might want to not support criminals. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Judge Roybeanbag

[Bama Chick 28596]

Y'all hurting my feelings, and I am getting the fuck out. 

Need a safe space, snowflake?

[TwiceHorn 31272]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Special Counsel rules didn't limit his work.  The DOJ policy makes it pretty nugatory (I think this is a first for me) for Mueller to make a "prosecution decision" with respect to the President, whom he cannot prosecute.  Still very interested in what he said.

I think Hugo is right that congress is trying in this case to shift the dooky burden onto Mueller to get them off dead-center.  And I think he refuses to be such a pawn.  I don't think he would mince words on the evidence, though.

Special counsels have worked pretty well in the vast majority of cases, where the President isn't a target.  I'm in favor of some laws that cover things like who gets the report and how much and maybe tilts court review a little further toward public disclosure than FOIA laws might.

When I say worked pretty well, I basically mean without monstrous controversy over their appointment, their actions in office, and interference by the President or other executives.

It's a mistake to assume that without a special counsel, something would not be investigated or prosecuted.

Most of the special counsels you never heard of or barely remember and that is a sign that it's working.

The worst case of mandate creep was Whitewater, but in that case a panel of judges (no one from Congress, no one from the executive) approved the direction of the investigation specifically.

[notre dame joe 172]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

When I say worked pretty well, I basically mean without monstrous controversy over their appointment, their actions in office, and interference by the President or other executives.

It's a mistake to assume that without a special counsel, something would not be investigated or prosecuted.

Most of the special counsels you never heard of or barely remember and that is a sign that it's working.

The worst case of mandate creep was Whitewater, but in that case a panel of judges (no one from Congress, no one from the executive) approved the direction of the investigation specifically.

Yeah no one can remember or easily look up the special prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case.  Or remember Pat Fitzgerald.  

 

But you exclude Ken Starr because he hit your party.  And I hope you one day awake the outrageous tactics of special counsel Jay Sekulow's investigation of the Obama DOJ.

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

When I say worked pretty well, I basically mean without monstrous controversy over their appointment, their actions in office, and interference by the President or other executives.

It's a mistake to assume that without a special counsel, something would not be investigated or prosecuted.

Cover-up is a bigger concern today than something not being investigated or prosecuted.   US Attorney General John Mitchell served prison time over his role in the Watergate cover-up.  Unfortunately it's not out of the realm, and we're already witnessing attempts to dim transparency by the AG.

[hobbes2702 12824]

10 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Yeah no one can remember or easily look up the special prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case.  Or remember Pat Fitzgerald.  

 

But you exclude Ken Starr because he hit your party.  And I hope you one day awake the outrageous tactics of special counsel Jay Sekulow's investigation of the Obama DOJ.

What party is Twicehorn?

[TwiceHorn 31272]

18 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Cover-up is a bigger concern today than something not being investigated or prosecuted.   US Attorney General John Mitchell served prison time over his role in the Watergate cover-up.  Unfortunately it's not out of the realm, and we're already witnessing attempts to dim transparency by the AG.

This is a weird response.  John Mitchell was indicted by a special prosecutor.  If there's enough foofaraw to appoint a special prosecutor, they will likely be prosecuted, even if a special prosecutor isn't actually appointed.  A special prosecutor isn't a prerequisite to prosecution of executive department types, it just eliminates a perceived or real conflict of interest.

And now you are getting toward pretty irresponsible speculation about events that have yet to even occur.

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

What party is Twicehorn?

Unfair question, cuz I don't even fucking know.  I won't vote GOP except in rare circumstances.

[hobbes2702 12824]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Unfair question, cuz I don't even fucking know.  I won't vote GOP except in rare circumstances.

Nah man you’re being unfair to Ken Starr and his noble investigation into a blowjob because you’re just a socialist lib.

Edited April 1, 2019 by hobbes2702

[TwiceHorn 31272]

21 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Yeah no one can remember or easily look up the special prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case.  Or remember Pat Fitzgerald.  

 

But you exclude Ken Starr because he hit your party.  And I hope you one day awake the outrageous tactics of special counsel Jay Sekulow's investigation of the Obama DOJ.

There's no need for a special counsel to investigate any aspect of the Obama Administration.  Because they aren't in power, they get regular prosecutors.

This is the thing that I think a lot of people dont seem to get about Special Prosecutors/Counsel.  They don't have super powers.  They aren't much different from any other prosecutor.  They're just outside the day-to-day chain of command of the DOJ because there is a perceived or real conflict of interest with the President or another senior executive branch or DOJ official.

We dont seem to care, for the most part, about the conflict of interest that may inhere to a subsequent administration investigating or prosecuting a prior administration or current political enemies.  We assume the system is sufficiently robust to avoid that.  And because the defendants are neither poor nor brown, I suppose that's a good assumption.

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[zork 629]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is a weird response.  John Mitchell was indicted by a special prosecutor.  If there's enough foofaraw to appoint a special prosecutor, they will likely be prosecuted, even if a special prosecutor isn't actually appointed.  A special prosecutor isn't a prerequisite to prosecution of executive department types, it just eliminates a perceived or real conflict of interest.

And now you are getting toward pretty irresponsible speculation about events that have yet to even occur.

Speaking of that, is there an IG report still forthcoming on something like @Anastasis has referenced many times recently?  FISA related or somesuch?  How does the way an IG reports differ from the special prosecutor?  Inspector General=IG?

https://www.oversight.gov/

aintnobodygottimeforthis.gif for that site just listed.

[triplehorn 2664]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is a weird response.  John Mitchell was indicted by a special prosecutor.  If there's enough foofaraw to appoint a special prosecutor, they will likely be prosecuted, even if a special prosecutor isn't actually appointed.  A special prosecutor isn't a prerequisite to prosecution of executive department types, it just eliminates a perceived or real conflict of interest.

And now you are getting toward pretty irresponsible speculation about events that have yet to even occur.

I’m not drawing an identical comparison.  It’s not irresponsible to think about past as potential in the present for individual conduct.  In fact, acting Dir FBI McCabe ackowledged that, at the highest levels, FBI officials contemplated the rationale for starting a probe on AG Sessions in Spring of ‘17.  He could not confirm whether that actually occurred and provided no details of what was contemplated.

Re:

”A special prosecutor isn't a prerequisite to prosecution of executive department types, it just eliminates a perceived or real conflict of interest.”

I understand, but as history shows, quite the opposite is possible.  It’s a legitimate concern whether Barr would act in a way to blow sand in the eyes of Congress to shield POTUS.  His “summary” memo, subsequent walk back, and expressed thoughts about limiting access to the Mueller report go to that point. 

I’d love to know what Mueller understood Barr would do that led to Mueller’s decision to NOT make a definitive call at least on obstruction.  There’s room for Barr having ‘changed his mind’ after Mueller committed to not making a call - presumably with the expectation Congress would assume that rightful responsibility.

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by triplehorn

[Anastasis 23395]

27 minutes ago, zork said:

Speaking of that, is there an IG report still forthcoming on something like @Anastasis has referenced many times recently?  FISA related or somesuch?  How does the way an IG reports differ from the special prosecutor?  Inspector General=IG?

 https://www.oversight.gov/

aintnobodygottimeforthis.gif for that site just listed.

https://oig.justice.gov/ongoing/fbi.htm

Examination of the Department’s and the FBI’s Compliance with Legal Requirements and Policies in Applications Filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Relating to a certain U.S. Person

The OIG, in response to requests from the Attorney General and Members of Congress, is examining the Department’s and the FBI’s compliance with legal requirements, and with applicable DOJ and FBI policies and procedures, in applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) relating to a certain U.S. person. As part of this examination, the OIG is also reviewing information that was known to the DOJ and the FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source. Additionally, the OIG is reviewing the DOJ’s and FBI’s relationship and communications with the alleged source as they relate to the FISC applications. If circumstances warrant, the OIG will consider including other issues that may arise during the course of the review.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

10 hours ago, 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. 

 

Jesus Christ.  Why do you do this?  You're better than that.  You're not a fucking idiot, and you're not evil.  Your posts would lead some to believe otherwise.  Come on.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

29 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I’m not drawing an identical comparison.  It’s not irresponsible to think about past as potential in the present for individual conduct.  In fact, acting Dir FBI McCabe ackowledged that, at the highest levels, FBI officials contemplated the rationale for starting a probe on AG Sessions in Spring of ‘17.  He could not confirm whether that actually occurred and provided no details of what was contemplated.

Re:

”A special prosecutor isn't a prerequisite to prosecution of executive department types, it just eliminates a perceived or real conflict of interest.”

I understand, but as history shows, quite the opposite is possible.  It’s a legitimate concern whether Barr would act in a way to blow sand in the eyes of Congress to shield POTUS.  His “summary” memo, subsequent walk back, and expressed thoughts about limiting access to the Mueller report go to that point. 

I’d love to know what Mueller understood Barr would do that led to Mueller’s decision to NOT make a definitive call at least on obstruction.  There’s room for Barr having ‘changed his mind’ after Mueller committed to not making a call - presumably with the expectation Congress would assume that rightful responsibility.

 

He never called it a summary, he called it a report required by the rules, and explained that.  It wasn't a walkback.  That, as with many things associated with this investigation, was a whole-cloth fabrication by the press who apparently have never bothered to read the rules carefully.

Again, it may all be obfuscation, but he is doing it totally by the book by all external appearances.

At this point to compare Barr to John Mitchell is complete speculation and fairly irresponsible.

Edited April 1, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]