The Robert Mueller Investigation

[happyfunball 481]

[Jiggy-Z 3435]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not a lawyer:  is it fair to say that, in general, intent is required but ignorance of the law is not a defense?

In other words: " Ignorance of the law is no excuse for, um..ignorance of the law."

[retread 2951]

Quote

On March 22, 2017, the President asked Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and CIA Director Michael Pompeo to stay behind in the Oval Office after a Presidential Daily Briefing.334 According to Coats, the President asked them whether they could say publicly that no link existed between him and Russia.3

Pompeo had no recollection of being asked to stay behind after the March 22 briefing, but he recalled that the President regularly urged officials to get the word out that he had not done anything wrong related to Russia.3

Coats told this Office that the President never asked him to speak to Corney about the FBI investigation.338 Some ODNI staffers, however, had a different recollection of how Coats described the meeting immediately after it occurred. According to senior ODNI official Michael Dempsey, Coats said after the meeting that the President had brought up the Russia investigation and asked him to contact Corney to see if there was a way to get past the investigation, get it over with, end it, or words to that effect.339 Dempsey said that Coats described the President's comments as falling "somewhere between musing about hating the investigation" and wanting Coats to "do something to stop it."340

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[hayden_horn 11365]

13 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Just now downloaded it as I was on a plane. 

Seems to me that the entire reason mueller didn’t make a recommendation on obstruction is because of the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president.

Am I reading that correctly and doesn’t that completely contradict what Barr said in his original letter? Or am I missing something?

yes, william barr has completely embarrassed himself in this matter. history will not be kind to him, or any of the rest of this corrupt-ass administration

[GW Hayduke 1953]

Imagine this sentence:

"The woman's efforts to have her husband killed were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the hitman who the woman hired declined to carry out orders or accede to her requests."

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 hour ago, Jhawk said:

Oh so now you don't want justice equally applied?

You suck and should stop posting your opinions.

[Foosters 17883]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not a lawyer:  is it fair to say that, in general, intent is required but ignorance of the law is not a defense?

Kinda. There are two types of crimes, at least in regards to intent: general intent and specific intent.

Here is an example of a general intent crime (battery):

Quote

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must

prove that:

1. The defendant willfully [and unlawfully] touched

<insert name> in a harmful or offensive manner(;/.)

 

     <Give element 2 when instructing on self-defense, defense of another, or

       reasonable discipline.>

 

[AND

 

2. The defendant did not act (in self-defense/ [or] in defense of

someone else/ [or] while reasonably disciplining a child).]

 

Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on

purpose. It is not required that he or she intend to break the law, hurt

someone else, or gain any advantage.

 

The slightest touching can be enough to commit a battery if it is done in

a rude or angry way. Making contact with another person, including

through his or her clothing, is enough. The touching does not have to

cause pain or injury of any kind.

 

[The touching can be done indirectly by causing an object [or someone

else] to touch the other person.]

Here is an example of a specific intent crime (burglary):

Quote

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must

prove that:

 

1. The defendant entered (a/an) (building/room within a building/

locked vehicle/structure/ <insert other statutory

target>);

 

[AND]

 

2. When (he/she) entered (a/an) (building/room within the building/

locked vehicle/structure/ <insert other statutory target>), (he/she)

intended to commit (theft/ [or] <insert one or more

felonies>).

In neither of those cases could you successfully defend yourself with the argument "I didnt know that it was illegal to do that."

[triplehorn 2664]

Again, the same Peter Smith found dead with a bag over his head and helium gas asphyxiation around the time he spoke to the WSJ.

[Mo Horn 8853]

So one of the conclusions is that Trump tried to obstruct but couldn't because people ignored his orders. Yea, that makes me confident that the duly elected person is really leading the country. 

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

57 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Why not.  his usefulness is over.  

Nah, there's still more cruelty that can be unleashed on asylum seekers. His work is far from over. 

[retread 2951]

Edited April 18, 2019 by retread

[jimmyjazz 46099]

"Russia, if you're listening . . ."

I mean, come on.  I really don't know how anyone who feels like they are capable of sorting through even mildly complicated problems would not be outraged over that plea by candidate Trump.

I am so sick of the obfuscation and the "yeah, but" and all the other shit.

Are you fucking Americans or are you not?

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yes, william barr has completely embarrassed himself in this matter. history will not be kind to him, or any of the rest of this corrupt-ass administration

It’s unbelievable. How did he think he would get away with that? Did he just fuck up? 

[jimmyjazz 46099]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

"Russia, if you're listening . . ."

I mean, come on.  I really don't know how anyone who feels like they are capable of sorting through even mildly complicated problems would not be outraged over that plea by candidate Trump.

I am so sick of the obfuscation and the "yeah, but" and all the other shit.

Are you fucking Americans or are you not?

Sorry to quote myself, but Anderson Cooper just said exactly this.  Great minds and the like . . .

[retread 2951]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

It’s unbelievable. How did he think he would get away with that? Did he just fuck up? 

He knew what he was signing up for, just like all of the compromised/leveraged R Senators.

[Enchubben 5510]

3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

In neither of those cases could you successfully defend yourself with the argument "I didnt know that it was illegal to do that."

I didn't know I couldn't do that

[Anastasis 23481]

CNN saying the pee pee tape is still in play. 

[jimmyjazz 46099]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s unbelievable. How did he think he would get away with that? Did he just fuck up? 

He didn't fuck up.  He did exactly what he was hired to do.  I say this without a trace of cynicism.  This.  Is.  What.  Barr.  Does.

Only some of us care.  Anastasis, Chrispy, jhawk, Onboard, maninblack, etc are not on that list.  It's a fundamentally un-American viewpoint but I'm sure they all think they're patriots.

[TwiceHorn 31530]

13 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

correct.

Incorrect.  Barr said he and Rosenstein evaluated the evidence and:

Quote

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.

 

[BrickHorn 18278]

What happened to Chrispy and GR and all the other “nothingburger” morons?

[Constant 6754]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Russia, if you're listening . . ."

I mean, come on.  I really don't know how anyone who feels like they are capable of sorting through even mildly complicated problems would not be outraged over that plea by candidate Trump.

I am so sick of the obfuscation and the "yeah, but" and all the other shit.

Are you fucking Americans or are you not?

Thats where I’m at. How you defend his actions is beyond me at this point. 

[Gatorubet 30292]

12 minutes ago, deech said:

I wonder if you assembled the pages in three dimensions whether the redacted portions would end up being the blueprints to a device that allows Jodi Foster to teleport? 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Gatorubet

[Longhorn_Fan68 33887]

So what in reality should be the next step? 

[happyfunball 481]

Haha

[Longhorn94 2457]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Incorrect.  Barr said he and Rosenstein evaluated the evidence and:

 

thats what BARR said, NOT what SC Mueller said. Mueller clearly states their decision was based at least in part on the OLC's opinion while Barr said HIS own opinion was not.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Longhorn94

[Jiggy-Z 3435]

2 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

Haha
 

He survived as long as he did through preparation, cunning, guile, and of course, a little elfin magic.

[triplehorn 2664]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Incorrect.  Barr said he and Rosenstein evaluated the evidence and:

"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."

 

 

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

What happened to Chrispy and GR and all the other “nothingburger” morons?

I can’t speak for the others, but I’m just eating a sandwich and quietly enjoying the meltdown. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

String up every complicit bastard by their toes.

The staffer in question also leaked information to Kavanaugh during his hearing.

[4th&Five 41586]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33887]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

I can’t speak for the others, but I’m just eating a sandwich and quietly enjoying the meltdown. 

You're enjoying the unraveling of our coveted institutions?

[JimmyJames 12271]

So basically mueller is saying trump obstructed justice but chose not to make a recommendation for prosecuting it based on the DOJ policy to not indict a sitting president.

Barr then takes what mueller finds, and decides not to prosecute claiming it has nothing to do with that DOJ policy. 

What a load of crap that is. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

10 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

What happened to Chrispy and GR and all the other “nothingburger” morons?

Well maninblack decided to enter the room and proudly show his ass. So we got that going for us. 

[Gatorubet 30292]

1 hour ago, Jhawk said:

That is correct.  I can't believe it.  You break a law you break a law. There is no intent aspect to it.  If trump broke a law he broke a law, regardless of intent.  Same with lying under oath.  If you do it you committed perjury.  That is against the law.  Let's apply the penalties of law.  Our whole legal and judicial system is built on precedent.  We are ignoring precedent for some and not for others.  That is what they call..... a bad precedent to set.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

40 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

This seems relevant:

'And, after all, we're still Republicans. I mean, come on. Will you please stop calling us "angry Democrats" now?'

[Js1 85532]

So Kansas legal education suck between EMAW and Jhawk.  Or they are next in line to be Trump's lawyer.  Because their knowledge is bad. 

[retread 2951]

Quote

FBI Director Corney Publicly Confirms the Existence of the Russia Investigation in Testimony Before HPSCI

On March 9, 2017, Corney briefed the "Gang of Eight" congressional leaders about the
FBI's investigation of Russian interference, including an identification of the principal U.S. subjects of the investigation.307 Although it is unclear whether the President knew of that briefing at the time, notes taken by Annie Donaldson, then McGahn's chief of staff, on March 12, 2017,state, "POTUS in panic/chaos . .. Need binders to put in front of POTUS. (1) All things related to Russia."308 The week after Corney's briefing, the White House Counsel's Office was in contact with SSCI Chairman Senator Richard Burr about the Russia investigations and appears to have received information about the status of the FBI investigation.

 

[Gap03 3310]

19 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Kinda. There are two types of crimes, at least in regards to intent: general intent and specific intent.

Here is an example of a general intent crime (battery):

Here is an example of a specific intent crime (burglary):

In neither of those cases could you successfully defend yourself with the argument "I didnt know that it was illegal to do that."

I think the campaign finance statute provides that to prove a felony they have to prove that the person acted "knowingly and willfully."  In this case, the "knowingly" element does, in fact, provide a defense for ignorance of the law.  That's probably why we don't see just a whole lot of felony cases in this area - it's just a terribly tough standard to meet, especially when dealing with dumbshits like the Trumps.

[Jive Turkey 12641]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Russia, if you're listening . . ."

I mean, come on.  I really don't know how anyone who feels like they are capable of sorting through even mildly complicated problems would not be outraged over that plea by candidate Trump.

I am so sick of the obfuscation and the "yeah, but" and all the other shit.

Are you fucking Americans or are you not?

[Prepuce of Doom 21101]

5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I can’t speak for the others, but I’m just eating a shit sandwich and quietly enjoying the meltdown. 

Edited for reality. 

[NWBuck 8583]

SIAP:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/mueller-report-release-summaries-barr-trump/587182/?utm_source=feed

 

[Bruh Man 3160]

I thought Burr was one of the good ones.

 

[TwiceHorn 31530]

12 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

thats what BARR said, NOT what SC Mueller said. Mueller clearly states their decision was based at least in part on the OLC's opinion while Barr said HIS own opinion was not.

Should have quoted JimmyJames, because this is what is incorrect:

Am I reading that correctly and doesn’t that completely contradict what Barr said in his original letter? Or am I missing something?

[triplehorn 2664]

6 minutes ago, retread said:

FBI Director Corney Publicly Confirms the Existence of the Russia Investigation in Testimony Before HPSCI

On March 9, 2017, Corney briefed the "Gang of Eight" congressional leaders about the
FBI's investigation of Russian interference, including an identification of the principal U.S. subjects of the investigation.307 Although it is unclear whether the President knew of that briefing at the time, notes taken by Annie Donaldson, then McGahn's chief of staff, on March 12, 2017,state, "POTUS in panic/chaos . .. Need binders to put in front of POTUS. (1) All things related to Russia."308 The week after Corney's briefing, the White House Counsel's Office was in contact with SSCI Chairman Senator Richard Burr about the Russia investigations and appears to have received information about the status of the FBI investigation.

Expressions of Grassley and Feinstein after that March '18 briefing by Comey:

Spoiler

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by triplehorn

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

8 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

 

but @Jim Tom Pinch told me it would be illegal for Barr to mislead Congress? @Jim Tom Pinch was my noted legal scholar on the matter and now i'm confused.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Should have quoted JimmyJames, because this is what is incorrect:

Am I reading that correctly and doesn’t that completely contradict what Barr said in his original letter? Or am I missing something?

He was saying that it contradicted what Barr claimed about Mueller's legal conclusion.   Not that it contradicted Barr's legal conclusion. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[TwiceHorn 31530]

JFC.

[Foosters 17883]

2 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

I think the campaign finance statute provides that to prove a felony they have to prove that the person acted "knowingly and willfully."  In this case, the "knowingly" element does, in fact, provide a defense for ignorance of the law.  That's probably why we don't see just a whole lot of felony cases in this area - it's just a terribly tough standard to meet, especially when dealing with dumbshits like the Trumps.

do you have the statute handy? I only ask because knowingly doesn't necessarily mean knowing that you are breaking the law. For example, in obstruction of justice they need only show that you knowingly made a false statement. Not that you knew it was illegal to make a false statement.

[horncyclist 1391]

This seems really damning for Trump...and Barr. What's the surly consensus? What happens now?

[Bat Guano 359]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Should have quoted JimmyJames, because this is what is incorrect:

Am I reading that correctly and doesn’t that completely contradict what Barr said in his original letter? Or am I missing something?

Certainly looks that way. I'm not a lawyer but I understand English.