Some in Mueller's team see report as more damaging to Trump than Barr summary: New York Times

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

Not being able see the reasoning of Mr. Barr and the DOJ ,I'm gonna have to guess he wants to stick to  what he has said all along .Nobody gets to see the  redactions  or if any the gang of 8 I believe

What he’s said all along is a matter of public record, he even went to the helpful effort of writing and signing number of DoJ headed letters to Congress.

 

What he has said is not in dispute.

 

The truth of what he has said and his reasons for saying what he has said is what will be examined.

[riclag]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What he’s said all along is a matter of public record, he even went to the helpful effort of writing and signing number of DoJ headed letters to Congress.

 

What he has said is not in dispute.

 

The truth of what he has said and his reasons for saying what he has said is what will be examined.

What he has said  I have no clue, if its the  redactions,they are for a chosen few to see,if any! 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

What he has said  I have no clue, if its the  redactions,they are for a chosen few to see! 

He’s made statements about guilt and innocence, despite that being the purview of Congress and the Senate.

 

He’s made statements about no interference in the investigation.

 

He stated there were no more Indictments, then upon reading the report we discover there are 12 more indictments.

 

The list goes on.

[riclag]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He’s made statements about guilt and innocence, despite that being the purview of Congress and the Senate.

 

He’s made statements about no interference in the investigation.

 

He stated there were no more Indictments, then upon reading the report we discover there are 12 more indictments.

 

The list goes on.

 I can only guess what he is talking about in his dispute. Being a competent lawyer while also taking advice from other departments involved in his decisions of the Mueller matter I'm sure it won't sit well with the Dem Congress! Politics at its Zenith 

[Tug]

Talk about flogging a dead horse it is now known Barr is Donald’s ag not the ag for the USA the house that is tasked with oversite wants him to explain himsielf he is stonewalling along with the rest of the trump administration-dumpster fire I think some people need to be jailed for ignoring congress

[Jingthing]

Yep. Randy tells it.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, riclag said:

Mueller served at the pleasure of a POTUS! NO obstruction ,No obstruction of Justice to talk or commit to firing Mueller! He could of done it himself and it would of been within the offices right.

 

 Conclusion: by Mr. Barr, No Obstruction , No Obstruction of Justice

I'm curious about your reasoning.  Since Mueller served at the pleasure of POTUS (not really), it seems you think it would have been ok for the President to fire him at anytime.

 

Does this apply outside the Presidency?  If an accountant is in the process of uncovering massive fraud in his company, would it be ok for the CEO of the company to fire him before he releases his results?

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, riclag said:

I must admit it appears to be very frustrating for some people that don't understand the Conclusion of the Mueller report was finalized by Mr. Barr! While knowing there is no evidence to prove guilt especially whether he talked about it or did it they determined to leave it all in Barr's hands, hence the no obstruction or no obstruction of justice .  

Who determined to leave it in Barr's hands?  Mueller clearly stated that actions about potential obstruction of justice should be taken in a political process, not by a Trump appointee.

[Credo]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Who determined to leave it in Barr's hands?  Mueller clearly stated that actions about potential obstruction of justice should be taken in a political process, not by a Trump appointee.

And just to reiterate, this is what Mueller said in the report:

 

"The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law,"

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

Executive privilege was waived when Trump agreed to let McGahn be interviewed by Mueller.  Trump can't waive executive privilege then change his mind.  A criminal can't waive his right to remain silent then insist that what he said to the police can't be used in court.

So because the Trump administration was open and transparent he loses his right to executive privilege in the future? I guess he should not have been so cooperative with the Mueller investigation in the first place. A criminal can waive his right to remain silent and then decide later on that it was not a wise decision and clam up reasserting his right to not say anything.

 

Doesn't really matter because nothing will come from the this. Even if the house votes to impeach, the senate will not convict and Trump will still be President, and will still likely win a second term. It will be like water off a ducks back and have no consequence.

[Ahab]

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You thought wrong.

 

Watch and learn.

Do you ever grow weary of being wrong?

 

The white house counsel is appointed by the President to advise him on legal issues related to being President (i.e. firing someone like Mueller). He represents the President on issues related to the presidency (e.g. appointments, legislation, vetoes, conflicts of issue, firing a special prosecutor). He is part of the executive branch of government, he is appointed by the President, and executive privilege would apply to conversations related to presidential matters. I will give you that because the Trump administration was so open and transparent during this long and very thorough special prosecutor's investigation that there may be questions regarding invoking executive privilege when talking to congress (which is a separate branch of government unlike Mr. Mueller) .

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Do you ever grow weary of being wrong?

 

The white house counsel is appointed by the President to advise him on legal issues related to being President (i.e. firing someone like Mueller). He represents the President on issues related to the presidency (e.g. appointments, legislation, vetoes, conflicts of issue, firing a special prosecutor). He is part of the executive branch of government, he is appointed by the President, and executive privilege would apply to conversations related to presidential matters. I will give you that because the Trump administration was so open and transparent during this long and very thorough special prosecutor's investigation that there may be questions regarding invoking executive privilege when talking to congress (which is a separate branch of government unlike Mr. Mueller) .

Watch and learn.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Watch and learn.

Excellent advice, maybe you should heed.

[Ahab]

Something to remember regarding special prosecutors, when Ken Starr reported on President Clinton's crimes and detailed the impeachable offences.

 

In the report Starr outlined a case for impeaching him on 11 possible grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power.

 

The Mueller report does not list impeachable offenses in a cut or dried manner as was done in the Starr report. The Mueller report is vague on whether laws were actually broken or not and show why this type of information should have never been made public in the first place. The only thing the FBI should have released was a list of indictable offences from the investigation. It should have been black or white, indictable offense or no charges and not anything else. Was a crime committed that could be prosecuted, or not. Nothing else, not one word more.

 

Because of corruption (real or perceived) in the FBI the full release of the Mueller report (with information redacted by law and to protect sources) probably is the right thing to do. But this should not be a future trend for law enforcement.

 

[spidermike007]

The report would be damaging to Trump if he devotees cared about the integrity and ethical character of the man. But since most do not, it does not seem to matter much. And I believe that very "deep state" that he rails against, is protecting him at this very moment. 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

So because the Trump administration was open and transparent he loses his right to executive privilege in the future? I guess he should not have been so cooperative with the Mueller investigation in the first place. A criminal can waive his right to remain silent and then decide later on that it was not a wise decision and clam up reasserting his right to not say anything.

 

Doesn't really matter because nothing will come from the this. Even if the house votes to impeach, the senate will not convict and Trump will still be President, and will still likely win a second term. It will be like water off a ducks back and have no consequence.

"So because the Trump administration was open and transparent he loses his right to executive privilege in the future?"

 

Actually I think "clueless and stupid" is a better description that "open and transparent", but yes, in matters regarding McGahn's testimony, executive privilege has been permanently waived.

 

If none of this matters, why is Trump throwing up every legal roadblock he can think of to obstruct these investigations?  According to Senator Lindsey Graham, defying a subpoena is an impeachable offense:

 

"Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of President Donald Trump’s, once said that a president's refusal to comply with congressional oversight was an impeachable offense.

In a video unearthed from December 1998 circulating on Twitter on Friday, the South Carolina legislator passionately states that Richard Nixon could have been impeached for failing to comply with subpoenas from Congress. 

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ago."  https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-once-said-failing-comply-subpoenas-impeachable-1407455

[Ahab]

53 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"So because the Trump administration was open and transparent he loses his right to executive privilege in the future?"

 

Actually I think "clueless and stupid" is a better description that "open and transparent", but yes, in matters regarding McGahn's testimony, executive privilege has been permanently waived.

 

If none of this matters, why is Trump throwing up every legal roadblock he can think of to obstruct these investigations?  According to Senator Lindsey Graham, defying a subpoena is an impeachable offense:

 

"Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of President Donald Trump’s, once said that a president's refusal to comply with congressional oversight was an impeachable offense.

In a video unearthed from December 1998 circulating on Twitter on Friday, the South Carolina legislator passionately states that Richard Nixon could have been impeached for failing to comply with subpoenas from Congress. 

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ago."  https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-once-said-failing-comply-subpoenas-impeachable-1407455

Holy cow a politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth!!! It must be completely accurate, but I bet he does not believe that line of bull now that the shoe is on the other foot. Does that mean that it is no longer valid?

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Holy cow a politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth!!! It must be completely accurate, but I bet he does not believe that line of bull now that the shoe is on the other foot. Does that mean that it is no longer valid?

It is definitely valid.  The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent a President becoming a king in all but name, and gave Congress oversight responsibilities that are have few if any restraints.  Conservatives who maintain they want Supreme Court justices who interpret the Constitution according to its original intent will be happy to see all of Trump's stalling tactics shot down by Trump's conservative justices.

[Tug]

Here’s a tidbit for you mr muller wrote to mr Barr complaining about Barr misrepresentating the report that’s like kicking a hornets nest imo

[bristolboy]

37 minutes ago, Tug said:

Here’s a tidbit for you mr muller wrote to mr Barr complaining about Barr misrepresentating the report that’s like kicking a hornets nest imo

Robert Mueller reportedly said AG William Barr’s summary of Trump investigation didn’t ’capture the context, nature, and substance’ of findings

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote in a letter to Barr, obtained by the Washington Post...

“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-mueller-barr-trump-russia-20190501-az6dl6ftlnffjfrykn3xhltp3i-story.html

[Tug]

in plane speak stop protecting Donald and report on the findings you are supposed to be the ag for the USA not Donald 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Here’s a tidbit for you mr muller wrote to mr Barr complaining about Barr misrepresentating the report that’s like kicking a hornets nest imo

It’s not just the letter Mueller wrote, it’s also what that tells us about sworn testimony given by Barr.

 

Nadler has this to say:

 

 

 

Barr is smart enough to know he’s just been caught committing perjury.

 

Is he smart enough to know he’s just one more Trump lackey who will have his life and reputation ruined by his attempts to cover up crimes on Trump’s behalf.

[Tug]

Donald taints everything he touches this is a serious blow to trump 2020 is looking better all the time!!!

[Berkshire]

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 7:43 PM, heybruce said:

It wasn't a discussion, it was an order.  Ordering a lawyer, or anyone else, to fire Mueller was a clear attempt at obstruction of justice.  The reason Mueller did not charge Trump has been explained repeatedly in this forum.

Perhaps you think you are smarter than Nancy Pelosi?  And yet you clearly demonstrate you don't understand what is going on with the next post. 

It's called the rule of law.  The White House Counsel represents the office of the President, not the President.  The White House Counsel will defend the privileges and duties of the office, he/she will not defend the individual who is currently President with personal legal problems.  That is why there is no attorney/client privilege between Trump and the White House Counsel.  The President of the United States should know this.

 

Executive privilege was waived when Trump agreed to let McGahn be interviewed by Mueller.  Trump can't waive executive privilege then change his mind.  A criminal can't waive his right to remain silent then insist that what he said to the police can't be used in court.

I'm confused. Far as I know, Trump has the right to fire any political appointee to the Justice department, but some are saying he doesn't have that right.

Anyone know for sure?

[Berkshire]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm confused. Far as I know, Trump has the right to fire any political appointee to the Justice department, but some are saying he doesn't have that right.

Anyone know for sure?

Geez man, you guys are constantly spinning the same tune.  Rather than explain it to you, how about do a little research about the Saturday Night Massacre.  Nixon ordered the then AG to fire the then Independent Special Prosecutor.  Did Nixon "have the right" to do that?  There is your answer. 

[attrayant]

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm confused. Far as I know, Trump has the right to fire any political appointee to the Justice department, but some are saying he doesn't have that right.

 

Anyone know for sure?

 

Intent matters.  Many of these rights that people think are absolute, are not.  

 

The right to terminate appointments if done with "bad intent", such as a president firing an investigator in order to prevent him from finding incriminating evidence of presidential misdeeds, would be obstruction of justice.

 

The right to pardon, if done to convince a witness into not testifying against a president, would be obstruction of justice and felony witness tampering.

 

Listen to Fox "News" legal expert Judge Andrew Napolitano explain it:

 

"When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager to get Mueller fired, that’s obstruction of justice.

 

When the president asked his then WH council to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that’s obstruction of justice.

 

When he asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony, that’s obstruction of justice.

 

When he dangled a pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him, that’s obstruction of justice."

 

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not just the letter Mueller wrote, it’s also what that tells us about sworn testimony given by Barr.

 

Nadler has this to say:

 

 

 

Barr is smart enough to know he’s just been caught committing perjury.

 

Is he smart enough to know he’s just one more Trump lackey who will have his life and reputation ruined by his attempts to cover up crimes on Trump’s behalf.

Mueller has actually stated that he had no issues with the accuracy of Barr's statement, but had issues because it did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the investigation. Which is probably why the press and members of the Democratic party don't understand that obstruction of justice (for a crime that did not exist) didn't occur. For over two years these same idiots have been screaming like spoiled children that Trump was an agent of Russia, or that he committed treason, or he was colluding with Russia to win the election. All these claims have been completely debunked by the Mueller report, but these ignorant politicians and news agencies won't admit they have been completely wrong for the last two plus years. It would be nice if they would admit they made mistakes and apologize for their erroneous new stories over course of the investigation. I don't think I will be holding my breath waiting for that scenario to unfold.

 

Maybe someone on this forum can explain to me exactly how can someone obstruct "justice" when the underlying crime being investigated has been determined to never have occurred? So while I agree it might be possible to "obstruct" an investigation, if there was no crime in the first place was "justice" really obstructed in any meaningful way? 

[attrayant]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

obstruction of justice (for a crime that did not exist) didn't occur

 

This sentence is nonsense.  Obstruction of justice is, itself, a crime.

 

Quote

Maybe someone on this forum can explain to me exactly how can someone obstruct "justice" when the underlying crime being investigated has been determined to never have occurred? So while I agree it might be possible to "obstruct" an investigation, if there was no crime in the first place was "justice" really obstructed in any meaningful way? 

 

Yes.  Obstruction of justice is, itself, a crime.  Would you argue that bank robbers committed no crime as long as they didn't get away with any money?  You know, they didn't actually steal anything?

 

Hie thee to Findlaw, where you'll learn that 

 

"Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521. Federal code identifies more than 20 specific types of obstruction, including "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees" (18 U.S.C. § 1505), the specific code section cited in the Nixon and Clinton articles of impeachment."

 

Other ways an individual may commit this offense include, but are not limited to, the following acts:

 

• Influencing or injuring an officer or juror generally
• Obstruction of criminal investigations
• Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
• Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
• Destruction of corporate audit records

 

 

 

[metisdead]

A nonsensical undecipherable troll post has been removed as well as the replies.