The Mueller Report thread

[Belsnickel]

(05-02-2019, 11:16 AM)Dill Wrote: Certainly Dems would "Dance around with language in a way that obfuscates but is not a lie." Or in extreme cases even lie. Think of Bill's non-cooperation with the Starr investigation at times.

But this is not the usual/normal obfuscation, is it?  Barr is arguing the president can order people to lie to investigators. He has argued the president can quash an investigation into himself if he thinks he is innocent. He is ok with the president praising a felon for not cooperating with law enforcement. He is illegally withholding a document from Congress and trying to redefine that as legal.

This is about a redefinition of legal norms and standards. Neither Hillary nor Obama nor Biden nor Warren nor Bernie would be doing this.

Bothsidesism here only normalizes what is happening, makes these extraordinary legal arguments and maneuvers seem ordinary.

I think that there has been an escalation in this behavior over the years. With each administration we see it growing in a way that is intended to shift more power to the Executive. I do think this behavior is extraordinary, but that is why I said "same sort of thing." I don't think it would be the same, but similar. I side with Democrats because my policy preferences more often align with them, not because I have any sort of faith in their holding of a moral high ground with things like this.

[GMDino]

(05-02-2019, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Barr is a seasoned lawyer that knows how to dance around with his language in a way that obfuscates but is not a lie, which would mean he perjured himself.

I wanted to tack on, here, something I find interesting. A lot of people are saying "why does him misrepresenting the report matter when the report was released later on?" The answer to that is in the controlling of the narrative. By providing his interpretation before the report, before anything else can really come out, it is a move to control the narrative. He puts it out there that Trump is in the clear and that is all that is needed by Trump and his allies to keep parroting, even when the report says otherwise. It was a political move, plain and simple.

I'm not saying that this is unique to Barr or even the right-wing. I'm 100% certain that were this a Democratic administration it would be the same sort of thing going on. This is why reading primary source documents is important, though. Political actors will always try to control the narrative in their favor. Every. Single. Time. Analyses and opinion pieces from pundits/experts/reporters are also the products of political actors. We cannot rely on them to tell us what is important because they will tell us what they want to.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

If my memory serves me Bill and his team of lawyers got the definition of "sexual relations" defined by the other lawyers as intercourse...not oral sex.  Therefore he "didn't lie".  Even though we all know he did and he should have stepped down for it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-01-2019, 09:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From what I've read Barr was quite forthright and direct in his answers despite being constantly attacked and slurred by Congressional members from the Left.

Thanks for the honest and accurate Barr-esque summary.  Now I don't need to watch it.

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2019, 10:59 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL sure. Lots of praise for his forthrightness on Fox last night. Hannity has gotten it right for TWO YEARS. Liberals won't apologize and won't leave the President alone!

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill.

Kamala: Has anyone in the WH ordered you to investigate anyone else?

(30 seconds go by)

Kamala: it's a yes or no question.

Barr: Could you repeat the question?

Kamala: Happy to repeat it--has anyone asked or suggested or inferred that you should investigate anyone else.

(30 seconds go by)

Barr: I am still wrestling with the word "suggest."  blah blah blah blay? or blah blah blah blabbity blah?

five minutes later, Barr "cannot recall."  And THAT ladies and gentlemen is what "forthright and direct" means in the Trump era.

And that is why they "slur" the guy who publicly misrepresented the Mueller report and new wants to withhold the redacted version from Congress, while arguing that the president has a right to stop investigations into his dealings if he feels he is innocent.

If you notice I didn't say totally I said quite:

Barr Wrote:"I didn’t exonerate. I said that we did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to establish an obstruction offense which is the job of the Justice Department."

See I can post examples as well.

Of course you're going to find fault in his testimony, just as the Conservative found fault in the emails investigation. I've simply read some of the Q&A and many of his answers were direct and to the point. Especially given he's a life long lawyer and knows thousands are just waiting to pounce on a "mistake" because they're mad.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-30-2019, 04:10 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Mr. Mueller's decision to strictly adhere to the OLC position of not indicting sitting Presidents eliminated any possibility that the OSC could -- in any tangible way -- hold the POTUS accountable. However, he did lay out, in great detail, everything that Congress needs in order to do their duty and proceed with Articles of Impeachment.

Based upon what?  Obstruction of justice?  They will reach the same conclusion as Mueller; while we can't say he did, we can't say he didn't.  The Republican controlled Senate would never impeach Trump with that level of certainty/uncertainty.

Impeachment is something the democrats shouldn't pursue because the Senate will ensure it will never succeed.  Unless the purpose of pursuing impeachment is some Benghazi-like smear campaign and if it is shame on them.  It is a waste of time, effort, and tax payer's money.

What the democrats need to focus on instead of impeachment is a platform for the next presidential election which will attract voters.  Something Hillary Clinton failed to do effectively and is the real reason she lost the election, although Russian interference and a campaign of misinformation certainly played a part.  Instead of concentrating on what they can do to damage their opponent politically, they need to focus on what they can do to help their constituents.  That applies to both parties.

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2019, 01:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Based upon what?  Obstruction of justice?  They will reach the same conclusion as Mueller; while we can't say he did, we can't say he didn't.  The Republican controlled Senate would never impeach Trump with that level of certainty/uncertainty.

Impeachment is something the democrats shouldn't pursue because the Senate will ensure it will never succeed.  Unless the purpose of pursuing impeachment is some Benghazi-like smear campaign and if it is shame on them.  It is a waste of time, effort, and tax payer's money.

What the democrats need to focus on instead of impeachment is a platform for the next presidential election which will attract voters.  Something Hillary Clinton failed to do effectively and is the real reason she lost the election, although Russian interference and a campaign of misinformation certainly played a part.  Instead of concentrating on what they can do to damage their opponent politically, they need to focus on what they can do to help their constituents.  That applies to both parties.

**To put it in simplistic terms. I summarize it as follows:

It was determined: Hillary broke the law, but was not prosecuted because of no intent

It was determined: Trump intended to break the law, but will not be prosecuted because no law was broken.

**Disclaimer: My intent is not to be biased or to suggest one was worse than the other. It's just a simplistic view.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-02-2019, 01:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Based upon what?  Obstruction of justice?  They will reach the same conclusion as Mueller; while we can't say he did, we can't say he didn't.  The Republican controlled Senate would never impeach Trump with that level of certainty/uncertainty.

Impeachment is something the democrats shouldn't pursue because the Senate will ensure it will never succeed.  Unless the purpose of pursuing impeachment is some Benghazi-like smear campaign and if it is shame on them.  It is a waste of time, effort, and tax payer's money.

What the democrats need to focus on instead of impeachment is a platform for the next presidential election which will attract voters.  Something Hillary Clinton failed to do effectively and is the real reason she lost the election, although Russian interference and a campaign of misinformation certainly played a part.  Instead of concentrating on what they can do to damage their opponent politically, they need to focus on what they can do to help their constituents.  That applies to both parties.

This a hundred times.

Going the impeachment route will be a windfall to the upcoming russian meddling which the administration has gone out of its way to preserve.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-02-2019, 02:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: **To put it in simplistic terms. I summarize it as follows:

It was determined: Hillary broke the law, but was not prosecuted because of no intent

It was determined: Trump intended to break the law, but will not be prosecuted because no law was broken.

**Disclaimer: My intent is not to be biased or to suggest one was worse than the other. It's just a simplistic view.

Are you referring to Hillary's use of an unsecured server?

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2019, 02:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Are you referring to Hillary's use of an unsecured server?

Yes. Sending classified information.

[BmorePat87]

(05-02-2019, 02:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: **To put it in simplistic terms. I summarize it as follows:

It was determined: Hillary broke the law, but was not prosecuted because of no intent

It was determined: Trump intended to break the law, but will not be prosecuted because no law was broken.

**Disclaimer: My intent is not to be biased or to suggest one was worse than the other. It's just a simplistic view.

For Trump, are you speaking from the Special Counsel POV or the AG's POV? 

I am assuming AG, and I would add that both parties (special counsel and AG) hold that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. Important distinction between the two cases. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2019, 02:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: For Trump, are you speaking from the Special Counsel POV or the AG's POV? 

I am assuming AG, and I would add that both parties (special counsel and AG) hold that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. Important distinction between the two cases. 

The AG and congresses/society's decision to press/ not press charges.

[Dill]

(05-02-2019, 11:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that there has been an escalation in this behavior over the years. With each administration we see it growing in a way that is intended to shift more power to the Executive. I do think this behavior is extraordinary, but that is why I said "same sort of thing." I don't think it would be the same, but similar. I side with Democrats because my policy preferences more often align with them, not because I have any sort of faith in their holding of a moral high ground with things like this.

Yeah. I agree with you on this.

By the way, did you notice Barr citing central planks of the Unified Exec Theory, like the Branches are coequal and the Exec also has a "duty to interpret"?  I haven't seen it stated that plainly since Bush. But in this case it is to defend behavior way outside preceding norms of governance.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-02-2019, 02:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes. Sending classified information.

Then Republicans must be out of their minds concerned about Trump's use of unsecured cellphones or divulging classified information to Russians during a White House meeting through sheer incompetence.

Also, Mueller didn't conclude Trump didn't break the law.  Mueller concluded he couldn't determine if Trump broke the law.  To suggest otherwise is biased despite claims to the contrary.

[BmorePat87]

(05-02-2019, 02:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The AG and congresses/society's decision to press/ not press charges.

Figured you were referring to the AG.

However, Congress has not made that decision as they are currently in the investigation process and society as a whole cannot. 

Future AG's could, according to Mueller, once Trump is out of office. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2019, 03:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Figured you were referring to the AG.

However, Congress has not made that decision as they are currently in the investigation process and society as a whole cannot. 

Future AG's could, according to Mueller, once Trump is out of office. 

It is why I said "will not" when referring to Trump's case

[Dill]

(05-02-2019, 02:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: **To put it in simplistic terms. I summarize it as follows:

It was determined: Hillary broke the law, but was not prosecuted because of no intent

It was determined: Trump intended to break the law, but will not be prosecuted because no law was broken.

**Disclaimer: My intent is not to be biased or to suggest one was worse than the other. It's just a simplistic view.

Not sure which Hillary violation you are referring to--perhaps the use of a private server?

It has not been determined that Trump broke no law. By existing standards and statutes, he most certainly has obstructed justice.

But the Special Counsel agreed with the AG that such charges cannot be brought against a sitting president--by the Special Counsel.  Hence Mueller's laying out of all the evidence needed for prosecution, and turning it over to the AG's office TO BE FORWARDED TO CONGRESS.

Because Mueller, PLAYING BY THE RULES, decided it was Congress' place, not his, to bring charges, he made none.

Barr then, before any of the Report was made public, claimed Trump was cleared of obstruction.  Fox News exploded in a frenzy of "I told you so" and demands for "apologies," and insistence the investigation was over and it was time to move on. I have seen no Fox program sorting out the legal argument that Mueller made for obstruction; CNN, MSNBC and the others are devoting entire segments to informing the American people.

So in the simplest terms possible, Mueller did not say no law was broken. He provided massive evidence of wrongdoing, more than enough to convict anyone not the president. Barr--not Congress--decided Trump's innocence. And he is currently withholding evidence of the full Report from Congress--to protect the president, which is not his job.

NB: Mueller also explained why his investigation was never looking for "collusion," which is not a legal term. So he made no finding at all with regard to that.

[BmorePat87]

(05-02-2019, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is why I said "will not" when referring to Trump's case

I saw that but you included Congress when the House has yet to decide if formal charges are necessary. They have not made a decision one way or the other. 

[Bengalzona]

I don't think Congress has the power to press criminal charges against anyone. I believe that is the perview of the Department of Justice, which is headed by the Attorney General who is also a political appointee of the POTUS. I believe that is one of the reasons why we have never seen charges filed against a sitting POTUS: his own 'boy' would have to do it. Theoretically, it is possible if the POTUS did something bad and obvious enough that even his own people were disgusted by it (or feared being caught up in the moral outrage caused by it). But hasn't happened yet.

I believe Congress has the power to censure and impeach public officials (that might include SCOTUS members, not sure). Those action are different from filing criminal charges. For example, if Nixon would have been impeached, he would have just lost his position due to the impeachment and not been thrown in jail (although it is possible that DoJ could have pursued criminal charges once he was out of office).

Which brings up an interesting topic: DoJ going after Presidents once they are out of office. It hasn't happened yet, mainly because sitting POTUSes are more concerned with other things and worry that someone will go after them once they are out of office. So, this talk of "investigating Obama" is all hot air, IMO. After all, what do you think would happen to Trump and his cronies when the next Democrat is in the White House?

[Belsnickel]

(05-02-2019, 03:24 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I believe Congress has the power to censure and impeach public officials (that might include SCOTUS members, not sure). Those action are different from filing criminal charges. For example, if Nixon would have been impeached, he would have just lost his position due to the impeachment and not been thrown in jail (although it is possible that DoJ could have pursued criminal charges once he was out of office).

you are correct, here, including regarding SCOTUS.

(05-02-2019, 03:24 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Which brings up an interesting topic: DoJ going after Presidents once they are out of office. It hasn't happened yet, mainly because sitting POTUSes are more concerned with other things and worry that someone will go after them once they are out of office. So, this talk of "investigating Obama" is all hot air, IMO. After all, what do you think would happen to Trump and his cronies when the next Democrat is in the White House?

The DoJ hasn't gone after a former president, yet, because Ford pardoned Nixon, which stopped what would have been the first time it really happened. Of course, that would have been the same administration, pretty much, so it's a bit of a different ball game. The real reason we haven't seen the DoJ go after a former president is because of norms. Unless there was such an airtight case and the criminality was so egregious, any attempts by the DoJ to go after a former president would be seen as a politicization of the department in an extreme manner.

We've seen politicization of the DoJ from this administration, but it hasn't reached despotic levels, IMO. That would be one of the things that would put it there.

[Bengalzona]

(05-02-2019, 03:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: you are correct, here, including regarding SCOTUS.


The DoJ hasn't gone after a former president, yet, because Ford pardoned Nixon, which stopped what would have been the first time it really happened. Of course, that would have been the same administration, pretty much, so it's a bit of a different ball game. The real reason we haven't seen the DoJ go after a former president is because of norms. Unless there was such an airtight case and the criminality was so egregious, any attempts by the DoJ to go after a former president would be seen as a politicization of the department in an extreme manner.

We've seen politicization of the DoJ from this administration, but it hasn't reached despotic levels, IMO. That would be one of the things that would put it there.

Also, it just plain looks bad (i.e. vindictive) in front of the voting populace.