Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Okay . . . let's try this again.

Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle

Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Joe K »

mister d wrote: Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:26 pm But you can't divorce those two. If I write a letter saying I have the nicest wife in the world and I love her so much and then I go stab her, are you going to argue the integrity of my letter?
The only way your analogy fits is if Mueller found evidence that was clearly sufficient to find criminal obstruction of justice but he still refused to conclude whether obstruction occurred and instead left that task for Barr. That’s possible given what we know so far, although it would raise questions about Mueller’s political and practical judgment.
User avatar
Giff
The Dude
Posts: 10794
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Giff »

Really, what an odd fucking hill to die on. You literally said if the Barr Summary mischaracterized the Mueller Report, then why is no one on Mueller's team saying this. Now they do and you twist yourself into a pretzel to defend the Summary. I mean, I guess I would too if I was taking a victory lap at the thought of this guy getting off to "own the libs".
well this is gonna be someone's new signature - bronto
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10742
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

Frustrating read, this thread.

1) It is entirely possible that Mueller concluded that charging a sitting president was not possible per DoJ policy, but it was absolutely egregious enough that he thought it was grounds for impeachment, so he sent it to Congress with a shitload of evidence, roadmaps, flashlights and other guides to get them there. Getting so chest thumpy about not charging a sitting president sure seems to be ignoring this pretty fucking important point. (ETA: Also, check the last sentence in #3. Lots of people were criminally charged already.)

2) It is entirely possible that Barr, who auditioned for this position, wrote a summary that shaded the 400+ page report in a manner that was in Trump's overall favor. Meuller and his team are NOT ALLOWED to comment on this. As I mentioned, and I guess was ignored, Meuller is not Starr. He is not operating under the same statute that truly made Starr independent from ANYONE. These guys could easily get McCabe'd if they open their mouths. I'm fucking annoyed I even have to say this.

3) It is factual that the media took its lead from Trump and his supporters to use the Barr book report bullshit to focus on the Russia findings to completely ignore what Barr said about obstruction. And even when he clarified things, they pretty much bought that he was "exonerated" on all of it because there were no criminal findings (well, beyond the many people ALREADY SITTING IN JAIL due to this investigation.)

I honestly don't understand what we're really debating on here. Trump obstructed justice NUMEROUS TIMES... ON CAMERA. You can take Barr and Guiliani's position that the fact that he's president means he can't be charged with obstruction, ever. 90 percent of non-Fox mouthbreathers don't agree with that. So, again, it goes back to DoJ policy.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10742
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

The Dems need to subpoena Meuller, which they will absolutely do if the DoJ continues to stonewall releasing the report. I mean, they're going to subpoena him either way, but if we get into next week and they are still fucking around -- second blast of the subpoena cannon.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
User avatar
brian
The Dude
Posts: 27740
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Downtown Las Vegas

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by brian »

Nonlinear FC wrote: Thu Apr 04, 2019 1:05 pm The Dems need to subpoena Meuller, which they will absolutely do if the DoJ continues to stonewall releasing the report. I mean, they're going to subpoena him either way, but if we get into next week and they are still fucking around -- second blast of the subpoena cannon.
At this point, they're probably just figuring out when to time Mueller's testimony for maximum impact. As you said, he's getting called one way or another. If the DOJ continues to refuse to release the report, it's probably gonna be sooner rather than later. Trump one day will wish he had just released the report immediately despite whatever conclusions are in there and dealt with the fallout all at once rather than (figurative -- obviously he's not leaving office) death by a million paper cuts.

But again, it's important to remember that Trump is not smart, not politically savvy, just a wet, old man who thinks he can lie his way out of any situation because he always has.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 16732
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: TUCSON, BITCH!

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Johnnie »

I like this article from Esquire.

William Barr Was Just Exposed on His Bullshit Summary of the Mueller Report

It really hits on a bit of everything. Including additional scandal stuff like Kushner and his security clearance, Kushner and What's App, and anti-NOAA guy Barry Myers appointed to run the NOAA.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Joe K »

Nonlinear FC wrote: Thu Apr 04, 2019 1:01 pm Frustrating read, this thread.

1) It is entirely possible that Mueller concluded that charging a sitting president was not possible per DoJ policy, but it was absolutely egregious enough that he thought it was grounds for impeachment, so he sent it to Congress with a shitload of evidence, roadmaps, flashlights and other guides to get them there. Getting so chest thumpy about not charging a sitting president sure seems to be ignoring this pretty fucking important point. (ETA: Also, check the last sentence in #3. Lots of people were criminally charged already.)
Possible, but I don’t think that’s very likely. Again, I’ll just paste below a portion of the Barr letter.
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.


It’s possible that Mueller tried to do what you suggested but the Barr letter clearly indicates that Mueller could have made the pertinent legal conclusions on obstruction. In fact, there have been stories stating that Barr and Rosenstein are frustrated that he didn’t do so.
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10742
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

I don't care what the Barr letter said. You're not listening to those of us who don't put any credence to that letter as characterizing anything in the report.

We can agree to disagree, but stop quoting the Barr letter to me. I don't give a shit.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 18866
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by The Sybian »

Former Nixon prosecutor Nick Akerman's take:


An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Pruitt »

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States...

"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
User avatar
mister d
The Dude
Posts: 29047
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by mister d »

In a bubble where he isn't him with his terrible policies doing terrible things, that would be funny.
Johnnie wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Pruitt »

mister d wrote: Thu Apr 04, 2019 3:08 pm In a bubble where he isn't him with his terrible policies doing terrible things, that would be funny.
And on a day that there are stories of how the pussy grabber is going to nominate another sexual harasser to the Fed, it is particularly galling.

Vindication For Mr. "9-9-9"
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10742
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

mister d wrote: Thu Apr 04, 2019 3:08 pm In a bubble where he isn't him with his terrible policies doing terrible things, that would be funny.
Agreed.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10742
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

Because we've had such "reasoned" defense of Bill Barr, let me place this here:

https://www.justsecurity.org/63510/what ... 4jpdEeExXM

Fuck this guy, man.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
tennbengal
The Dude
Posts: 11975
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by tennbengal »

I am blown away that otherwise intelligent people are simply pretending that Bill Barr is acting in good faith is a reasonable starting point for discussion.
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Pruitt »

tennbengal wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:41 am I am blown away that otherwise intelligent people are simply pretending that Bill Barr is acting in good faith is a reasonable starting point for discussion.
Theoretically, the system is supposed to work so that the A.G. is independent. Perhaps some are holding on to that belief.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
tennbengal
The Dude
Posts: 11975
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by tennbengal »

Okey dokey.
User avatar
Brontoburglar
The Dude
Posts: 5851
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Brontoburglar »

Pruitt wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:14 am
tennbengal wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:41 am I am blown away that otherwise intelligent people are simply pretending that Bill Barr is acting in good faith is a reasonable starting point for discussion.
Theoretically, the system is supposed to work so that the A.G. is independent. Perhaps some are holding on to that belief.
(you know TB is a lawyer right)
"We're not the smartest people in the world. We go down the straightaway and turn left. That's literally what we do." -- Clint Bowyer
User avatar
rass
The Dude
Posts: 20209
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:41 am
Location: N effin' J

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by rass »

Brontoburglar wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:26 am
Pruitt wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:14 am
tennbengal wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:41 am I am blown away that otherwise intelligent people are simply pretending that Bill Barr is acting in good faith is a reasonable starting point for discussion.
Theoretically, the system is supposed to work so that the A.G. is independent. Perhaps some are holding on to that belief.
(you know TB is a lawyer right)
So what? Are we just supposed to assume all questions posed by Swamp lawyers are rhetorical?

ETA - It wasn't even a question I guess. So what was wrong with pruitt's statement?
I felt aswirl with warm secretions.
User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 23319
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by A_B »

I don't think he intended to, but Pruitt kind of mansplained it.
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
User avatar
rass
The Dude
Posts: 20209
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:41 am
Location: N effin' J

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by rass »

Ah, mansplaining.

And what would we call what bronto did?
I felt aswirl with warm secretions.
User avatar
Pruitt
The Dude
Posts: 18105
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Pruitt »

A_B wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:37 am I don't think he intended to, but Pruitt kind of mansplained it.
Yeah - I was trying to figure it out for myself. Yesterday's "The Daily" from the NY Times gave a fairly even-handed look at the reasons why both the Mueller and the Barr teams were upset with things.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 23319
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by A_B »

rass wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:47 am Ah, mansplaining.

And what would we call what bronto did?
Yup. A vicious cylce.
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
User avatar
duff
Donny
Posts: 2745
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by duff »

rass wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:47 am Ah, mansplaining.

And what would we call what bronto did?
Being a pretentious asshat journalist.
To quote both Bruce Prichard and Tony Schiavone, "Fuck Duff Meltzer."
User avatar
Brontoburglar
The Dude
Posts: 5851
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Brontoburglar »

duff wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:00 am
rass wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:47 am Ah, mansplaining.

And what would we call what bronto did?
Being a pretentious asshat journalist.
I am elite
"We're not the smartest people in the world. We go down the straightaway and turn left. That's literally what we do." -- Clint Bowyer
User avatar
mister d
The Dude
Posts: 29047
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by mister d »

Theoretically, the president is supposed to work in the best interest of the American people!
Johnnie wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
User avatar
Brontoburglar
The Dude
Posts: 5851
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Brontoburglar »

mistersplaining!!!!
"We're not the smartest people in the world. We go down the straightaway and turn left. That's literally what we do." -- Clint Bowyer
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10742
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

Listening to Pod Save on the way in, one of the reasons the House committees are likely being so cautious about the use of subpoena is that these are all going to go to the courts, and it will go over better if they make good faith efforts to negotiate and be "reasonable" in their timing and requests.

Just throwing it out there as useful information.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Johnnie
The Dude
Posts: 16732
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm
Location: TUCSON, BITCH!

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Johnnie »

Oh, this is nice.

Trump's handpicked IRS chief and IRS legal counsel both have ties to Trump businesses

So we basically need Democrats to break a few eggs to make this omelette. At this point otherwise good people need to break the law to get the truth out because the system is fucked and insulates criminals from facing justice. What the fuck, man.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
tennbengal
The Dude
Posts: 11975
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by tennbengal »

mister d wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:19 am Theoretically, the president is supposed to work in the best interest of the American people!
I'm gonna need some clarification on that.
User avatar
sancarlos
The Dude
Posts: 18063
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:46 pm
Location: NorCal via Colorado

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by sancarlos »

tennbengal wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:26 am
mister d wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:19 am Theoretically, the president is supposed to work in the best interest of the American people!
I'm gonna need some clarification on that.
Ha ha. Yeah, we can all disagree on the best interpretation of "best interest of the people", based on ideologies. But, call me cynical, but I really believe that Trump has no ideology except for being all about "best interest of Trump".
"What a bunch of pedantic pricks." - sybian
User avatar
DaveInSeattle
The Dude
Posts: 8386
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:51 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by DaveInSeattle »

Lets now bring on noted scientists Diamond and Silk to explain climate change!



<Bangs head on desk, repeatedly>
User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 18866
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by The Sybian »

tennbengal wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:41 am I am blown away that otherwise intelligent people are simply pretending that Bill Barr is acting in good faith is a reasonable starting point for discussion.
Right? This guy auditioned for the job with a 19 page memo on his belief that the President is above the law WRT obstruction. And he was selected to replace the AG Trump mercilessly mocked and attacked for 2 years for having the integrity to recuse himself from the issue. Trump openly said for 2 years that if he knew Sessions would put integrity and ethics before blind loyalty, he never would have selected him. I think some people give Barr the benefit of the doubt because he isn't a compete circus clown with no relevant experience or abilities like the majority of Trump's appointees.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
User avatar
Nonlinear FC
The Dude
Posts: 10742
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Nonlinear FC »

Barr has been implicated in high level cover-ups before. In Barr’s first stint as Attorney General, he recommended that President George H.W. Bush grant full pardons to six former officials from the Reagan administration who were caught up in the Iran-Contra scandal, including Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. “There were some people arguing just for Weinberger,” Barr later recounted, “and I said, ‘No, in for a penny, in for a pound.’” President Bush’s pardons brought the long-running scandal to an end just as many observers believed it was about to reach the president’s doorstep. In response, independent counsel Lawrence Walsh bitterly remarked that “the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.”

Barr has both a body of writings that suggest he has prejudged matters under his purview as Attorney General and significant conflicts of interest. In the Spring of 2017, Barr penned an op-ed supporting the President’s firing Comey. “Comey’s removal simply has no relevance to the integrity of the Russian investigation as it moves ahead,” he wrote. In June 2017, Barr told The Hill that the obstruction investigation was “asinine” and warned that Mueller risked “taking on the look of an entirely political operation to overthrow the president.” That same month, Barr met with Trump about becoming the president’s personal defense lawyer for the Mueller investigation, before turning down the overture for that job. In late 2017, Barr wrote to the New York Times supporting the President’s call for further investigations of his past political opponent, Hillary Clinton. “I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion,’” he wrote to the New York Times’ Peter Baker, suggesting that the Uranium One conspiracy theory (which had by that time been repeatedly debunked) had more grounding than the Mueller’s investigation (which had not). Before Trump nominated him to be attorney general, Barr also notoriously wrote an unsolicited 19-page advisory memo to Rod Rosenstein criticizing the obstruction component of Mueller’s investigation as “fatally misconceived.” The memo’s criticisms proceeded from Barr’s long-held and extreme, absolutist view of executive power, and the memo’s reasoning has been skewered by an ideologically diverse group of legal observers, including Wittes.

For any Department of Justice employee other than the Attorney General, this record would have surely constituted, among other things, “circumstances that would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts to question [the] employee’s impartiality.” A standing regulation and DOJ policy would generally result in such an employee not being able to participate in the Special Counsel’s investigation. However, that policy oversight mechanism does not apply to the Attorney General, who has no supervisor within the Department of Justice and thus determines when his own recusal is required. Unlike prior occupants of the job of Attorney General, including Jeff Sessions, Barr also steadfastly refused to say in advance that he would accept the recommendation of Department ethics officials if they advised him to recuse.

Barr’s close political relationship with President Trump, his consideration of employment as Trump’s personal defender in the Mueller investigation, his media statements on the investigation, and his unsolicited memo attacking the investigation all would cause a reasonable person to question his ability to impartially oversee that investigation and–in deciding the obstruction question that Mueller left open–to make perhaps its most consequential decision. Nevertheless, Barr did not step aside. He released a statement announcing his decision not to recuse himself from oversight of the Mueller investigation that cited the advice of unnamed ethics officials, but declined to explain their reasoning.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
tennbengal
The Dude
Posts: 11975
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by tennbengal »

The Sybian wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:14 pm
tennbengal wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:41 am I am blown away that otherwise intelligent people are simply pretending that Bill Barr is acting in good faith is a reasonable starting point for discussion.
Right? This guy auditioned for the job with a 19 page memo on his belief that the President is above the law WRT obstruction. And he was selected to replace the AG Trump mercilessly mocked and attacked for 2 years for having the integrity to recuse himself from the issue. Trump openly said for 2 years that if he knew Sessions would put integrity and ethics before blind loyalty, he never would have selected him. I think some people give Barr the benefit of the doubt because he isn't a compete circus clown with no relevant experience or abilities like the majority of Trump's appointees.
I genuinely assumed that everyone (at least on this board) was starting from at least this place. It is somewhat amazing to me to see any interpretation of what is happening being filtered through some sort of lens where Bill Barr is upstanding.
Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Joe K »

The questions about Barr/Mueller that I have for everyone criticizing my view on this are as follows:

1. Given that Barr had already signaled a very pro-Executive power view on obstruction, why did Mueller punt on concluding whether Trump committed the offense? Had Mueller concluded that obstruction occurred, wouldn’t it have made it much harder for Barr and/or Congress to give Trump a pass?

2. What specific statement(s) in the Barr letter do you believe are lies or misrepresentations?

You guys can criticize my views on Russiagate all you want (I’m certainly used to it by now), but I have yet to see a convincing answer to either of these questions.
User avatar
mister d
The Dude
Posts: 29047
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:15 am

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by mister d »

The first question you're asking us to get into Mueller's head and the second question can't be answered until the complete report is released.
Johnnie wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
User avatar
A_B
The Dude
Posts: 23319
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by A_B »

I think the real lies will be those of omission.
You know what you need? A lyrical sucker punch to the face.
User avatar
The Sybian
The Dude
Posts: 18866
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by The Sybian »

Joe K wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:16 pm The questions about Barr/Mueller that I have for everyone criticizing my view on this are as follows:

1. Given that Barr had already signaled a very pro-Executive power view on obstruction, why did Mueller punt on concluding whether Trump committed the offense? Had Mueller concluded that obstruction occurred, wouldn’t it have made it much harder for Barr and/or Congress to give Trump a pass?

2. What specific statement(s) in the Barr letter do you believe are lies or misrepresentations?

You guys can criticize my views on Russiagate all you want (I’m certainly used to it by now), but I have yet to see a convincing answer to either of these questions.
1.) My understanding is that Mueller didn't have the authority to indict Trump for obstruction, and all he could do was lay out the facts on obstruction. The explanation I've heard that makes the most sense, is that Mueller laid out all the evidence for and against obstruction, and left it for Congress to decide. Back when Mueller was first appointed, there were several former prosecutors who worked with Mueller who said they did not think Mueller believed a Special Counsel had the authority to indict a sitting President, and he would lay out the evidence for Congress to decide whether to impeach.

2.) My biggest problem with Barr is that he was appointed solely because he made his views clear that he believes a President cannot be indicted for obstruction. How can the President select the person who decides whether he can be held accountable for potential crimes when those crimes are already being investigated? Barr should have been recused from deciding whether to prosecute, because he was chosen by the President because he made clear his views. It's pure insanity!

I'm not saying I think Barr outright lied in his summary, but I do think he intentionally made it easier for Trump to declare the Report exonerated him. To Barr's credit, he did say Mueller did not exonerate Trump on obstruction, but that doesn't stop Trump from proclaiming exoneration, because Barr said Mueller left that to him, and he doesn't believe there was obstruction, so Trump can say there was no obstruction, and declare that every reporter who reported on the facts that came out should be criminally liable. While I don't think that could ever happen, it's terrifying that we have a President openly (and constantly) saying this, and 40% of voters believe Trump when he says that any negative reports about him are per se fake news. Again, it's terrifying, and nothing has been done in over 2 years to hold this wannabe tyrant in check.

I think it's incredibly clear Trump has obstructed justice in plain sight on a consistent basis. He says it on TV and on Twitter constantly, then he chose the one person who can decide whether he committed a crime, and chose him because he wrote a fucking 19 page memo saying the President can't commit a crime of obstruction. This is the absolute pinnacle of corruption!
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
Joe K
Walter Sobchak
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House

Post by Joe K »

The Sybian wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:48 pm
Joe K wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:16 pm The questions about Barr/Mueller that I have for everyone criticizing my view on this are as follows:

1. Given that Barr had already signaled a very pro-Executive power view on obstruction, why did Mueller punt on concluding whether Trump committed the offense? Had Mueller concluded that obstruction occurred, wouldn’t it have made it much harder for Barr and/or Congress to give Trump a pass?

2. What specific statement(s) in the Barr letter do you believe are lies or misrepresentations?

You guys can criticize my views on Russiagate all you want (I’m certainly used to it by now), but I have yet to see a convincing answer to either of these questions.
1.) My understanding is that Mueller didn't have the authority to indict Trump for obstruction, and all he could do was lay out the facts on obstruction. The explanation I've heard that makes the most sense, is that Mueller laid out all the evidence for and against obstruction, and left it for Congress to decide. Back when Mueller was first appointed, there were several former prosecutors who worked with Mueller who said they did not think Mueller believed a Special Counsel had the authority to indict a sitting President, and he would lay out the evidence for Congress to decide whether to impeach.
It may very well be true that Mueller did not think he had the authority to indict Trump. But I haven’t seen anyone say that Mueller lacked the authority to say something like “but for the Constitutional issues about indicting a sitting President, the evidence here is sufficient to support a charge of obstruction of justice.” In fact there are multiple reports that DOJ is frustrated with Mueller for not answering that question. And Mueller had to have known that if he just laid out the facts, without making such a conclusion, that it would make it much easier for Barr to clear Trump and for Congress to pass on impeachment. All of which leads me to think that Mueller didn’t think there was a clear case of obstruction here. (But apparently some of his team members did, based on the reports earlier this week.)
Post Reply