• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A federal judge ordered the DOJ to release a memo that Bill Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction of justice, saying 'it is time for the public to s

ouch said:

Yes, it is time for the public to see it.​

​

View attachment 67331822​


In Tuesday's ruling, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the unreleased OLC memo that Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction contradicted his claim that the decision to charge the president was under his purview because the special counsel Robert Mueller "did not resolve the question of whether the evidence would support a prosecution."



"The letter asserted that the Special Counsel 'did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,' and it went on to announce the Attorney General's own opinion that 'the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense,'" Jackson wrote.

However, the OLC's memo "calls into question the accuracy of Attorney General Barr's March 24 representation to Congress" and "raises serious questions about how the Department of Justice could make this series of representations to a court," the ruling said.
Click to expand...

I don't expect this will go anywhere...What's the point of it? Trump is not President. Unless ofcourse the point is to destroy him for ever daring to win in the first place...If that is the case, then the Judge should be impeached...
 
As for the actual thread...."US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the unreleased OLC memo that Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction "

This alone.... is incorrect no?


Barr did not clear, Trump, by virtue of the Mueller report, there was no evidence or lacked evidence that Trump was guilty of a crime. You know the saying... Innocent until "proven" guilty. You dont prosecute a person without a crime being committed.


Page 220



"Conclusion"
"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him"




Fact of the matter, They could NOT conclude that the POTUS committed a crime. PERIOD. So Barr did NOT clear Trump after a thorough investigation was concluded. There was NO concluded crime to charge. Period. "It also does not exonerate him" Yes as prosecutors dont exonerate, they just prosecute. Jury's exonerate.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Crimes are subject to what are called statutes of limitation. These state how much time the government has to start proceedings against a defendant. SOL for most federal crimes is 5 years, but there can be longer ones.

The bottom line is that Sessions could have legit convened a grand jury the moment he took on his role.




They were calling for HRC to be "locked up." Any number of the potential bases for this were still within the statutes of limitation when Trump took office and slotted Sessions in there. If there was something there, Sessions could have gotten an indictment.
Click to expand...
Yes but the initial charging decision was on Lynch. It would look bad for Session to then go over the prior AG's head no?

While understand your point I dont think it was in Session's playground to even get involved after the fact? (opinion of course)
 
Exactice said:
As for the actual thread...."US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the unreleased OLC memo that Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction "

This alone.... is incorrect no?


Barr did not clear, Trump, by virtue of the Mueller report, there was no evidence or lacked evidence that Trump was guilty of a crime. You know the saying... Innocent until "proven" guilty. You dont prosecute a person with out a crime being commuted.


Page 220



"Conclusion"
"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ulti
ate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him"




Fact of the matter, They could NOT conclude that the POTUS committed a crime. PERIOD. So Barr did NOT clear Trump after a thorough investigation was concluded. There was NO concluded crime to charge. Period. "It also does not exonerate him" Yes as prosecutors dont exonerate, the just prosecute. Jury's exonerate.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that...Now the question that should be asked is what in the hell is this Judge getting involved in this for? What is her end game?
 
j-mac said:
Thank you for that...Now the question that should be asked is what in the hell is this Judge getting involved in this for? What is her end game?
Click to expand...

The question that should be asked is whether you read the OP

Barr said at the time that he'd come to his decision "in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers," but he did not publicize the OLC's memo. In response, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain the memo.
 
j-mac said:
I don't expect this will go anywhere...What's the point of it?
Click to expand...
I assume that the point of it is to satisfy Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for what AG Barr reported to Congress based on ???

j-mac said:
Trump is not President.
Click to expand...
(S/I/T)Trump was president and Barr was AG at the time.

j-mac said:
Unless ofcourse the point is to destroy him for ever daring to win in the first place
Click to expand...
Well, he did win in the first place and, imo, if Trump is destroyed it's by his own doing(s).

j-mac said:
...If that is the case, then the Judge should be impeached...
Click to expand...
"I don't expect this that will go anywhere"
 
j-mac said:
Now the question that should be asked is what in the hell is this Judge getting involved in this for? What is her end game?
Click to expand...
I would expect that "her end game" is to fairly allow justice to prevail when and where it may apply. Or in this case, she complied with a request by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
 
More political Trump sliming for 2022/24 from the left-wing Judicial Branch.
 
ouch said:
I would expect that "her end game" is to fairly allow justice to prevail when and where it may apply. Or in this case, she complied with a request by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Click to expand...

In what way did Justice NOT prevail.

an Investigation occurred to which the "Prosecutors" (Mueller) found NO chargeable crime. To accuse the President of. The Attorney General accepted and "closed" The matter.

Its simple as that. Want to know the difference?

Trump Committed what actual crime?

HRC had a private Server.


BOTH AG's concluded not to charge or order a Grand jury.

1) HRC actually had an unauthorized server
2) The Other as accused of stuff but never had anything stick or proven? like an actual unauthorized server


So what is the issue?
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

If Comey...as FBI Director...can arbitrarily decide that Hillary shouldn't be indicted, then Barr...as the actual AG...certainly can do the same for Trump.

Nobody gives a shit what the OLC thinks.
Click to expand...

Well, he did. But, that does not mean that we don't get to see the rational AND there is a new sheriff presiding over a now ex-President. Its a different ballgame.
 
Mycroft said:
You act like you've never heard of politics.

You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

Wow! You reduced yourself to dismissing people that fast!!!
 
upsideguy said:
Well, he did. But, that does not mean that we don't get to see the rational AND there is a new sheriff presiding over a now ex-President. Its a different ballgame.
Click to expand...
You are right. This new "sheriff" doesn't mind using government resources for political purposes.
 
Mycroft said:
You are right. This new "sheriff" doesn't mind using government resources for political purposes.
Click to expand...

I am not certain what is political here. Merrick Garland does not have a reputation for being particularly political. He is pretty much a straight-shooter, law and order guy. Its refreshing, isn't it? Perhaps you are referring to his predecessor.

www.politico.com

How liberal is Merrick Garland?

The appellate court judge blends a penchant for judicial restraint associated with conservatives with a deference to executive power more typical of liberals.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
 
upsideguy said:
I am not certain what is political here. Merrick Garland does not have a reputation for being particularly political. He is pretty much a straight-shooter, law and order guy. Its refreshing, isn't it? Perhaps you are referring to his predecessor.

www.politico.com

How liberal is Merrick Garland?

The appellate court judge blends a penchant for judicial restraint associated with conservatives with a deference to executive power more typical of liberals.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...
Being liberal or conservative means nothing. The question is this: Will he use his political power for corrupt political purposes? The answer, based on what he's already done, is yet.
 
ouch said:

Yes, it is time for the public to see it.​

​

View attachment 67331822​


In Tuesday's ruling, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the unreleased OLC memo that Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction contradicted his claim that the decision to charge the president was under his purview because the special counsel Robert Mueller "did not resolve the question of whether the evidence would support a prosecution."



"The letter asserted that the Special Counsel 'did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,' and it went on to announce the Attorney General's own opinion that 'the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense,'" Jackson wrote.

However, the OLC's memo "calls into question the accuracy of Attorney General Barr's March 24 representation to Congress" and "raises serious questions about how the Department of Justice could make this series of representations to a court," the ruling said.
Click to expand...
He's been found to lie to judges twice. That fat pig's going down with the other fat pig he protected.
 
Mycroft said:
Being liberal or conservative means nothing. The question is this: Will he use his political power for corrupt political purposes? The answer, based on what he's already done, is yet.
Click to expand...

Investigating criminals or not is not politically motivated in an honest administration...
 
j-mac said:
I don't expect this will go anywhere...What's the point of it? Trump is not President. Unless ofcourse the point is to destroy him for ever daring to win in the first place...If that is the case, then the Judge should be impeached...
Click to expand...
Translation = you want it to stay buried because it would support the narrative that the entire trump administration you supported was actually one big crime family.

Sorry, man!
 
j-mac said:
Thank you for that...Now the question that should be asked is what in the hell is this Judge getting involved in this for? What is her end game?
Click to expand...
The public has the right to see it. It would prove Barr and trump are dirty. That's why you want to bury it.
 
lurchadams said:
The public has the right to see it. It would prove Barr and trump are dirty. That's why you want to bury it.
Click to expand...
Politicians, by nature, are dirty.
 
Mycroft said:
Being liberal or conservative means nothing. The question is this: Will he use his political power for corrupt political purposes? The answer, based on what he's already done, is yet.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but over 1000 former US prosecutors of all parties told us that Trump had reached the threshold of indictment for obstruction of justice. The one reason, it appears, that he was no prosecution was because he was the POTUS.

Trump is no longer the POTUS. His crimes (according to 1000 former US prosecutors) remain unaddressed. It is in the best interest of America that this memo come forward for all of us to see. That is about doing the right thing. That is hardly corrupt.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal…
medium.com medium.com

You need to get over this idea that Trump's presidency was normal and that its the press or his political enemies that are out to get him. While Trump very much followed that MO, Biden and Garland have no such history.

The Trump presidency was anything but normal. It will be studied for generations to come. We are only months into looking at his ex-presidency; looking at the totality of his administration in the rear view mirror. There is much to study and understand here, particularly the Mueller investigation, its conclusions and what thinking went into its substantially whitewashing (which was likely a corruption in and of itself). Whatever wrong doing happened in those four years WILL see the light of day, they eyes of experts and the judgement of public opinion. You have to grapple with that.

Of course, in the unlikely event that you right and the Trump and Barr were lilly white here, then that will come forth as well.
 
Last edited:
GDViking said:
Investigating criminals or not is not politically motivated in an honest administration...
Click to expand...
We haven't had an "honest administration" for a long, long time.

Not even under Trump, since he had very little control over his executive branch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom