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

[W_Heisenberg]

This particular passage is so weak with respects to a corrupt act that Mueller is forced to offer up innocent explanations for the presidents actions.

Throughout the Special Counsel's report, Mueller is constantly referencing opposing points of view and alternate explanations, particularly from the perspective of the targets of the investigation. He plays the role of devil's advocate throughout the entire report. You would know this had you read it. Investigators are constantly asking themselves that maybe there is an alternate explanation for what appears to be criminal behavior? This is a good practice for investigators to do for a variety of reasons, but the most important reason is that investigation are about finding the truth about something. And to find the truth about something requires looking at things from different perspectives. It's also a good practice because prosecutors have to learn for themselves, prior to proceeding, whether or not a suspected criminal can be successfully prosecuted.

With respect to Trump's actions. The President shouldn't be dangling pardons to discourage criminal defendants from cooperating with prosecutors. Period. The President should not be doing this for anyone for any reason. This is the kind of thing that looks corrupt on its face! And when Mueller is describing possible alternate explanations, he's not doing it because the President's actions don't look corrupt, he's doing it because the President's actions look corrupt on their face! It's ridiculous to dangle pardons in front of people to encourage them not to participate in criminal investigations. Nobody does that. Do you know who does that? Crooked people do that.

And, again, I'm not trying to prove in this thread, nor did I try to prove in that post that it is an absolute certainty that Trump engaged in obstruction.

All, I'm trying to do, is knock back your ridiculous assertion that an underlying crime needs to be proven in order to prove obstruction. That's it. I don't have to prove Trump engaged in obstruction to make my point. This is a strawman argument you keep engaging in to defend your cult leader.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

And when the president is exercising his lawful authority he is not breaking the law.

If the President engages in an act of obstruction while exercising his lawful authority he is breaking the law and committing an act of obstruction.

The fact that the Constitution outlines a Unitary Executive does not mean the President can use his lawful authority to obstruct justice.

Your assertion that acts within the sphere of the President's authority are always lawful creates a contradiction. How can the President exercise his lawful authority if some particular lawful act also results in breaking the law?

This contradiction is easily resolved. The President cannot engage in crimes. This is true even if a President's otherwise lawful act is done with the intent of obstructing justice.

The President is not above the law. The President's authority does not allow him to use the office to engage in criminal acts.

And if you disagree, prove it by citing the Supreme Court decision or anything our case law that or anything in our Constitution that says so.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Then he is not exercsisng his lawful authority.

I'm glad I finally got you to agree.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

And since there was no crime to cover up, all we are left with a president exercsing his lawful authority.

Well, except for the fact that there is evidence that exists which indicates the President may have had a corrupt intent when trying to end the investigation.

And an investigation into Trump revelaed there was no conspiracy.
So we don't have evidence that Trump's actions were criminal/

With respect to Trump, I'm not suggesting that he definitely engaged in the crime of obstruction. That's not my argument.

I'm suggesting there was enough evidence to begin investigating Trump for obstruction, I'm suggesting there was enough evidence to continue the investigation of Trump for obstruction with respect to the DOJ, and I'm suggesting there was enough evidence for Congress to continue to investigate Trump for obstruction. And that none of this requires that anyone involved prove an underlying crime. And that Trump's actions subsequent to these discoveries to block Congress from acquiring more information also represent an act of wrongdoing, potentially even an impeachable act.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Just like we don't have evidence that Biden's firing of the attorneys was criminal.
However, under the "Trump" standard, Biden actions here should be investigated IF somebody thinks Biden is, in general, a 'bad man."

This is not something I believe.

If there were evidence that some otherwise official, authorized action that Biden took was tantamount to a crime, I would suggest Biden be investigated.

In Trump's case, there was a ton of evidence indicating he engaged in the crime of obstruction, and also other crimes such as conspiracy.

None of this shit is on Trump critics. Trump is the one responsible for his own behavior and people think Trump did bad things because he kept engaging in suspicious acts worthy of investigation.

People don't dangle pardons in front of their political allies to discourage them from participating in criminal investigations. THAT IS NOT NORMAL DUDE. Honest people don't do shit like that. It looks corrupt.

People don't try to end criminal investigations into their political allies and into themselves. That's suspicious. What we do in normal circumstances if a cop, or a judge, or a prosecutor is somehow involved in a case like that is we removed them from the process so there is no potential for the conflict of interest or even the appearance of the conflict of interest.

I am not suggesting that Trump definitely conspired with the Russian government.

I am not suggesting that Trump definitely engaged in obstruction.

But he definitely, 100%, without a ****ing doubt, deserved to be investigated. He deserved to be scrutinized. And he had an obligation as chief executive to allow the process to occur. He took an oath god damnit. He took oath, and that oath means something! Our constitution means something. Our laws mean something. The office means something. And every person who sits in that office has an obligation, a duty, to that office and to our Republic. And those duties supersede their own personal interests and even the political interests of their mean-spirited and immoral supporters who don't give a shit about corruption or the Rule of Law in general.

It's not too much to ask for the President of the United States to do the right thing. And if he can't do it, if he can't do the right thing, then he can't have the job.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

That is McGahan's interpretation of Trumps actions.

McGahn's words and actions, which also include is testimony, with respect to this incident, and should still be examined by investigators, is still evidence even if you dislike it because it makes Trump look bad, and even if you think it's weak evidence.

Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute.

I'm not suggesting this is the case. I am suggesting potential abuses of the office by the President can be reviewed by Congress. And I've already cited in this thread approximately one dozen court rulings on this topic to support my argument. If you can cite a case to the contrary, please post a reference.

Yes-- because the president does not have the authority to do that.

I'm glad you finally agree that the President does not have the power to break the law, even while engaging in an otherwise official executive action.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Yes we do. Because otherwise we are investigating the president for exercising his lawful authority.
Which is an absurdity.

The absurdity is the idea that the President has the power to break the law so long as his actions involve the exercise of what would otherwise be a lawful executive action.

Our Constitution outlines a Unitary Executive, but it does not outline this.

If a President ends an investigation for corrupt reasons, it's not a lawful executive action, it's a crime.

Just because a President is engaging in the exercise of power, given to him by the Constitution, does not mean that such an act cannot ever be a criminal act or cannot ever be an abuse of office.

It's possible for a President to use his official powers in corrupt ways.

And it's outrageously absurd on anyone's part to suggest the contrary.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Trump DIDNT obstruct the investigation. It continued.

It doesn't matter.

It does not matter that Trump failed to obstruct justice.

What matters is that Trump TRIED to obstruct justice.

The obstruction statutes outline that even the ATTEMPT to obstruct justice is a crime.

Furthermore, from the perspective of impeachable offenses, an ATTEMPT to obstruct justice is ALSO an abuse of office.

And our case law does not imagine the Presidency to be immune from an inquiry by law enforcement officials or by Congress. The deliberations that the executive branch engages in are reviewable, both as a matter of criminal law and the constitutional powers of Congress. We have approximately a dozen Court rulings proving this, which I referenced earlier in this thread.

 

[dixon01767]

If a President ends an investigation for corrupt reasons, it's not a lawful executive action, it's a crime.

He didnt end ANY investigation and your belief that he wanted to do so isnt a crime.

 

[dixon01767]

It doesn't matter.

It does not matter that Trump failed to obstruct justice.

What matters is that Trump TRIED to obstruct justice.

The obstruction statutes outline that even the ATTEMPT to obstruct justice is a crime.

Furthermore, from the perspective of impeachable offenses, an ATTEMPT to obstruct justice is ALSO an abuse of office.

And our case law does not imagine the Presidency to be immune from an inquiry by law enforcement officials or by Congress. The deliberations that the executive branch engages in are reviewable, both as a matter of criminal law and the constitutional powers of Congress. We have approximately a dozen Court rulings proving this, which I referenced earlier in this thread.

Considering that Trump had the authority to fire anyone involved in any investigation, seems silly to allege he attempted to obstruct an investigation but just couldnt pull it off.

 

[Plasmaball]

Only irrelevant to those who do not believe in equal justice under the law.


The OLC rule with respect to prosecuting a sitting president is policy.
It can be changed (during the Democratic primaries, Sen. Warren said she would do so as president).

Prosecuting the president was never going a line prosecutors decision anyhow.
When Mueller was wrapping things up, he told Barr that he couldn't make a recommendation because of the OLC policy. Barr told Mueller not to worry about the policy; make a recommendation and he (Barr) will worry about the DOJ policy.

It's a deflection. You want to discuss it start a thread. I'll gladly share my thoughts on it. But you won't.


Who cares about Warren. The point being Mueller couldn't charge trump..had trump not been president he would have sought charges.

Link to barr telling Mueller this?

 

[Athanasius68]

It's a deflection. You want to discuss it start a thread. I'll gladly share my thoughts on it. But you won't.


Who cares about Warren. The point being Mueller couldn't charge trump..had trump not been president he would have sought charges.

Link to barr telling Mueller this?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/politics/barr-mueller-prosecution.amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwi0p4Lo3NHwAhWmTN8KHUpGAyYQFjADegQIChAC&usg=AOvVaw2EEFixjSSBOXusX_FnV3YB&ampcf=1

 

[Athanasius68]

The absurdity is the idea that the President has the power to break the law so long as his actions involve the exercise of what would otherwise be a lawful executive action.

Other way-- Congress cannot, by statute, restrict or infringe upon the constitutional rights and powers of the president.

 

[Athanasius68]

This is not something I believe.

If there were evidence that some otherwise official, authorized action that Biden took was tantamount to a crime, I would suggest Biden be investigated.

However, with respect to Trump, you are citing his exercise of his official powers as evidence of a crime.
It isn't.

In Trump's case, there was a ton of evidence indicating he engaged in the crime of obstruction, and also other crimes such as conspiracy.

There was no conspiracy. That avenue is closed.
It's not a crime for a president to be concerned about the actions of a subordinate official.

But he definitely, 100%, without a ****ing doubt, deserved to be investigated. He deserved to be scrutinized. And he had an obligation as chief executive to allow the process to occur. He took an oath god damnit. He took oath, and that oath means something! Our constitution means something. Our laws mean something. The office means something. And every person who sits in that office has an obligation, a duty, to that office and to our Republic. And those duties supersede their

ECT.
All that is an argument for impeachment. It's not an argument for a criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

[Plasmaball]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/politics/barr-mueller-prosecution.amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwi0p4Lo3NHwAhWmTN8KHUpGAyYQFjADegQIChAC&usg=AOvVaw2EEFixjSSBOXusX_FnV3YB&ampcf=1

Yeah that really doesn't prove much. Just more of barr thinks he could have. Mueller said he couldn't.
Barr was playing a game.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

He didnt end ANY investigation and your belief that he wanted to do so isnt a crime.

The problem is in our obstruction statutes if someone makes an attempt to obstruct justice it's still a crime, and we have evidence Trump attempted to do so. He took substantial steps towards that goal. That's all that is required to charge and convict someone. An attempted act of obstruction need not be successful for it to be a crime. Mueller outlines the statute and case law in support of this in Vol 2.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Considering that Trump had the authority to fire anyone involved in any investigation, seems silly to allege he attempted to obstruct an investigation but just couldnt pull it off.

1. Attempted obstruction is still a crime.

2. What Barr did to get the AG job was to argue in a memo that was circulated prior to his appointment that it was impossible for a President to engage in obstruction if he was engaging in some official act. Trump -- being a lifelong criminal -- was attracted to the idea that it was impossible for him to commit a crime while doing something that would ordinarily be a lawful executive action. Unfortunately, for Trump and Trump's cultish followers this is an extreme form of the Unitary Executive Theory that is not supported by the text of the Constitution, the notes from the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any Court ruling. It is very likely Barr made a similar argument in an internal memo -- the memo in dispute referenced in the OP -- prior to releasing his summary of the Mueller report. The reason why he did so is he didn't want to have to bother with defending his real rationale in public. This is likely why the judge in this case accused Barr of engaging in deceit. The reason why he didn't want to have to defend his rationale is the vast majority of Constitutional scholars do not support this extreme interpretation of Unitary Executive Theory. Athanasius68 is making similar arguments, although in a very clumsy way. He has not referenced any source material to support his opinion, for instance. He just keeps asserting his conclusions as if they were already proven true.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Other way-- Congress cannot, by statute, restrict or infringe upon the constitutional rights and powers of the president.

At no point have I ever suggested Congress could restrict or infringe on the constitutional rights and powers of the President.

The problem with your argument is that you keep insisting that so long as the President is engaging in an otherwise lawful execution action there is nothing about that action that can be interpreted as a crime or abuse of office.

But this isn't true. The Take Care Clause of the Constitution, to which Trump swore an oath, obligates a President to make sure the laws are faithfully executed.

The Impeachment process outlined in the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to hold a President to account for engaging in an abuse of office, which even a failed attempt of obstruction represents, and also the implicit power to investigate the President for suspected abuse of office.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

However, with respect to Trump, you are citing his exercise of his official powers as evidence of a crime.
It isn't.

No, this is incorrect.

At no point have I suggested the mere exercise of the President's official powers is enough to prove a crime. Congress or prosecutors would also have to prove there was some corrupt intent by that official action.

I refer you, again, to post 615, 616, and 617 in this thread where I outline evidence Mueller uncovered that revealed a variety of pieces of evidence pointing towards Trump using otherwise lawful executive action with corrupt intent. These posts detail evidence of corrupt intent that cast doubt that Trump was simply exercising his lawful authority.

In those posts, I repeat text from the Mueller report where Mueller showed that there may have been corrupt reasons motivating Trump to take the action he did. If Trump attempted to end the investigation simply because he thought it was the right thing to do prosecutorially, for instance, let's say that Trump thought that there was no logical reason to continue the investigation because it would never result in a successful conviction, that would be acceptable. That would fall under the domain of what would be his lawful executive authority. But that's not what Mueller wrote.

If a President uses his official powers for corrupt ends that isn't allowed. And your argument is basically so long as a President has the power to do something, it cannot ever be illegal under any circumstances. And that is an extreme interpretation of Unitary Executive Theory that is not supported by the case law, the text of the Constitution, the notes from the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers. It's a figment of the imagination of authoritarian, fascistic people like Barr who seek to put the Presidency above the law. Now, if you have evidence such as court rulings or citations found in our country's legal history to support this extreme interpretation, I think you should post that evidence.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

ECT.
All that is an argument for impeachment. It's not an argument for a criminal investigation and prosecution.

I understand that.

In this thread, I made the decision early on to argue that Trump's suspected attempt to obstruct justice would be both a crime and an impeachable offense.

I know you want to ignore the impeachment aspect of Trump's bad behavior, that you want to cordon it off as if it doesn't exist because it makes Trump look bad. But I'm not going to do that. I am going to keep also discussing the impeachment angle whether you like it or not.

 

[Athanasius68]

The problem with your argument is that you keep insisting that so long as the President is engaging in an otherwise lawful execution action there is nothing about that action that can be interpreted as a crime or abuse of office.

If the president is exercising his lawful power, its not evidence of a crime.

As far as abuse of power, thats why the two need to be divided out. An abuse of power is not a crime. Congress can of course take whatever action they wish if they think the president is abusing his power.

But this isn't true. The Take Care Clause of the Constitution, to which Trump swore an oath, obligates a President to make sure the laws are faithfully executed.

Yes-- and if the president thinks he needs to be rid of Mr. Comey or Mr. Mueller or the US attorneys in order to carry out that oath, he can get rid of them.
And its not a crime for the president to do so, or to think about doing so..

 

[Athanasius68]

In those posts, I repeat text from the Mueller report where Mueller showed that there may have been corrupt reasons motivating Trump to take the action he did. If Trump attempted to end the investigation simply because he thought it was the right thing to do prosecutorially, for instance, let's say that Trump thought that there was no logical reason to continue the investigation because it would never result in a successful conviction, that would be acceptable. That would fall under the domain of what would be his lawful executive authority. But that's not what Mueller wrote.

Since there was no conspiracy, and Mr. Trump knew there was no conspiracy, it is reasonable to assume Mr. Trump understood there would have been no conviction.

If a President uses his official powers for corrupt ends that isn't allowed. And your argument is basically so long as a President has the power to do something, it cannot ever be illegal under any circumstances.

That isn't the argument.
Never has been.

 

[TomFitz]

You are describing a failed attempt to obstruct justice.

A failed attempt to obstruct justice is still prosecutable according to the obstruction statutes.

The reason why this is true, why this was written into the statutes, is that successful acts of obstruction are hard to catch.

And, the fact that an illegal order is not carried out by the President's subordinate doesn't mean the President did not engage in obstruction.

If that were true then no subordinate could ever be found personally liable for executing an illegal order by his superior within the executive branch because your conception of Unitary Executive Theory would destroy every subordinate's agency, and therefore absolve every subordinate of personal responsibility.

Your argument does not make logical sense.

It is not supported by our case law, our Constitution, our political history, or any legal precedent.

It's a crazy, authoritarian, fascistic view of the world that would put the President above the Rule of Law.

It’s also the same illegitimate talking point that the Trumpsters all clung to at the time.

The obstruction was obvious, and out in the open. Trump was never subtle in his criminality.

Trump had wingmen in his Attorney General and Mitch McConnell, both of whom failed in their constitutional duty, but worked hard to keep Trump alive.

Keeping Trump in office was far more important to both of them than the Consitutions, the rule of law, or democracy.

 

[TomFitz]

Since there was no conspiracy, and Mr. Trump knew there was no conspiracy, it is reasonable to assume Mr. Trump understood there would have been no conviction.


That isn't the argument.
Never has been.

There was very obviously a conspiracy. Many of the details are very well documented.

If you’re going to continue to pretend that there wasn’t one, then you need to explain why a presidential campaign (any presidential campaign), would invite intelligence assets from a rival country into their headquarters for a meeting (which was sold to the Trump cabal on the promise of dirt on an opponant) in the middle of an election.

Maybe you can name one, even one, time that ever happened before.

The broad outline of how it worked is also well known.

There are certain things that aren’t know. Such as the real content of Trump’s “perfect phone call”, and the role Carter Page played (which the Trump crowd was especially sensitive about), and what was really said at the infamous Trump Tower meeting (and who was actually there).

Trump gambled that McConnell and Barr would abandon their oaths of office in order to protect him.

 

[NWRatCon]

I will say this: it is clear to those of us with an understanding of those legal standards and reality that prosecutions are coming. Those are going to result in some fascinating discussions - like when those pardoned by Trump are brought before Grand Juries bereft of their 5th Amendment excuses and proceed to lie under oath, or, alternatively, testify truthfully and implicate others. Heads will explode. Indeed, I expect the first such threads before Independence Day. The fireworks will be illuminating and entertaining.

Cue the outrage machine: New York Attorney General "investigating the Trump Organization in a criminal capacity" (CBS). The fuse has been lit.