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

[Athanasius68]

No, this is not correct. Barr put forward an argument. The fact that he put forward an argument doesn't mean his argument is correct. One of the big problems Democrats had is that Trump blocked witnesses who could have provided Congress more evidence on obstruction from testifying before Congress (which actually reinforces the argument that Trump engaged in a pattern of obstruction). And the evidence for obstruction Mueller did find is really compelling anyway. For instance, Mueller outlined evidence of obstruction in at least 4 different incidences, where the evidence met each element of the crime of obstruction:

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter

www.lawfareblog.com

View attachment 67332245

1. Trump can fire Mueller.
2. Trump can curtail Mueller
3. Mueller testified before Congress that the Trump admin was very cooperative.
4. McGahan issue turns out to be he said he said

So even on the four, things turn out weak.

 

[Athanasius68]

1. With respect to law enforcement in general there is no prohibition on doing proactive investigations. As just one example, if someone is casing a bank in a way that is obvious but that person has not yet robbed the bank you can guarantee the cops will stop by and have a chat with the person.

In the age of BLM, that is perhaps no longer true.

2. Within the context of counterintelligence investigations, there is an assumption that a hostile country like Russia is ALWAYS engaging in espionage, and it is the policy of the various agencies in the USIC to conduct investigations any time there is some evidence indicating a possible espionage activity.

This is true. However-- counter-intelligence investigations are not criminal investigations-- the objective is not gather evidence to prosecute a person in court. Its to gather information to determine what American foes are up to.
But also, the government can't use counter-intelligence as a way around finding justification for a criminal investigation.

 

[Athanasius68]

The FBI was investigating Russian interference,

The issue that caused such political turmoil is that they were investigating Trump and/or his campaign conspiring with the interference.

 

[pamak]

In the age of BLM, that is perhaps no longer true.



This is true. However-- counter-intelligence investigations are not criminal investigations-- the objective is not gather evidence to prosecute a person in court. Its to gather information to determine what American foes are up to.
But also, the government can't use counter-intelligence as a way around finding justification for a criminal investigation.

Any investigation can turn to a criminal one when people start lying to the investigators. You have it in reverse. Te government does not invent a justification, It is the people who lie to investigators who provide the justification. These people can't use counter-intelligence as a way around finding justification for lying.

 

[Athanasius68]

It's because the FBI did not err in the first two FISA applications. The FBI erred when it did not update the court about new information it discovered which tended to diminish the rationale for continuing to investigate Page.

But you're not arguing about the last two FISA applications being unwarranted.

You're making the idiotic argument that no investigation into Trump or any of his campaign personnel was justified in any whatsoever and it was all big scam and bla bla bla. And none of that is true.

The purpose of in investigating Mr. Page was to determine his role in the alleged Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia. Knocking out the rationale to investigate Page also helps knock out the rationale of the conspiracy theory.

The reason why Trump and his campaign personnel were investigated is they kept doing suspicious and shady things....like ...get this.. MEETING WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS.

Well, we now know that a Clinton campaign operative met with suspected Russian agent (Mr. Steele's main source). Considering that things of value was actually received, and that the campaign was proactive on looking for stuff on Trump n Russia, and that the Trump campaign reacted to Russian outreach, and received nothing from them, it would seem Clinton campaign activity was more "suspicious."
However, I am unaware of any investigation by the government into it.

 

[Athanasius68]

And I am not pushing back against the notion that Trump did not commit the crime of conspiracy. I am pushing back against the notion his supporters keep pushing that the FBI investigation of Trump and his campaign was not legitimate or justified. They are wrong. The FBI had a DUTY and an OBLIGATION to investigate Trump and his campaign.

The objection here is that:
The evidence doesn't support an allegation that Trump and/or his campaign conspired with Russia. It supports an allegation that Russia targeted the election-- which are two separate things.
Yet the focus of the investigation was the former and not the latter.

 

[lurchadams]

President Biden is a figurehead. He's being led. VP Harris isn't in charge either. Pelosi and Schumer are guiding government right now.

This is a lovely post. Delusional and pure fiction, but just lovely

 

[Tahuyaman]

This is a lovely post. Delusional and pure fiction, but just lovely

It was true. Biden isn’t the decision maker in the current administration.

 

[NewfieMom]

It was true. Biden isn’t the decision maker in the current administration.

I am sure you have a great deal of information about the workings of the Biden inner circle.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Well, we now know that H Biden was under investigation. It is certainly reasonable for a president to seek out assistance from foreign countries in the course of investigations.

This is not true. There was a conflict of interest. Hunter Biden was the son of his main political rival. Trump should not have interfered at all.

In all other legal environments, we remove lawyers, judges, and prosecutors from positions of authority and influence in situations where there is a conflict of interest.

This is ethics 101. This is how we do things in America. I know in Russia there is no such thing as ethics, but this is how we do things here.

Should this be considered a variation of Godwins law?

You can call it whatever you want.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Ok-- well Mr. Trump was impeached over that suggestion.

No, Trump was impeached because he abused the power of his office to coerce a foreign government to investigate his political rival.

If the Bidens were to be investigated it was a decision someone else should have made.

There are regular channels the DOJ can use to ask for assistance from foreign counterparts.

Foreign policy issues as defined by whom?

By logic.

People aren't stupid.

The President cannot do whatever the hell he wants. Okay? Do you get it yet?

If the President does something contrary to the interest of the Republic the President can and should be removed.

It's no different than hiring a CEO to run a company who gives trade secrets to a competitor, or intentionally runs the business into the ground or something for the benefit of some other competitor. In a situation like that, the boar would remove the CEO, and hire someone else who would make decisions in the interests of the shareholders. The President, like a CEO, or some sort of official functioning in a similar capacity, has a duty to further the interests of the organization, or in this case the country, he represents.

The President does not have carte blanche to do anything he wants.

The Trump Admin offered up far more aid to the Ukraine than the Obama Admin had.

It's good that the Trump administration offered more aid to Ukraine.

It's bad that in the process of doing so Trump abused the office by coercing Ukraine to investigate his main political rival.

Perhaps indeed there should be a name to signify defeat on this issue.

Perhaps you should use the phrase President when describing Biden because he's the President instead of using strange, out-of-place titles only a foreigner would use?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Yes-- Russia was targeting the election. The Trump campaign didn't know. We now know they were never informed of this.

The Trump campaign and Trump knew well enough to publicly request Russia's help in finding Clinton's e-mail.

So I will bring it up again-- we now know that Mr. Steele's main source was a man whom the FBI had investigated for being a Russian agent.

That's how human intel in spycraft works. You ask people working for a foreign government for information the foreign government doesn't want to be released.

This is how spying has always worked.

For thousands of years, this is how people engaged in spycraft.

Yet his dossier was used in court, in Congress and in an intelligence assessment by people who should have been far more aware of Russian efforts than a New York real estate developer.

Good. It was good for Steele to hand over the intelligence to the FBI. And it was good that the FBI used it. Intel doesn't have to be perfect or fully proven to be useful.

So slam Trump all you want for being duped at the tower meeting. It pales in comparison to the Clinton campaign and Obama Admin being duped.

It really doesn't matter who was duped.

What matters from the perspective of U.S. foreign policy interests is that we put people into positions of power who would not try to intentionally work on behalf of Russian government interests against U.S. government interests.

It's a matter of loyalty. And Trump engaged in a disloyal act by attempting to conspire with the Russian government against the U.S. government.

If our two countries were at war Trump would have been engaging in act of treason in such a case.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The issue with Kilmnick is that he was not some shadowy figure. He was known and had worked for a reputable organization.
The claim that Manafort 'knew' he was a Russian agent is nonsense.

Everybody knows that Russian oligarchs work on behalf of Putin, or at the behest of Putin, and maintain their wealth only with Putin's approval.

Everyone knows that Oleg Deripaska, specifically, does favors for Putin.

Manafort knew that Kilimnik was working for Oleg Deripaska. In fact, the text of e-mails was made public where Manafort was communicating to Deripaska through Kilimnik.

The things you are saying do not make any sense. You cannot be that stupid. And if you're not stupid that means you're lying intentionally. I don't understand why you and others think it's okay to lie.

There are a lot of defenses you can come up with to support your cult leader without resorting to lying and making shit up. So, please, stop it.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

This is true. However-- counter-intelligence investigations are not criminal investigations-- the objective is not gather evidence to prosecute a person in court. Its to gather information to determine what American foes are up to.
But also, the government can't use counter-intelligence as a way around finding justification for a criminal investigation.

I agree, and they didn't in the case of Trump's campaign.

Here's a helpful tip.

If you don't want the FBI to investigate you then DON'T TALK TO RUSSIAN AGENTS, DON'T HIRE PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS, and DON'T ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE IN A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE US WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS.

It's not that complicated.

 

[ouch]

I doubt that. People who make these statements do so because they think it gives them more credibility. It’s the equivalent of saying “ I have several black friends.”

(S/I/T) Trump was a Democrat long before he became a Republican Trumplican. Do you doubt that?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

1. Trump can fire Mueller.

There is a limit to the executive authority of the President.

By virtue of the oath of office, and the take care clause specifically, the President of the United States of America cannot engage in obstruction of justice.

The President can indeed perform these actions, just as a bank robber can rob a bank, but the moment the action is performed it becomes the obligation of Congress to remove the President from office.

2. Trump can curtail Mueller

There is a limit to the executive authority of the President.

By virtue of his oath of office, and the take care clause specifically, the President of the United States of America cannot engage in obstruction of justice.

The President can indeed perform these actions, just as a bank robber can rob a bank, but the moment the action is performed it becomes the obligation of Congress to remove the President from office.

3. Mueller testified before Congress that the Trump admin was very cooperative.

This is an outright lie.

Stop lying. It's ridiculous.

Do you lie in other areas of your life? Why do it here?

Mueller submitted Volume 2. as part of his testimony before Congress, in and in Volume 2 Mueller outlines evidence for at least 4 separate acts of obstruction related to Trump's attempts to shut down the investigation. That is not cooperation.

Mueller further testified that Trump failed to interview with his team.

4. McGahan issue turns out to be he said he said

Yeah, so what? Nearly every trial includes contradictory testimony. This is kind of how trials work. And then it's up to the jury to decide who is telling the truth.

So even on the four, things turn out weak.

I understand you think Trump did not engage in obstruction, and I'm okay with you or anyone else holding that opinion.

After reading Volume 2, I simply do not agree.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The issue that caused such political turmoil is that they were investigating Trump and/or his campaign conspiring with the interference.

Yes, this is correct. And the moral of the story is if you don't want the FBI to investigate you then don't engage in suspicious conduct with Russian agents. And, also, in Flynn's case....don't lie about your suspicious activities with Russian agents.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The purpose of in investigating Mr. Page was to determine his role in the alleged Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia. Knocking out the rationale to investigate Page also helps knock out the rationale of the conspiracy theory.

Except for the fact that it seemed like every other person in Trump's campaign was apparently doing a bunch of shady, suspicious things as it relates to Russia.

Well, we now know that a Clinton campaign operative met with suspected Russian agent (Mr. Steele's main source).

This is how spying works. In order for Steele to spy on the Russian government, he had to communicate with people somehow associated with the Russian government.

Considering that things of value was actually received, and that the campaign was proactive on looking for stuff on Trump n Russia, and that the Trump campaign reacted to Russian outreach, and received nothing from them, it would seem Clinton campaign activity was more "suspicious."

It's about loyalty.

When the Clinton campaign SPIED AGAINST THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT it wasn't acting contrary to U.S. national interests.

When Trump and his campaign personnel tried to CONSPIRE WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES they were acting contrary to U.S. national interests.

That is why what Steele did was not bad, and why what Trump and his campaign did was bad.

And even though Trump may not have successfully engaged in the crime of conspiracy the fact that he was so eager to do so is bad in and of itself.

However, I am unaware of any investigation by the government into it.

It is not contrary to U.S. national interests for someone to spy on a foreign country, especially a hostile foreign country engaged in espionage AGAINST the U.S.

It is contrary to U.S. national interests for someone to work with a foreign country in attacking our election system.

That is why Trump was investigated, and that is why the Clinton campaign and Steele were not investigated.

It's the simple logic of loyalty.

Trump is disloyal.

Steele is loyal.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The objection here is that:
The evidence doesn't support an allegation that Trump and/or his campaign conspired with Russia.

This is not true. You are lying once again.

I encourage you to read Volume 1 of the special counsel's report. There are multiple instances where the Trump campaign, and Trump himself, engaged in activities that aroused suspicion that they were conspiring with the Russian government.

It supports an allegation that Russia targeted the election-- which are two separate things.
Yet the focus of the investigation was the former and not the latter.

Yes, the focus of the investigation of Trump and his campaign's attempts to conspire with the Russian government was on Trump and his campaign personnel. That was the entire point of investigating them.

Furthermore, before, during, and after those investigations, throughout the entire time period, and even until this very moment the USIC is engaged in an active, ongoing series of investigations into what the Russian government is trying to do to harm us at any given moment in time.

The reason why investigations were opened into Trump and his campaign personnel is based on the assumption that hostile foreign governments like the Russian government are always engaged in espionage against us, and any time there is a scrap of evidence indicating some American is associated with such activity, you can count on that American being investigated.

And this happens even if the target/subject of an investigation is a President you like.

 

[lurchadams]

It was true. Biden isn’t the decision maker in the current administration.

And you know this because.......

(this oughtta be good)

 

[W_Heisenberg]

And you know this because.......

(this oughtta be good)

Hannity told him so.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Pelosi and Schumer are guiding government right now.

Yes, this is true, but only 1/3rd true, because Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and Schumer is the Senate majority leader.

You see, in the U.S., we have 3 branches of government at the federal level: the legislative, the judicial, and the executive.

Contrary to the belief of uneducated Trump supporters the federal government does not consist of the Trump branch, the second Trump branch, and the third Trump branch.

 

[TomFitz]

The purpose of in investigating Mr. Page was to determine his role in the alleged Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia. Knocking out the rationale to investigate Page also helps knock out the rationale of the conspiracy theory.



Well, we now know that a Clinton campaign operative met with suspected Russian agent (Mr. Steele's main source). Considering that things of value was actually received, and that the campaign was proactive on looking for stuff on Trump n Russia, and that the Trump campaign reacted to Russian outreach, and received nothing from them, it would seem Clinton campaign activity was more "suspicious."
However, I am unaware of any investigation by the government into it.

Of course it was. Carter Page was known to the FBI as someone who spent a lot of time in Russia and who had been approached by the FSB in the past.

Carter Page is one of the remaining mysteries (to me) in the sad saga of self dealing, corruption, craven betrayal that was the sad saga of the Trump regieme.

Trump and his chorus in the right wing noise machine always was outraged whenever Page was in the news. It was always very clear that suspicions surrounding Page were particularly sensative to the Trump White House.

I’m sure we’ll eventually know way.

Of course, I would also like to know who the still unidentified attendees at the infamous Trump Tower meeting. Something I’m sure will be revealed in due course, as well as the actual transcript (not the one Trump made up) of his “perfect phone call”.

 

[TomFitz]

The nonsense in the media is irrelevant to any legal problems.

Well, that’s true, But the legal problems are still there.

 

[Plasmaball]

1. Trump can fire Mueller.
2. Trump can curtail Mueller
3. Mueller testified before Congress that the Trump admin was very cooperative.
4. McGahan issue turns out to be he said he said

So even on the four, things turn out weak.

1 and 2..true but optics shows he didn't
3.https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/apr/22/william-barr/did-trump-fully-cooperate-mueller-investigation-no/

You are wrong.
4. Wash

1 2 don't matter because it never happened.
3 is right at all.
4 he waited it out when he could have testified