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

[Plasmaball]

I agree, since W_Heisenberg has already been doing that pages ago. However, the Trumplicans who are wrangling with him and a few others here are only trying to win the argument by wearing him and a few others down with never-ending bs. That's how they play and declare victory. Yes, much like how (S/I/T) Trump does it. W_Heisenberg and a few others here are using good sense, logic and the rule of law, in which isn't going unnoticed. There's over 3,000 views and counting! So, somewhere in the world, a few minds have been changed for the good by following this battle of facts v misleading whatevers.

Just think, if only Bill Barr turned out to be a genuinely decent AG, we'd not be having this conversation. Either Trump wouldn't have appointed him in the first place based on genuinely decent or he'd been fired after his first year as AG - if that long.

The point is to tire you out so you give up. These people won't stop about this. They don't care. It trolls the libs. Therefore because of this they don't care about laws, ethics, principles or morals.

They care about laughing and pointing. when turned back around they take their ball home and cry victim .

Rinse repeat with these people. Very few of them are honorable human beings worth having a conversation with.

 

[NewfieMom]

The point is to tire you out so you give up. These people won't stop about this. They don't care. It trolls the libs. Therefore because of this they don't care about laws, ethics, principles or morals.

They care about laughing and pointing. when turned back around they take their ball home and cry victim .

Rinse repeat with these people. Very few of them are honorable human beings worth having a conversation with.

Yes. I do not think many of them care about the issues except as something to fight over, so they do not care what they say or what others (like the tireless W_Heisenberg) say(s) in discussions with them.

 

[Athanasius68]

1. That was not the totality of his actions. Trump gave a potentially illegal order to McGahn. It was so crazy McGahn complained to his colleagues about Trump ordering him to do "crazy shit." The fact that this order was not carried about by McGahn does NOT mean that Trump did not give the order.

And whether the order happened or not, it wasn't carried out.

We do know that President Obama ordered the assassinations of American citizens abroad.
We also know there was considerable legal debate whether Obama had the authority to do so.
Did President Obama issue an unlawful order? What if had ordered it, the relevant officials refused to carry it out, and Obama let the matter drop.
Did Obama still commit a crime? Its the same issue. Nothing would have happened.

2. Mueller did not complete his report. The report was incomplete because Trump also refused to interview with Mueller's team.

Mueller had legal options he declined to take. That is on him, not Trump.

There is no official act a President or his agent can take that is sacrosanct. Any official act could be also an obstructive act if done so for corrupt purposes.

So, yes, it's possible that Biden could engage in an obstruction when firing US attorneys. It's possible he could have engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the attorney general when doing so. All this is theoretically possible. Let's say, for instance, Biden fired a US attorney engaged in an investigation his son. That's worthy of a little look-see. That would be wrong. That would be illegal...EVEN if he had the "authority" to do so. Because the President's authority is not unlimited. The President took an oath to the Constitution. The President is not allowed to abuse the office.

It would not have been illegal for Biden to have fired the Delaware attorney. But it would have caused Biden all sorts of unneeded political headaches.
For abuse of office.

You keep referencing potential acts of wrongdoing by Mueller or Biden. What you don't understand is that I don't care. I don't need to defend them. I am not loyal to them. I am loyal to the Constitution. I am loyal to the Rule of Law. I am loyal to the Republic. I don't consider Mueller or Biden more important than the Rule of Law. You consider Trump more important than the Rule of Law that is why you think this analogy is persuasive.

I would have no problem investigating Mueller or Biden in a heartbeat in a nanosecond if there was evidence that justified doing so.

And Mr. Mueller completed a two year investigation in which he stated that he was unable to "establish" that a conspiracy had existed.
And under the "Rule of Law" that means the conspiracy did not happen.
Which means there is no "corrupt intent" in firing Comey or thinking about firing Mueller.
Thus no obstruction.
Which is what Barr said.

Its the same principle with respect to President Biden or Robert Mueller.

But the reason why I respect them both and I think Trump deserves nothing but our utmost contempt is that Mueller and Biden believe in our system, they believe in our Constitution, they believe in the Rule of Law, and they understand their DUTY to our Republic. And they understand they serve the American people through their service to the Republic, its institutions, and the Rule of Law. And they understand they serve the system the Framers of the Constitution created, not themselves. It is for that reason they have my respect. It is for that reason that I also consider Trump worthy of contempt and also a threat to our Republic. Why? Trump just doesn't give a shit. And what's worse. Trump would put and has put his own interests ahead of the Republic. Trump is not worthy of role. He never was.

This is really nothing more than a political argument. You were free to vote accordingly. Congress was free to impeach based upon the above.
But as far as criminal culpability, it doesn't exist here for the president. By insisting there should be criminal investigations of obstruction because you dislike Trump, all that is happening is a cal for a politicized investigation and prosecution.
And that isn't in the spirit and tradition of the USA or its laws.

 

[Athanasius68]

I didn't say it would be easy, but there is a huge difference between an element of a crime being difficult to prove, and your statement, which was, "we must assume he was simply exercising that lawful authority."

We have to assume it. Mueller said the conspiracy didn't happen.
So what is the corrupt intent? Who knows?
But we can't unleash criminal investigations just because you don't like Trump.
Politicized investigations are not a 'thing" in the USA.

Nope. No, we don't.

We do not have to "assume" he was simply exercising his lawful authority. That's not a thing. That's your partisan, cultish attempt to defend Trump.

For a criminal investigation and prosecution, yeah we kind of do.
That is what the Rule of Law is all about. The investigation said the conspiracy didnt happen.

Politically you don't have to accept it, of course.
But Trump doesn't have to roll over either.

Sure, and in a criminal law context, what generally also happens is that law enforcement also gains access to important evidence via subpoena.

Mueller chose not to subpoena Trump. That is on him. His decision. The target of an investigation doesn't have to talk. The burden is 100% on the state.
Thats the American system.

Whatever action Mueller chose to take or not take, the fact that Trump refused to interview with Mueller reflects poorly on Trump, not on Mueller.

Ok-- thats a political argument, not a legal one. Congress chose not to impeach him over this. Take it up with them.
And perhaps people voted against him in 2020 because of Trump's refusal to be interviewed.

Please, keep in mind that as it relates to Trump's refusal to interview with Mueller, Mueller did not include that specific action in the collection of actions that he suspected were obstruction, and neither am I.

Then its a settled issue. Mueller completed his investigation, he was unable to establish that conspiracy had occurred.
So now whe we are left with the actions of a president who exercised his lawful authority.
And doesn't by the way necessarily have to explain. Folks like Comey serve at the "pleasure of the presdient."

Nope. Sorry. You need to do your homework.

Mueller revealed 14 separate incidents related to possible acts of Obstruction on Trump's part.

For 4 of those 14 separate incidents, Mueller revealed evidence that could be used to prove each element of the crime of obstruction.

And Barr rejected the argument because, since Mueller said the conspiracy did not happen, we have to assume the president was exercising his lawful authority.
Because there is nothing claiming the contrary.

 

[Athanasius68]

This is a lie..as usual.. here let's go over this.
Trump has the right to fire comey. Trump does not have the right to fire comey if he is looking into Trump. That's obstruction

You are mixing the two on purpose

Well, we know for a fact Comey told Trump that he, Trump, was not under investigation by Comey.
That was a lie by Comey to Trump, but that is on Comey not Trump.

 

[Athanasius68]

I agree, since W_Heisenberg has already been doing that pages ago. However, the Trumplicans who are wrangling with him and a few others here are only trying to win the argument by wearing him and a few others down with never-ending bs. That's how they play and declare victory. Yes, much like how (S/I/T) Trump does it. W_Heisenberg and a few others here are using good sense, logic and the rule of law, in which isn't going unnoticed. There's over 3,000 views and counting! So, somewhere in the world, a few minds have been changed for the good by following this battle of facts v misleading whatevers.

Just think, if only Bill Barr turned out to be a genuinely decent AG, we'd not be having this conversation. Either Trump wouldn't have appointed him in the first place based on genuinely decent or he'd been fired after his first year as AG - if that long.

This is the thread YOU started.

 

[Athanasius68]

Each member of Congress takes an oath to the Constitution as well. And just like the President is duty-bound to not abuse the office of the President, the individual members of Congress are duty-bound to not unjustifiably impeach and remove a President from office

The fact that you don't give a shit about duty, honor, integrity, civic duty, moral character, and so on, doesn't change that, because they took an oath. And that oath is important. And that oath means something. And our constitution means something. And our constitution is more important than any individual, including the piece of shit orange-haired crook.

Ok-- so we assume Congress is composed of Mr. Smiths.
Fair enough.

This whataboutism is ridiculous. There's always a big turnover of U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in.

Because the new president fires the existing to ones to replace with ones of his choosing.
Which is perfectly legitimate.

And no one suspects Biden of obstructing justice just based on the mere fact he is making a new appoint to any particular District Attorneys office.

Yep-- because the president has the authority to replace the US attorney with a person of his choice.
When there is nothing to the contrary, we have to assume the president is simply exercising his lawful authority.

President Biden doesn't just get that assumption. His subordinate officials also receive it.

And previous presidents, and their subordinates, also receive when they were in office.
Its the American way.

So when ole' Bob Mueller reports that he couldn't establish a conspiracy, it means the conspiracy didn't happen.
So just like President Biden when he fired all the US Attorneys (or told Federal law enforcement not to enforce lawful deportation orders) we have to assume that President Trump was exercising his lawful authority when firing Comey or thinking about firing Mueller.
So we have no basis of thinking President Trump obstructed justice.
Its the American way.

The difference between Biden and Trump is Trump is a lifelong crook who does shady and suspicious things. That's why people suspect him. He is the kind of guy who cheats on his wife with a pornstar, screws over his subcontractors, engages in massive tax fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, stiffs his creditors and declares bankruptcy, commits campaign finance violations, abuses his office, and so on and so forth.

Trump is responsible for his own behavior. When someone like Trump does shady and suspicious things it's not the fault of the FBI or anyone else that someone like Trump is investigated. It's their fault. If you don't want to be investigated for obstruction then don't do stupid things like end investigations into yourself. That's DUMB. That's suspicious. OF COURSE, people are going to think Trump is trying to hide something. It's common sense.

You think everyone else is as stupid as Trump's supporters. They're not.

One can be suspicious all they want.
But we don't do politicized criminal investigations in this country. Its not a "thing" and you should not be defending that concept.

If Congress wishes to conduct its own investigation, they can do that. But its political. And the president is allowed to respond in kind.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

And whether the order happened or not, it wasn't carried out.

With respect to the potential of Trump committing the crime of obstruction, it doesn't matter that it wasn't carried out. The statutes related to obstruction also forbid attempted but failed attempts at obstruction. The same logic can also apply to abuse of office more generally.

We do know that President Obama ordered the assassinations of American citizens abroad.
We also know there was considerable legal debate whether Obama had the authority to do so.
Did President Obama issue an unlawful order? What if had ordered it, the relevant officials refused to carry it out, and Obama let the matter drop.
Did Obama still commit a crime? Its the same issue. Nothing would have happened.

RESPONSE - PART 1

This particular legal issue remains unresolved to a great extent, but let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that it's a criminal act for a President to assassinate a U.S. citizen without respect to that citizen's participation in a terrorist organization's ongoing violence against the U.S. If a statute outlaws attempts at an action the statute is defining, then attempts at the action represent a criminal act. With respect to things like obstruction and conspiracy, our laws forbid attempts to obstruct and attempts to engage in conspiracy. If attempts at killing U.S. citizens within this context are illegal, it would be illegal for the President to attempt to do so. There is nothing in our laws, our Constitution, or in our case history that shields a President from criminal liability for issuing an illegal order that is subsequently ignored. In fact, the weight of our case law and historical precedent points towards the opposing view. Now, if you have some case you can cite, show me the case. If you have some Supreme Court ruling in mind. Show me the ruling. Furthermore, such an action,

By your logic, a person occupying the office of the President has not engaged in any action until a subordinate carries out an order. Unitary Executive Theory does not extend this far as to view the Presidency through this artificial lens. The Supreme Court and lower court rulings do not view the office of the Presidency in this way. Within the context of our case law, the office of the Presidency is not some sort of hermetically-sealed bubble that the judicial and legislative branches cannot penetrate. The internal deliberations of the Presidency can be subject to scrutiny by the other two branches. There is no legal or historical precedent that entities outside the executive branch must pretend that the actions of individuals within the executive branch are not real, and the only official actions of the executive branch are real.

And to support my argument, I refer to the following court rulings that deal with executive privilege. In all of these cases involving executive privilege, you will find the Court not agreeing with your view that everyone else outside the executive branch must pretend an action has not happened until the executive branch takes official action. The overwhelming weight of case law points towards at least some actions of the Presidency being subject to scrutiny by the judicial and legislative branches, especially those involving obstruction and abuses of office.

1. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
2. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977)
3. Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
4. Senate Select Committee v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir 1974)
5. United States v. AT&T, 551 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir. 1976), appeal after remand, 567 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
6. United States v. House of Representatives, 556 F. Supp. 150 (D.D.C. 1983)
7. In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F. 3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
8. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 5 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 1998)
9. Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice, 365 F. 3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
10. Loving v. Department of Defense, 550 F. 3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
11. House Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008).

 

[W_Heisenberg]

And whether the order happened or not, it wasn't carried out.

We do know that President Obama ordered the assassinations of American citizens abroad.
We also know there was considerable legal debate whether Obama had the authority to do so.
Did President Obama issue an unlawful order? What if had ordered it, the relevant officials refused to carry it out, and Obama let the matter drop.
Did Obama still commit a crime? Its the same issue. Nothing would have happened.

RESPONSE - PART 2

Furthermore, outside the criminal law context, and within the context of Congress being justified in removing a President from office for abusing the office, a conscious decision by the individual occupying the office of the President to attempt to violate the law or to use the powers of the office with a corrupt intent is something that should still be punished.

Let's engage in a hypothetical. Let's assume a President tried to end a Special Counsel's investigation but his subordinates refused the order. Let's assume a President had a corrupt intent when trying to end a Special Counsel's investigation. Let's assume we had more than enough evidence to prove it was an act tantamount to the crime of attempted obstruction. Is it your suggestion that a President should not be impeached and removed from office for trying to obstruct justice, whether or not he succeeded or failed? Let's go further. What would be your decision if you were a Senator in a trial similar to what I described. Let's say you are a Senator, and the President has tried to obstruct justice, and the attempt to obstruct justice could be definitively proven. Would you not vote to convict and therefore remove a person from office who engaged in such wrongdoing without regard to the implications such an action would have within the criminal law context?

Furthermore, as I indicated previously, the consequence of your logic is that it would allow for the possibility for the President to plan an act of obstruction of justice with his subordinates and also coordinate a criminal conspiracy with his subordinates, and entities outside the executive branch could not hold an officeholder like this to account until he goal of such planning was successfully carried out. And within the context of conspiracy and obstruction, a successful conspiracy or a successful obstruction would decrease the chances of such a thing being caught and punished after the fact.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Mueller had legal options he declined to take. That is on him, not Trump.

Mueller is responsible for his actions. Trump is also responsible for his actions.

Mueller is responsible for making a strategic decision to not interview Trump. The consequence of that decision is on Mueller. That is true.

But Mueller's decision to end the investigation without formally interviewing Trump in person did not absolve Trump of his duty to do so.

We can still assign blame to Trump for not fulfilling his moral and constitutional obligations to the office of the President.

You live in a fantasy world of extreme Unitary Executive Theory where Trump is responsible for nothing and accountable to no one. That is not how our system works.

 

[MTAtech]

And whether the order happened or not, it wasn't carried out.

We do know that President Obama ordered the assassinations of American citizens abroad.
We also know there was considerable legal debate whether Obama had the authority to do so.
Did President Obama issue an unlawful order? What if had ordered it, the relevant officials refused to carry it out, and Obama let the matter drop.
Did Obama still commit a crime? Its the same issue. Nothing would have happened.



Mueller had legal options he declined to take. That is on him, not Trump.


It would not have been illegal for Biden to have fired the Delaware attorney. But it would have caused Biden all sorts of unneeded political headaches.
For abuse of office.


And Mr. Mueller completed a two year investigation in which he stated that he was unable to "establish" that a conspiracy had existed.
And under the "Rule of Law" that means the conspiracy did not happen.
Which means there is no "corrupt intent" in firing Comey or thinking about firing Mueller.
Thus no obstruction.
Which is what Barr said.

Its the same principle with respect to President Biden or Robert Mueller.


This is really nothing more than a political argument. You were free to vote accordingly. Congress was free to impeach based upon the above.
But as far as criminal culpability, it doesn't exist here for the president. By insisting there should be criminal investigations of obstruction because you dislike Trump, all that is happening is a cal for a politicized investigation and prosecution.
And that isn't in the spirit and tradition of the USA or its laws.

What you are referring to about Obama ordering the killing of an American citizen was Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by drone a few weeks after 9/11. Awlaki was a key organizer for the Islamist terrorist group al-Qaeda, and in June 2014, a previously classified memorandum issued by the U.S. Department of Justice was released, justifying al-Awlaki's death as a lawful act of war.

Regarding Mueller, you are putting words in his mouth. He said that he couldn't prosecute Trump because it was against DoJ policy. He also added that it can be taken up after Trump wasn't president.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

It would not have been illegal for Biden to have fired the Delaware attorney. But it would have caused Biden all sorts of unneeded political headaches.
For abuse of office.

If Biden had engaged in an act of attempted obstruction while firing a U.S. attorney it would have been both an abuse of office and a crime for which, because of the OLC opinion barring the indictment of sitting presidents, it would still be possible for him to be prosecuted after he has left office.

And Mr. Mueller completed a two year investigation in which he stated that he was unable to "establish" that a conspiracy had existed.
And under the "Rule of Law" that means the conspiracy did not happen.
Which means there is no "corrupt intent" in firing Comey or thinking about firing Mueller.
Thus no obstruction.

This is one of many arguments a person defending Trump could make. The fact that one can make an argument like this does not mean it would hold up in court. We do not need to proceed with your assumptions. It is not certain that attempted obstruction could not be proven without first proven an underlying crime. It is possible to prove corrupt intent without respect to proving an underlying crime. In fact, our legal system holds people to account for attempted acts of obstruction without proving an underlying crime all the time. This idea you are trying to push to defend Trump is not in any way consistent with legal history or our case law.

Which is what Barr said.

Certainly not. Barr was not this rigid in his summary of the Mueller report.

Read what he wrote:

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report (Published 2019)

The letter, by Attorney General William P. Barr, details the main findings of the special counsel’s two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

www.nytimes.com

Barr is not saying here that "corrupt intent" cannot be proven without proving an underlying crime. Barr is saying here that an underlying crime could not be proven, and also there is no other evidence proving corrupt intent.

That is entirely different than this ham-fisted, ignorantly rigid approach you are taking in your analysis of this situation which is basically: a) there was no proven underlying crime, so b) that must certainly mean there was no corrupt intent, and c) therefore there was no obstruction.

But even Barr isn't this extreme. Even Barr accepts the fact that there can be evidence outside the act of proving an underlying crime, which can prove corrupt intent.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

This is really nothing more than a political argument. You were free to vote accordingly. Congress was free to impeach based upon the above.

But as far as criminal culpability, it doesn't exist here for the president. By insisting there should be criminal investigations of obstruction because you dislike Trump, all that is happening is a cal for a politicized investigation and prosecution.
And that isn't in the spirit and tradition of the USA or its laws.

I do not think our present discussion should exclude discussion of impeachment.

You want to exclude discussion of impeachment because you think assigning the President's bad behavior to the bucket of "political" action somehow minimizes those bad actions. It does not.

You want to exclude discussion of impeachment because you think assigning the President's bad behavior to the bucket of "political" action is a way for you to defend Trump without having to acknowledge his bad behavior. It does not.

All officeholders, including members of Congress and the President, have obligations to the constitution, by virtue of their oath, that does not fall within the domain of criminal law.

You want to pretend that these obligations do not exist, or are not important, or are not part of the system the Framers of the Constitution put in place. But that's just not true. We can see it in the text of the Constitution and also from the notes from the Constitutional Convention that the Framers of the Constitution cared very much about bad people abusing political officers at the expense of the Republic as a whole, and doing so outside the context of criminal. They put into the Constitution both the mechanism to judge such bad behavior, and also to hold people to account who engage in such bad behavior.

I understand why you are trying so hard to run away from this aspect of our system. Doing so, engaging with this subject matter in this particular way, reveals to everyone the moral failures of Donald J. Trump as it relates to his civic duties.

This aspect of our Republic is just as important as how we deal with officeholders committing crimes, and with respect to the office of the President, possibly even more important than how our system deals with officeholders committing crimes. Because an act of abuse of office by the President has the potential for being more harmful to our Republic than a criminal act by the President.

And holding a bad person for engaging in bad acts as an officeholder is definitely in the spirit and tradition of the USA or its laws. The Framers of the Constitution spoke about this at length, and they wrote about it in the Federalist papers, and we see it within the text of the Constitution itself.

What is abnormal is your refusal to consider that a President's non-criminal yet bad behavior is something the Republic should not care about.

You have an amoral view of the world. It's evident based on your responses that morality is not something you care about in the least. The Framers of the Constitution very much cared about what you spit on.

 

[ouch]

This is the thread YOU started.

Golly gosh, there's no getting anything past you.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

We have to assume it. Mueller said the conspiracy didn't happen.
So what is the corrupt intent? Who knows?

This is a summary of what Mueller revealed, and with respect to 4 instances, Mueller explicitly wrote that the evidence indicating corrupt intent.

And to prevent you from glossing over and speaking in broad generalizations, let's look at EXACTLY what Mueller wrote with respect to corrupt intent:

Efforts to fire Mueller (Page 89)

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct—and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice. Before the President terminated Comey, the President considered it critically important that he was not under investigation and that the public not erroneously think he was being investigated. As described in Volume II, Section II.D, supra, advisors perceived the President, while he was drafting the Comey termination letter, to be concerned more than anything else about getting out that he was not personally under investigation. When the President learned of the appointment of the Special Counsel on May 17, 2017, he expressed further concern about the investigation, saying “[t]his is the end of my Presidency.” The President also faulted Sessions for recusing, saying “you were supposed to protect me.”

Efforts to curtail Mueller (Page 97)

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct. As previously described, see Volume II, Section II.B, supra, the President knew that the Russia investigation was focused in part on his campaign, and he perceived allegations of Russian interference to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election. The President further knew that the investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice. Those investigations would not proceed if the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction were limited to future election interference only. The timing and circumstances of the President’s actions support the conclusion that he sought that result. The President’s initial direction that Sessions should limit the Special Counsel’s investigation came just two days after the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, which itself followed public reports that the President was personally under investigation for obstruction of justice. The sequence of those events raises an inference that after seeking to terminate the Special Counsel, the President sought to exclude his and his campaign’s conduct from the investigation’s scope. The President raised the matter with Lewandowski again on July 19, 2017, just days after emails and information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and senior campaign officials had been publicly disclosed, generating substantial media coverage and investigative interest.

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

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

Continued in the post below.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

We have to assume it. Mueller said the conspiracy didn't happen.
So what is the corrupt intent? Who knows?

Continued from the post above:

Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller (Page 120)

c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President’s conduct towards the investigation.

Several facts support that conclusion. The President made repeated attempts to get McGahn to change his story. As described above, by the time of the last attempt, the evidence suggests that the President had been told on multiple occasions that McGahn believed the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel terminated. McGahn interpreted his encounter with the President in the Oval Office as an attempt to test his mettle and see how committed he was to his memory of what had occurred. The President had already laid the groundwork for pressing McGahn to alter his account by telling Porter that it might be necessary to fire McGahn if he did not deny the story, and Porter relayed that statement to McGahn. Additional evidence of the President’s intent may be gleaned from the fact that his counsel was sufficiently alarmed by the prospect of the President’s meeting with McGahn that he called McGahn’s counsel and said that McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the Oval Office that day. The President’s counsel was well aware of McGahn’s resolve not to issue what he believed to be a false account of events despite the President’s request. Finally, as noted above, the President brought up the Special Counsel investigation in his Oval Office meeting with McGahn and criticized him for telling this Office about the June 17, 2017 events. The President’s statements reflect his understanding—and his displeasure—that those events would be part of an obstruction-of-justice inquiry.

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

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

Continued in the post below

 

[W_Heisenberg]

We have to assume it. Mueller said the conspiracy didn't happen.
So what is the corrupt intent? Who knows?

Continued from the post above:

Conduct toward Manafort (Page 132)

c. Intent. Evidence concerning the President’s intent related to Flynn as a potential witness is inconclusive. As previously noted, because of privilege issues we do not have evidence establishing whether the President knew about or was involved in his counsel’s communications with Flynn’s counsel stating that Flynn’s decision to withdraw from the joint defense agreement and cooperate with the government would be viewed as reflecting “hostility” towards the President. And regardless of what the President’s personal counsel communicated, the President continued to express sympathy for Flynn after he pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, stating that Flynn had “led a very strong life” and the President “fe[lt] very badly” about what had happened to him.

Evidence concerning the President’s conduct towards Manafort indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government. Before Manafort was convicted, the President repeatedly stated that Manafort had been treated unfairly. One day after Manafort was convicted on eight felony charges and potentially faced a lengthy prison term, the President said that Manafort was “a brave man” for refusing to “break” and that “flipping” “almost ought to be outlawed.” At the same time, although the President had privately told aides he did not like Manafort, he publicly called Manafort “a good man” and said he had a “wonderful family.” And when the President was asked whether he was considering a pardon for Manafort, the President did not respond directly and instead said he had “great respect for what [Manafort]’s done, in terms of what he’s gone through.” The President added that “some of the charges they threw against him, every consultant, every lobbyist in Washington probably does.” In light of the President’s counsel’s previous statements that the investigations “might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons” and that a pardon would be possible if the President comes to the conclusion that you have been treated unfairly, the evidence supports the inference that the 6(e) President intended Manafort to believe that he could receive a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary.

We also examined the evidence of the President’s intent in making public statements about Manafort at the beginning of his trial and when the jury was deliberating. Some evidence supports a conclusion that the President intended, at least in part, to influence the jury. The trial generated widespread publicity, and as the jury began to deliberate, commentators suggested that an acquittal would add to pressure to end the Special Counsel’s investigation. By publicly stating on the second day of deliberations that Manafort “happens to be a very good person” and that “it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort” right after calling the Special Counsel’s investigation a “rigged witch hunt,” the President’s statements could, if they reached jurors, have the natural tendency to engender sympathy for Manafort among jurors, and a factfinder could infer that the President intended that result. But there are alternative explanations for the President’s comments, including that he genuinely felt sorry for Manafort or that his goal was not to influence the jury but to influence public opinion. The President’s comments also could have been intended to continue sending a message to Manafort that a pardon was possible. As described above, the President made his comments about Manafort being “a very good person” immediately after declining to answer a question about whether he would pardon Manafort.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

But we can't unleash criminal investigations just because you don't like Trump.

It's true that I don't like Trump but the reason why I don't like Trump relates to the reasons why he made himself vulnerable to criminal prosecution and impeachment. Our Republic can, however, initiate a criminal investigation of Trump or any other President based on evidence that indicates the President may have committed a crime. In Trump's case, there were a series of actions that Trump engaged in, culminating with him firing Comey, that necessitated the appointment of the special counsel to conduct a criminal investigation of the President. And it does not matter one bit how much you adore Trump, he's above not above the law, and he is subject to criminal investigation just as any other citizen.

For a criminal investigation and prosecution, yeah we kind of do.

Umm, no we kind of don't.

There is nothing about criminal law that forces prosecutors or investigators to exclude evidence the defendant or supporters of a defendant do not like.

The fact that you choose to ignore or discount the evidence Mueller provided with respect to corrupt intent is totally irrelevant.

That is what the Rule of Law is all about. The investigation said the conspiracy didnt happen.

The statutes with respect to obstruction of justice allow for a prosecutor to try and convict a defendant on an act of attempted obstruction. The prosecutor in these cases does not need to prove an underlying crime although that is helpful. If a prosecutor in cases like this can find other evidence that helps prove a defendant engaged in an act of attempted obstruction that is enough.

We have a multitude of successful prosecutions, of people tried and convicted, of acts of attempted obstruction, where prosecutors did not prove an underlying crime.

End of story. Case closed.

 

[Plasmaball]

Well, we know for a fact Comey told Trump that he, Trump, was not under investigation by Comey.
That was a lie by Comey to Trump, but that is on Comey not Trump.

At that current time he may not have been. Cpmey is under no law or trump being his boss to tell him if he is being looked at.

Tough shit.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Mueller chose not to subpoena Trump. That is on him. His decision. The target of an investigation doesn't have to talk. The burden is 100% on the state.
Thats the American system.

Unlike regular citizens, Trump had a special duty and bound himself to the obligations set forth in the Constitution that he swore an oath to, specifically that the President must take "care that the laws be faithfully executed."

And, while, there is no requirement within the context of criminal law that Trump sit down and interview with Mueller he still had the duty to do so.

This duty does not cease to exist because Mueller had other factors to consider when completing his report, such as completing the report within a timely fashion (such as before Trump's term in office ended, or before Trump could successfully and possibly illegally end the Special Counsel's investigation).

Ok-- thats a political argument, not a legal one..

The fact that impeachable conduct and the process of impeachment takes place outside the sphere of criminal law, and within a political context, does not mean that impeachable conduct is acceptable.

Congress chose not to impeach him over this. Take it up with them.

Wrong.

We can take it up with Congress and we can ALSO take it up with the President.

The President is duty-bound to not engage in corrupt acts no matter what the other branches of government do or do not do.

So, we can take it up the President's corrupt behavior with the President as well.

And with that in mind, we can criticize the President, we can make moral judgments about the President's behavior as it relates to his impeachable behavior, and we can comment on those conclusions and also condemn the President as a result of those conclusions.

You have this attitude that if no one holds the President to account for his corrupt behavior then any such corrupt behavior doesn't matter. That's wrong. Just as any citizen has the obligation to refrain from engaging in wrongdoing, so too does the President, even if no one is watching, even if no one catches him, and even if practical obstacles prevent him from being held to account.

Honor. Duty. Country. These concepts matter and they don't cease to be relevant because you think Trump furthered your own political interests. And your lack of recognition for the importance of civic duty, and your willingness to deflect, apologize for, and defend Trump's corrupt behavior, does not diminish Trump's affirmative obligation that he should have had to fulfill his duties.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Then its a settled issue.

If a tax cheat cheats on his taxes, but isn't caught, it's a settled issue, but he's still a tax cheat.

If a husband cheats on his wife with a pornstar, and remains married, it's a settled issue, but he's still an adulterer and he's still a piece of a shit.

If a businessman screws over his business partners, and due to an imbalance of power is able to force his screwed-over business partners to eat the cost, it's a settled issue, but the businessman is still an asshole that most people wouldn't do business with.

If a businessman declares bankruptcy multiple times, stiffing his creditors, it's a settled issue, but the man is still a failed businessman.

It just doesn't matter that Mueller chose to proceed with completing the investigation without Trump being interviewed, Trump, himself is still personally responsible, still morally culpable, still a worthy target of criticism, for refusing to live up to his duties as President. And we can still criticize Trump for not doing what he should have done. And this is true no matter what Mueller or anyone else did.

And with respect to your comment that Trump "fully" cooperated, the fact that Mueller chose to move on, doesn't mean that Trump "fully" cooperated, it means that Trump succeeded in blocking Mueller from interviewing him in person.

 

[Plasmaball]

And whether the order happened or not, it wasn't carried out.

We do know that President Obama ordered the assassinations of American citizens abroad.
We also know there was considerable legal debate whether Obama had the authority to do so.
Did President Obama issue an unlawful order? What if had ordered it, the relevant officials refused to carry it out, and Obama let the matter drop.
Did Obama still commit a crime? Its the same issue. Nothing would have happened.



Mueller had legal options he declined to take. That is on him, not Trump.

And Mr. Mueller completed a two year investigation in which he stated that he was unable to "establish" that a conspiracy had existed.
And under the "Rule of Law" that means the conspiracy did not happen.
Which means there is no "corrupt intent" in firing Comey or thinking about firing Mueller.
Thus no obstruction.
Which is what Barr said.

Its the same principle with respect to President Biden or Robert Mueller.


This is really nothing more than a political argument. You were free to vote accordingly. Congress was free to impeach based upon the above.
But as far as criminal culpability, it doesn't exist here for the president. By insisting there should be criminal investigations of obstruction because you dislike Trump, all that is happening is a cal for a politicized investigation and prosecution.
And that isn't in the spirit and tradition of the USA or its laws.

Ah yes the Obama did blah blah to deflect nonsense.

True he could have fought it in court but that's what trump wanted becsuse trump knows how to delay things.

Skip the Biden part..irrelevant

You always skip over the why he couldn't bring charges. Every time you and others leave that context out of your arguments. You've been told numerous times why and you just ignore it for this worthless answer.

What did was throw shade and lie because he knew the gop held congress so nothing would happen. Mitch would shut anything down.

Because barr is like you. He leave out info he knows will come out later but won't matter because his narrative is already baked into people like you.

We know Flynn talked regularly to the Russian.
We know stone talked to the Russians.
We know manafort worked with them as well.
We know Jared and Ivanka where more involved in the dealings of this as well.

We know these people lied so much Mueller couldn't bring charges to them because Mueller has honor unlike the rest of you.

Just all of you..liars...

 

[W_Heisenberg]

So now whe we are left with the actions of a president who exercised his lawful authority.
And doesn't by the way necessarily have to explain. Folks like Comey serve at the "pleasure of the presdient."

The President's authority is not unlimited.

Subordinates of the President serve at the pleasure of the President.

The President serves the Constitution. It is only within the construct of the Constitution that the President has any authority at all, and when the President engages in illegal or impeachable actions he is necessarily engaging in actions beyond the scope of his authority.

And Barr rejected the argument because, since Mueller said the conspiracy did not happen, we have to assume the president was exercising his lawful authority.
Because there is nothing claiming the contrary.

I refer you to post 615, 616, and 617 where I outline evidence Mueller uncovered that indicate a variety of pieces of evidence that claim the contrary.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm no Truther but there's a shitload of cover-up. From Mueller's mealy mouthed report to Jan 6 and Republicans claiming "it was just like a normal tour of the building". His kids failed security clearances and he overrode those procedures to forcibly place his children in his Cabinet. One can only imagine the nightmare that was and how little we know.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Ok-- so we assume Congress is composed of Mr. Smiths.
Fair enough.

I'm sorry, does it bug you that most people expect our elected representatives to refrain from engaging in corrupt behavior, and to hold people like Trump to account for their corrupt behavior?

Is that too quaint? Is that annoyance for you? Really?