COuld BIll Barr be in trouble with the courts?

[bongsaway]

The Mueller report was a bit longer than that. Rather than accept Barr's "interpretation," the public needs to see the full, unredacted report.

I think he will lose his license to practice law.

 

[bongsaway]

Yeah, Barr did lie.

Mueller’s words were clear;
“Special counsel Robert Mueller said Wednesday that charging President Donald Trump with a crime was “not an option” because of federal rules, but he used his first public remarks on the Russia investigation to emphasize that he did not exonerate the president.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared.

Mueller declares his Russia report did not exonerate Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Robert Mueller said Wednesday that charging President Donald Trump with a crime was "not an option" because of federal rules, but he used his first public remarks on the Russia investigation to emphasize that he did not exonerate the president.

apnews.com

Nowhere in his report, does Mueller say that he, or his team, say they had any confidence that Trump hadn’t committed a crime.

You're not supposed to remind the trump supporters of that part.

 

[Callen]

I think he will lose his license to practice law.

He certainly should but we'll see. I'm no confident he will. Barr is a lot of things and one of them is shrewd. Nonetheless, his reputation is shot in legal circles.

 

[bongsaway]

He certainly should but we'll see. I'm no confident he will. Barr is a lot of things and one of them is shrewd. Nonetheless, his reputation is shot in legal circles.

Before he was confirmed he said he didn't care about his reputation. I now understand that comment much better. He has no protection now.

 

[Athanasius68]

You’re either ignorant of what Barr lies are at issue or are lying, yourself.

Where Barr lied is crystal clear.


“Jackson, wrote in a scathing 41-page decision that "not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege."

"The agency's redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time," she added.

In his letter to Congress, Barr said that he had determined after consulting with the OLC that the facts of the investigation did not support bringing obstruction of justice charges against the president, regardless of what the office had previously said about whether such a prosecution would be constitutional.

But in Jackson's decision on Monday, the judge said it appeared that it was a foregone conclusion among DOJ leadership that there would be no prosecution against Trump.

"Moreover, the redacted portions of Section I reveal that both the authors and the recipient of the memorandum had a shared understanding concerning whether prosecuting the President was a matter to be considered at all," she wrote. "In other words, the review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given."

The judge cited internal emails that showed the OLC memo and Barr's letter to Congress were being prepared at the same time and by the same officials, further casting doubt on the DOJ's argument that the memo should be shielded from the public as part of an internal process to help government leaders make an official decision.

Jackson also said that the memo did not just contain legal advice but was a blend of legal and strategic recommendations about how Barr should handle the Mueller report.

"Along with the redacted portions of the memorandum, the chronology undermines the assertion that the authors were engaged in providing their legal advice in connection with any sort of pending prosecutorial decision, and this misrepresentation, combined with the lack of candor about what any legal advice provided was for or about, frees the Court from the deference that is ordinarily accorded to agency declarations in FOIA cases," the judge wrote.
Monday's ruling is not the first time a federal judge has questioned Barr's honesty about the Mueller report. In a decision last year regarding a separate FOIA case, District Judge Reggie Walton said that Barr's early comments about the report were inconsistent with its actual findings.

"The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr's statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary," Walton wrote in his decision.

"These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr's lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr's credibility," he added.

Judge orders release of Trump obstruction memo, accuses Barr of deception

A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release a March 2019 legal memo clearing former President Trump of potential obstruction of justice charges following the Mueller…

www.google.com

All one has to do is review Mr. Barr's summary of the Mueller report. Barr said that Mueller said:
1. A conspiracy was not established
2. Trump is not exonerated with respect to obstruction.

Which is what Mueller said.

All this brouhahah is about a claim on the process of Barr's decision that Trump did not obstruct. It doesn't address the substance of Mr. Barr's claim.
Which is a rather strong indication that Mr. Barr has the better argument.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

All one has to do is review Mr. Barr's summary of the Mueller report. Barr said that Mueller said:
1. A conspiracy was not established
2. Trump is not exonerated with respect to obstruction.

Which is what Mueller said.

All this brouhahah is about a claim on the process of Barr's decision that Trump did not obstruct. It doesn't address the substance of Mr. Barr's claim.
Which is a rather strong indication that Mr. Barr has the better argument.

You’re not paying attention. Read the article and Judge Jackson’s verbatim comments. The issue isn’t Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report.

 

[jnug]

Mueller's job was to investigate and issue a recommendation based upon that investigation.
With respect to obstruction, he declined to do so.
So what happened is typical as to what happens when a supervisor (as was Barr) receives incomplete work from a subordinate (as was Mueller)-- Barr had to do it.

Really...so its "typical" to parse sentences in an official DOJ document to make an argument. Sorry...that is News Channel CRAP. Barr's effort was entirely Political Subterfuge and the damage was already done by the time Barr released his longer letter which if anything was simply less Faux Newsy.

The longer letter was the equivalent of releasing a whack-a-doodle tweet and then pulling it down later after the damage is already done.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You're not supposed to remind the trump supporters of that part.

Mostly a waste of time anyways, since most of them have their heads so far up their asses that oxygen can’t get to their brains.

 

[Athanasius68]

Really...so its "typical" to parse sentences in an official DOJ document to make an argument. Sorry...that is News Channel CRAP. Barr's effort was entirely Political Subterfuge and the damage was already done by the time Barr released his longer letter which if anything was simply less Faux Newsy.

The longer letter was the equivalent of releasing a whack-a-doodle tweet and then pulling it down later after the damage is already done.

Legally, there was no obligation for the Mueller report to be released.
That was a political impossibility, of course, as the main question that Mueller sought to answer, "Did Mr. Trump and/or his campaign conspire with Russia" needed to be answered to the public.
So the DOJ had to review the document and remove from the report that which could not legally be released. That took a few weeks. Rather than letting the usual suspects stew in an uproar, he released the accurate summary.

 

[Athanasius68]

You’re not paying attention. Read the article and Judge Jackson’s verbatim comments. The issue isn’t Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report.

I did respond to it.
What Judge Jackson is talking about is the process-- she is claiming there was never a consideration to prosecute Mr. Trump.
However, the issue is the substance of the allegation against Mr. Trump-- it's baseless.

 

[jnug]

Legally, there was no obligation for the Mueller report to be released.
That was a political impossibility, of course, as the main question that Mueller sought to answer, "Did Mr. Trump and/or his campaign conspire with Russia" needed to be answered to the public.
So the DOJ had to review the document and remove from the report that which could not legally be released. That took a few weeks. Rather than letting the usual suspects stew in an uproar, he released the accurate summary.

Sorry, you are dancing around the use of parsed sentences from the actual Report to present a biased, subjective view in his Opinion. Just cannot get around that one and can't get around the fact that the damage was done in that release.

Can't get around his lies to the Court and to the Congress regarding the DOJ Memo either. He LIED about having used DOJ legal advice in cobbling his Opinion because he knew he was playing fast and loose with his authority as AG and was seeking the cover of the entire DOJ for his nonsense. Some AG that was. He even LIED about what was in the Memo so that he could argue that he did not have to release it. A real study in courage that AG. Sorry your arguments won't wash. Unless you are willing to deal with the sentence parsing and other nonsense in the Opinion and Barr's LIES regarding the Memo this just becomes a circular argument.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I did respond to it.

Lie. You only addressed Barr’s summary of the Mueller report.

That isn’t what Judge Jackson referred to.

All one has to do is review Mr. Barr's summary of the Mueller report.

What Judge Jackson is talking about is the process-- she is claiming there was never a consideration to prosecute Mr. Trump.

Correct.

However, the issue is the substance of the allegation against Mr. Trump-- it's baseless.

And you think your uninformed opinion matters at all?

 

[Athanasius68]

Sorry, you are dancing around the use of parsed sentences from the actual Report to present a biased, subjective view in his Opinion. Just cannot get around that one and can't get around the fact that the damage was done in that release.

Can't get around his lies to the Court and to the Congress regarding the DOJ Memo either. He LIED about having used DOJ legal advice in cobbling his Opinion because he knew he was playing fast and loose with his authority as AG and was seeking the cover of the entire DOJ for his nonsense. Some AG that was. He even LIED about what was in the Memo so that he could argue that he did not have to release it. A real study in courage that AG. Sorry your arguments won't wash. Unless you are willing to deal with the sentence parsing and other nonsense in the Opinion and Barr's LIES regarding the Memo this just becomes a circular argument.

Barr said that Mueller said that he could not establish a conspiracy.
That is in fact true as to what Mueller said.

Barr said that Mueller said that Trump was not exonerated for obstruction.
That is in fact what Mueller said.

This is simple reality. All you are doing here is engaging in politics.

 

[Athanasius68]

Lie. You only addressed Barr’s summary of the Mueller report.

That isn’t what Judge Jackson referred to.

False-- I pointed out that Judge Jackson is talking about process.
She doesn't accept the story from Barr as to how the decision was made.

The substance of the decision-- that there was no obstruction-- is what matters here.

Correct.

And you think your uninformed opinion matters at all?

As Mr. Barr said, as there was no conspiracy there can be no obstruction.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

False-- I pointed out that Judge Jackson is talking about process.

Lying again, even after being quoted from a previous post.

She doesn't accept the story from Barr as to how the decision was made.

Judge Jackson has seen all of the documents, including the not publicly released memos that prove that Barr’s DOJ had already determined that there would be no prosecution of Trump before Mueller’s investigation and report were even concluded.

The substance of the decision-- that there was no obstruction-- is what matters here.

Horse shit.

As Mr. Barr said, as there was no conspiracy there can be no obstruction.

An illogical and false assertion.

Obstruction of an investigation, whether or not that investigation finds evidence of wrongdoing, is still obstruction.

 

[Athanasius68]

Lying again, even after being quoted from a previous post.

Not at all-- somebody else cited Barr's response to Mueller.

Judge Jackson has seen all of the documents, including the not publicly released memos that prove that Barr’s DOJ had already determined that there would be no prosecution of Trump before Mueller’s investigation and report were even concluded.

That is her claim-- sure.

Obstruction of an investigation, whether or not that investigation finds evidence of wrongdoing, is still obstruction.

 

[The AntiDonald]

He certainly should but we'll see. I'm no confident he will. Barr is a lot of things and one of them is shrewd. Nonetheless, his reputation is shot in legal circles.

Seems to follow a pattern with everyone that gets close to Trump. He eats your soul.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That is her claim-- sure.

Judge Jackson determines. You claim.