Mueller Report

[eohrnberger]

So your claim that "the Mueller investigation could interview anyone they wanted from the White House (and did)" was false.

Interviewed everyone except Trump, which is typical, so I don't think you've got any grounds to claim 'false' here.

Yes, and that was his own opinion and not the conclusion of the Special Counsel.

Barr and Rosenstein collaborated and came to that conclusion. Both of them are the boss of Mueller. isn't the first time that a boss overrides an subordinate.

False. From your own source:



So your claim that obstruction of justice must be successful is, again, false.

You now going to out-lawyer the AG and the AAD? This I gotta see.

Irrelevant. Ordering somebody to engage in an action that is obstruction of justice is itself obstruction of justice. If ordering people to commit crimes was legal, no mob boss would be in prison.

You seriously can't be this dense and this hyper-partisan.

In your universe obstruction now is a thought crime? Just thinking of obstruction and you're a criminal?

No obstruction occurred, no actions that amount to obstruction were taken by anyone. There was no obstruction crime committed.
Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph. The end.

 

[Cardinal]

Interviewed everyone except Trump, which is typical, so I don't think you've got any grounds to claim 'false' here.

Since your claim was that Mueller was able to interview "anyone," then yes, that was false. I sense that, feeling yourself getting cornered, you're moving your debate tactic to denying objective reality and making up your own definitions of words. You do this every time you have your back against the wall.

Barr and Rosenstein collaborated and came to that conclusion. Both of them are the boss of Mueller. isn't the first time that a boss overrides an subordinate.

Barr's statements don't accurately reflect the conclusions of the Special Counsel. Barr is a corrupt stooge and has no credibility.

You now going to out-lawyer the AG and the AAD? This I gotta see.

You used a source to prove me wrong. Instead, it proved you wrong. You claimed that OoJ must be successful in order to be a crime. Your own source refuted that.

You seriously can't be this dense and this hyper-partisan.

In your universe obstruction now is a thought crime? Just thinking of obstruction and you're a criminal?

No obstruction occurred, no actions that amount to obstruction were taken by anyone. There was no obstruction crime committed.
Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph. The end.

Mueller was prevented from declaring that Trump committed a crime due to DOJ tradition against indicting a sitting President. He can, however, categorically state if Trump did not commit a crime. Mueller does so on the matter of criminal conspiracy with Russia, yet he does not do so on the matter of OoJ, and as Mueller himself says:

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Mueller is prevented from saying a sitting President committed a crime, so instead, he goes out of his way to say he committed a crime without actually using the words that he committed a crime. And every time you make the claim that Mueller failed to find evidence of obstruction of evidence, that claim is directly and starkly refuted by Mueller's words above.

 

[Winston]

Interviewed everyone except Trump, which is typical, so I don't think you've got any grounds to claim 'false' here.



Barr and Rosenstein collaborated and came to that conclusion. Both of them are the boss of Mueller. isn't the first time that a boss overrides an subordinate.



You now going to out-lawyer the AG and the AAD? This I gotta see.



You seriously can't be this dense and this hyper-partisan.

In your universe obstruction now is a thought crime? Just thinking of obstruction and you're a criminal?

No obstruction occurred, no actions that amount to obstruction were taken by anyone. There was no obstruction crime committed.
Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph. The end.

:lamo

You are free to believe what you want but, those of us with basic observational skills know Trump committed obstruction.

 

[eohrnberger]

:lamo

You are free to believe what you want but, those of us with basic observational skills know Trump committed obstruction.

AG and DAG would disagree with you. New Flash: I trust their legal judgments more than yours.

 

[eohrnberger]

Since your claim was that Mueller was able to interview "anyone," then yes, that was false. I sense that, feeling yourself getting cornered, you're moving your debate tactic to denying objective reality and making up your own definitions of words. You do this every time you have your back against the wall.



Barr's statements don't accurately reflect the conclusions of the Special Counsel. Barr is a corrupt stooge and has no credibility.

The hyper-partisan smear job on Barr continues.
AG and DAG would disagree with you. New Flash: I trust their legal judgments more than yours.

You used a source to prove me wrong. Instead, it proved you wrong. You claimed that OoJ must be successful in order to be a crime. Your own source refuted that.

Didn't claim that. Action has to be taken, and it wasn't. You are a hyper partisan hack.

Mueller was prevented from declaring that Trump committed a crime due to DOJ tradition against indicting a sitting President. He can, however, categorically state if Trump did not commit a crime. Mueller does so on the matter of criminal conspiracy with Russia, yet he does not do so on the matter of OoJ, and as Mueller himself says:

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Mueller is prevented from saying a sitting President committed a crime, so instead, he goes out of his way to say he committed a crime without actually using the words that he committed a crime. And every time you make the claim that Mueller failed to find evidence of obstruction of evidence, that claim is directly and starkly refuted by Mueller's words above.

AG and DAG would disagree with you. New Flash: I trust their legal judgments more than yours.

 

[CommunityStanda]

Do You think people like Adam Schiff and Maxine Water etc. give a damn about ethics or truth.

Hell no.

 

[CommunityStanda]

The hyper-partisan smear job on Barr continues.
AG and DAG would disagree with you. New Flash: I trust their legal judgments more than yours.



Didn't claim that. Action has to be taken, and it wasn't. You are a hyper partisan hack.



AG and DAG would disagree with you. New Flash: I trust their legal judgments more than yours.

me too.

 

[Cardinal]

The hyper-partisan smear job on Barr continues.
AG and DAG would disagree with you. New Flash: I trust their legal judgments more than yours.

I'm not using my judgment as a source for my arguments. I'm using Robert Mueller's conclusions that he did not determine there was insufficient evidence that Trump committed OoJ.

Didn't claim that. Action has to be taken, and it wasn't.

Action was taken. Do I need to cite Mueller's conclusions again?

You are a hyper partisan hack.

I love you too.

AG and DAG would disagree with you. New Flash: I trust their legal judgments more than yours.

That wasn't my judgment. Those were the words of the office of the Special Counsel making clear that if he concluded that evidence for obstruction of justice was insufficient, he would say so.

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm not using my judgment as a source for my arguments. I'm using Robert Mueller's conclusions directly.




You just claimed it again: "action has to be taken" or it's not obstruction of justice. Your own source refutes that.



I love you too.



That wasn't my judgment. Those were the words of the office of the Special Counsel making clear that if he concluded that evidence for obstruction of justice was insufficient, he would say so.

Well, at least that got a chuckle.

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm not using my judgment as a source for my arguments. I'm using Robert Mueller's conclusions that he did not determine there was insufficient evidence that Trump committed OoJ.




You just claimed it again: "action has to be taken" or it's not obstruction of justice. Your own source refutes that.



I love you too.



That wasn't my judgment. Those were the words of the office of the Special Counsel making clear that if he concluded that evidence for obstruction of justice was insufficient, he would say so.

OK. Then the Special Counsel's superiors would disagree with the Special Counsel's conclusion.

It has been reported that Mueller used an over broad legal framework for obstruction, where as AG and DAG used a far more narrow one.
I'll just leave them to their legal disagreements.

As AG, speaking for the DOJ, it is his opinion that matters most.

 

[Cardinal]

OK. Then the Special Counsel's superiors would disagree with the Special Counsel's conclusion.

It has been reported that Mueller used an over broad legal framework for obstruction, where as AG and DAG used a far more narrow one.
I'll just leave them to their legal disagreements.

As AG, speaking for the DOJ, it is his opinion that matters most.

The AG misrepresented the Special Counsel's report, so it doesn't matter what he thinks. I'm also curious who reported that Mueller used an overly broad legal framework for obstruction.

 

[vesper]

The anti-Trumpers put every hope they had of destroying Trump into one dirty basket. They had a willing media to push the narrative. Well it didn't turn out the way they wanted. Now they are in the process of moving the goal posts to further keeping Trump under investigation. Well good luck with that because those goalposts are now going to be very heavy lifting to move. They are even calling Mueller and Barr into testify. Mueller isn't going to give them anything more than he already has and Barr well I look to see him annihilate these moronic midgets with the law. There's going to be about 4 weeks of this happy horse poop and then Horowitz is going to release his report. Then watch for indictments Huber has been working on that are currently sealed to be unsealed. That is when Shifty Schiff is going to Schiff his pants and Nadler and Cummings will be stocking up on Depends.

The worm has turned and now we are going to learn what the FBI used to open a counter intelligence investigation on members of Trump's campaign and transition team after Mueller could not find any collusion. We are going to learn who in Obama's Intel agencies and State Department were leaking classified information pertaining to these investigations. We are going to learn who the persons were that abused the unmasking of names associated with the Trump campaign and transition team. We are going to learn who has been referred to for prosecution of their wrong doing.

But that is just with Horowitz report who's jurisdiction to investigate is the DOJ and FBI. That's where Barr's investigation will take over and investigate the rest of Obama's intel agencies and their part in all of this. Like he said, spying on a campaign is a big deal.

It's all going to come out before the 2020 election. You can bank on that one.

 

[gulfman]

Hell no.

Its hard for me to realize that there are Democratic voters dumber than Schiff and Waters.

 

[Cardinal]

The anti-Trumpers put every hope they had of destroying Trump into one dirty basket.They had a willing media to push the narrative. Well it didn't turn out the way they wanted. Now they are in the process of moving the goal posts to further keeping Trump under investigation.
Well good luck with that because those goalposts are now going to be very heavy lifting to move.

No goal posts were moved. Obstruction of justice was always a thing. But of course, that's not the only basket, because trump has created so very many baskets. And that's why there are around 16 ongoing investigations into Trump right now.

They are even calling Mueller and Barr into testify.

That's just a formality. We need to be certain that Barr didn't redact information just to protect trump, and we need to be certain that Barr didn't cause Mueller's investigation to come to an early end somehow.

Mueller isn't going to give them anything more than he already has and Barr well I look to see him annihilate these moronic midgets with the law. There's going to be about 4 weeks of this happy horse poop and then Horowitz is going to release his report. Then watch for indictments Huber has been working on that are currently sealed to be unsealed. That is when Shifty Schiff is going to Schiff his pants and Nadler and Cummings will be stocking up on Depends.

Oh jeez. How long have you guys been hanging on for the IG to conclude that some Q-anon fantasy is real?

The worm has turned and now we are going to learn what the FBI used to open a counter intelligence investigation on members of Trump's campaign and transition team after Mueller could not find any collusion. We are going to learn who in Obama's Intel agencies and State Department were leaking classified information pertaining to these investigations. We are going to learn who the persons were that abused the unmasking of names associated with the Trump campaign and transition team. We are going to learn who has been referred to for prosecution of their wrong doing.

But that is just with Horowitz report who's jurisdiction to investigate is the DOJ and FBI. That's where Barr's investigation will take over and investigate the rest of Obama's intel agencies and their part in all of this. Like he said, spying on a campaign is a big deal.

It's all going to come out before the 2020 election. You can bank on that one.

:cuckoo:

 

[eohrnberger]

The AG misrepresented the Special Counsel's report, so it doesn't matter what he thinks. I'm also curious who reported that Mueller used an overly broad legal framework for obstruction.

Member Barr's letter awhile back? That would have been the start of it.

As a lawyer in private practice last year, Barr wrote a scathing memo critical of what he viewed as Mueller’s overly broad interpretation of a part of the federal law against obstruction, saying it was meant to be limited to very specific acts such as destruction of documents.

“It is inconceivable to me that the department could accept Mueller’s interpretation,” Barr wrote. “It is untenable as a matter of law and cannot provide a legitimate basis for interrogating the president.”

At the time, Mueller’s team was pressing for an interview with the president, and Barr’s memo argued forcefully that no interview was justified because of what he viewed as Mueller’s erroneous, overly broad view of the obstruction law.

In what is arguably the most technical and dense section of the report, Mueller’s team pushes back hard against such arguments, saying the law in question is broad and “captures corrupt conduct, other than document destruction, that has the natural tendency to obstruct contemplated as well as pending proceedings.”

In the same section describing the Mueller team’s view of obstruction law, they again suggested that Congress could make such a determination.

“Congress can validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice,” the report said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...81807e-623e-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec_story.html

How a legal dispute between Mueller and Barr drove the end of the ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...mueller.../1781807e-623e-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec...
12 hours ago - How Mueller and Barr split on obstruction evidence against Trump .... viewed as Mueller's erroneous, overly broad view of the obstruction law.
​

It appears the full letter is here: https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

 

[calamity]

Member Barr's letter awhile back? That would have been the start of it.

How a legal dispute between Mueller and Barr drove the end of the ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...mueller.../1781807e-623e-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec...
12 hours ago - How Mueller and Barr split on obstruction evidence against Trump .... viewed as Mueller's erroneous, overly broad view of the obstruction law.
​

It appears the full letter is here: https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Yes, we know Barr is not an impartial AG. He's Trump's bitch--his lying bitch, to be precise.

But, that's because most of us consume real news, not some crap on Fox which is just the coffee grinder by which the Right smuggles in the cocaine of propaganda.

(Yes, I heard a portion of that "coffee grinder" line somewhere. It's not mine.)

 

[Cardinal]

Member Barr's letter awhile back? That would have been the start of it.

How a legal dispute between Mueller and Barr drove the end of the ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...mueller.../1781807e-623e-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec...
12 hours ago - How Mueller and Barr split on obstruction evidence against Trump .... viewed as Mueller's erroneous, overly broad view of the obstruction law.
​

It appears the full letter is here: https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

How could I forget that? He prejudged the Mueller investigation, which is why he should have never been confirmed in the first place. But of course, that prejudgment is quite specifically why Trump wanted him.

I'm not sure why you believe that giving us additional evidence that Barr is a corrupt hack with zero credibility helps your position, but....thanks?

 

[calamity]

How could I forget that? He prejudged the Mueller investigation, which is why he should have never been confirmed in the first place. But of course, that prejudgment is quite specifically why Trump wanted him in the first place.

I'm not sure why you believe that giving us additional evidence that Barr is a corrupt hack with zero credibility helps your position, but....thanks?

Is it not funny to see someone actually use that as a defense of Barr? The Right is a ****ing trip.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes, we know Barr is not an impartial AG. He's Trump's bitch--his lying bitch, to be precise.

But, that's because most of us consume real news, not some crap on Fox which is just the coffee grinder by which the Right smuggles in the cocaine of propaganda.

(Yes, I heard a portion of that "coffee grinder" line somewhere. It's not mine.)

That was Dan Pfeifer on the Pod Save America podcast. :lol: The quote is "News is the coffee grinds in which Fox smuggles its propaganda for the right."

Yes, I saved that one for later too.

 

[vesper]

:cuckoo:

I'll check in with you in about 6 months. We shall see at that time who is actually cuckoo after "the rest of the story" is told.

 

[Cardinal]

I'll check in with you in about 6 months. We shall see at that time who is actually cuckoo after "the rest of the story" is told.

 

[bongsaway]

I'm all for trump leaving office as soon as possible and as long as the stepford wives still hold the senate there is no sense to start impeachment hearings. It will only rile the fever pitch base to ballistic levels.

 

[vesper]

Today the lefties are trashing Barr tomorrow they will be trashing Horowitz when he releases his report because they are not going to like his findings either.

 

[calamity]

Today the lefties are trashing Barr tomorrow they will be trashing Horowitz when he releases his report because they are not going to like his findings either.

We read the Mueller Report. It's damning. Why do you support a traitor?

 

[eohrnberger]

How could I forget that? He prejudged the Mueller investigation, which is why he should have never been confirmed in the first place. But of course, that prejudgment is quite specifically why Trump wanted him.

No, Barr rendered a considered legal opinion, which was rendered before any of the details of the Mueller investigation had been released.

I'm not sure why you believe that giving us additional evidence that Barr is a corrupt hack with zero credibility helps your position, but....thanks?

And the left wing smear jobs and character assassinations of those with whom that disagree with them continues. :roll:

I'm inclined to think that Barr probably has more knowledge about the law than many who are performing the smear jobs and character assassinations.