Should Barr resign?

[American]

Which means what? Barr can write whatever he wants? Can tell congress whatever he wants? He gets to own the story?

I struggle to see any relevance to this 'snooze, you lose' comeback.

Sounds like you have difficulty with many simple things.

 

[Fishking]

Not what you asked, Mr. Dishonesty.

Technically correct but I figured it was apparent what we were talking about. I mean...both Bill and Obama admitted to smoking weed but what did that have to do with anything regarding their administration?

 

[Verax]

Oh really?

Can you provide the text where it says this?

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the
constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct
“constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought.

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.

So it says that Trump cannot be indicted, charged with a crime, or accused of committing a crime because he is president. The report then goes on to detail all of the obstruction of justice crimes he committed. Feel free to read it for yourself.

 

[Rogue Valley]

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Now you are reduced to the point of murder?

You are running on empty.

You're the one who made the idiotic assertion that something's not a crime if you haven't been convicted of it.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Technically correct but I figured it was apparent what we were talking about. I mean...both Bill and Obama admitted to smoking weed but what did that have to do with anything regarding their administration?

If you really think that smoking weed and fraud are comparable, you don't deserve to vote, much less to be debated with.

 

[Fishking]

If you really think that smoking weed and fraud are comparable, you don't deserve to vote, much less to be debated with.

Sorry I destroyed your whining.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Sorry I destroyed your whining.

You mean your whining. I could practically smell your tears at the list of Trump & company's many crimes. Glad you're feeling better, at any rate.

 

[Fishking]

You mean your whining. I could practically smell your tears at the list of Trump & company's many crimes. Glad you're feeling better, at any rate.

Ah...the 'ol "I know you are but what am I?" defense. A classic.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Ah...the 'ol "I know you are but what am I?" defense. A classic.

How do you think a classic becomes a classic? When it's true - which is very often - it works.

 

[Born Free]

Here is the smoking gun proving what Barr did was an adjudication of duty and it is reprehensible.

In your dreams.

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Offices work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Offices work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aSpects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

Now I ask why did Mueller leave it up the AG to make the decision of obstruction. Yes that is a question???? Simple there was not sufficient evidence to charge Trump. Now you claim Mueller claims, that Barr did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office work and conclusion. If Mueller thought or believed Trump committed obstruction he would have called it out. But he didn't, now is Mueller going to change his mind and state he should have called Trump on his obstruction. The only power congress has is to impeach Trump or not. There problem is there is NO Smoking gun. You libs were 100% certain for over two years Trump was guilty, and you have nothing. Now you're digging in the weeds to find to find anything they can point to anything to get an appeachmet. Your hopping the liberals will get together with Mueller and convince him to change his report. Hey Mueller we can scrape up 50 million in cash for you to change your report. We know you want to destroy Trump as much as we do. The hell with county, we have to destroy Trump.

 

[Verax]

In your dreams.



Now I ask why did Mueller leave it up the AG to make the decision of obstruction. Yes that is a question???? Simple there was not sufficient evidence to charge Trump. Now you claim Mueller claims, that Barr did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office work and conclusion. If Mueller thought or believed Trump committed obstruction he would have called it out. But he didn't, now is Mueller going to change his mind and state he should have called Trump on his obstruction. The only power congress has is to impeach Trump or not. There problem is there is NO Smoking gun. You libs were 100% certain for over two years Trump was guilty, and you have nothing. Now you're digging in the weeds to find to find anything they can point to anything to get an appeachmet. Your hopping the liberals will get together with Mueller and convince him to change his report. Hey Mueller we can scrape up 50 million in cash for you to change your report. We know you want to destroy Trump as much as we do. The hell with county, we have to destroy Trump.

Read post #153. Mueller explicitly states he could not charge Trump because he is the president.

He didn't leave it up to the AG, it was left up to congress but Barr intercepted the report and decided to take matters into his own hands. The Mueller report is a road map to impeachment (which is lawful and could be done since Mueller could not act) but the right has impeded this process by choosing party over country. Mueller outlines many instances of obstruction of justice, some were already public knowledge.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It's moot. Barr will resign before too long anyway. In a matter of weeks or months. Why? Because it's the trump admin. It's a revolving door (or perhaps a sinking ship). And when his officials get tainted with the wrongdoing they quit and get out of the firing line. Trump won't stand by him (he only stands by Putin). He'll throw him under the bus like all the others. So it is inevitable barr will resign, whether he 'should' or 'not'. He's unlikely to finish his tenure. Nobody there ever does.

 

[humbolt]

Nope. Nadler should, for the sake of the country.

 

[Born Free]

Read post #153. Mueller explicitly states he could not charge Trump because he is the president.

If Mueller can't charge Trump then how could Mueller come to the conclusion that Trump did not collude with anyone?

He didn't leave it up to the AG, it was left up to congress but Barr intercepted the report and decided to take matters into his own hands.

There you go, you know nothing about the process.

Mueller worked for Barr not congress. Thus Mueller's report first goes to the AG (Mueller's) boss, and the president also has the opportunity to review the report for executive privilege, then it can go to congress. And the AG and after the president has gone over the Muellers report for executive privilege, and they decide what is redacted or not, before Congress will seel. Mueller has no authority to choose any branch of government he wants to give the report too. And he did not leave anything for congress to decide. You should know that Congress cannot indict anyone. Zip Zero.

The Mueller report is a road map to impeachment (which is lawful and could be done since Mueller could not act)

Agree that is all congress can do is review the report and come to the conclusion to impeach or not. That's it. Christ Congress can use anything it wants to try to impeach Trump.

but the right has impeded this process by choosing party over country.

Yea you take illegals over our own citizens. Now tell me how did the right impede the process. Your problem is you do not know what the process is. However the process was handled right by the book.

Mueller outlines many instances of obstruction of justice, some were already public knowledge.

However Mueller could not come with a conclusion that what he had was not enough to meet the demands needed to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mueller leaves that decision up to the AG, which is the only inity that the DOJ can make that decision. No one else has that authority.

Bone up

 

[Ouroboros]

Apart from perjury before House and Congress, but that's nothing these days.

I don't think it's perjury if Barr claims that Mueller gave him mixed signals, which would mean that, yes, he Barr could indeed be uncertain about Mueller's state of mind.

 

[Verax]

If Mueller can't charge Trump then how could Mueller come to the conclusion that Trump did not collude with anyone?

There you go, you know nothing about the process.

Mueller worked for Barr not congress. Thus Mueller's report first goes to the AG (Mueller's) boss, and the president also has the opportunity to review the report for executive privilege, then it can go to congress. And the AG and after the president has gone over the Muellers report for executive privilege, and they decide what is redacted or not, before Congress will seel. Mueller has no authority to choose any branch of government he wants to give the report too. And he did not leave anything for congress to decide. You should know that Congress cannot indict anyone. Zip Zero.

Agree that is all congress can do is review the report and come to the conclusion to impeach or not. That's it. Christ Congress can use anything it wants to try to impeach Trump.

Yea you take illegals over our own citizens. Now tell me how did the right impede the process. Your problem is you do not know what the process is. However the process was handled right by the book.

However Mueller could not come with a conclusion that what he had was not enough to meet the demands needed to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mueller leaves that decision up to the AG, which is the only inity that the DOJ can make that decision. No one else has that authority.

Bone up

Mueller's job was to investigate and report. He made indictments when there was enough evidence and it was in his purview. He passed off other cases that were not. He also elected to pass on many individuals such as Jr., that fat radio guy, some charges on Stone, possibly Ivanka and Kushner. A lot of people got a pass because of the political climate and power the presidency holds.

Mueller stated there wasn't enough evidence to prove collusion, though there was evidence of it. He stated there is plenty of evidence of obstruction. He stated he could not exonerate Trump. The meanings here are quite clear. If able to, he would have charged Trumped.

It was not the AG's job to decide whether or not to indict Trump. Both Mueller and Barr agreed that you cannot indict a president. Barr wrote an essay about how a president cannot obstruct because they are president. I'm not sure what you think was supposed to happen here?

So taken everything that we know here, who's job is it to judge Trump? Congress.

 

[Ouroboros]

The original summary was a travesty. It was a political document designed to set the narrative in a very misleading and biased way and it worked perfectly, on Trump's base.

It's only a political document to the people enraged by anything that doesn't support their witch hunt.

And the Democrats can have no complaints these days in terms of setting false narratives.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I don't think it's perjury if Barr claims that Mueller gave him mixed signals, which would mean that, yes, he Barr could indeed be uncertain about Mueller's state of mind.

Barr didn't say anything about mixed signals, he said Mueller had no objection to his "interpretation" of the report, while in possession of a letter from Mueller objecting to his "interpretation" of the report.

 

[Ouroboros]

Mueller already confirmed how it all started. We can go on for decades but people calling this a witch hunt are just juveniles. You dont call an investigation a witch hunt even if it goes your way. Trumpists cant even take small victories without crying like babies.

Isn't the Left's acceptance of testimony tainted by Russian agents (the Steele dossier) comparable to witch-hunters accepting testimony from people who had something to gain by ranting against supposed witches?

 

[Ouroboros]

Barr didn't say anything about mixed signals, he said Mueller had no objection to his "interpretation" of the report, while in possession of a letter from Mueller objecting to his "interpretation" of the report.

"Mixed signals" was my term, but it's clear to me that Mueller was trying to assail his superior's summary (Mueller's word) without actually claiming that it was inaccurate, because Barr stated outright what the report merely implied: that the investigation provided no evidence capable of prosecuting Trump. Mueller punted the issue to Congress.

Here's the Washington Post on Barr's follow-up conversation with Mueller, which many pundits chose to ignore:

In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction probe was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. Barr has testified previously that he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction. When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.

In their call, Barr also took issue with Mueller calling his memo a “summary,” saying he had never intended to summarize the voluminous report, but instead provide an account of its top conclusions, officials said.

The Left's attempt to accuse Barr of lying is mendacious in the extreme. But after the way Lefties sought to make political hay of every little hiccup from Judge Kavanaugh, no one should be surprised.

 

[TheRepublican]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz oh what did I missed? What about the fisa abuse i guess the democrats are ok with that abusive power

 

[TheRepublican]

Oh, what did I miss? What about the FISA abuse I guess the Democrats are ok with that abusive power. Pelosi never lied? Can we call a investigation into every dem in the house. Because obviously this is one sided. Why did lynch asked comey to stop and forget about his investigation into precious queen of the democrats? That is wrong, but, hey the democrats are untouchable right?