Barr and Mueller's Two Testie-fy (SCO v. 34)

[bobgeese]

You're confusing me for Palis........

You ALWAYS make homophobic jokes.


It’s like you forget we can all just look at your post history.

 

[hillelslovak87]

You ALWAYS make homophobic jokes.


It’s like you forget we can all just look at your post history.

It touches me, the breadth of how much you care.

 

[glenwo2]

^ What is happening with this thread?

 

[SBJJ]

"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."

Page 213. He clearly, in plain language states this.

That in no means stops him from making a CONCLUSION on what he was tasked to.......conclude

I am willing to bet you that if asked Mueller will testify you are incorrect here and that it had no bearing on his conclusion or lack of. This much has been said by both Barr and Rosenstein who say he was asked on THREE different occasions if this had any bearing on not coming to a conclusion on obstruction

You are parroting the media narrative that since Mueller thinks he can not indict it means he felt he could not conclude. Not even realizing this would also have to pertain to part 1(conspiracy) but in that case he made a conclusion

Bottom line. He punted part 2 because he found evidence on both sides and could not make a conclusion on guilt

 

[JamesRussler]

I don't disagree with any of your 4 points., Except that many people would allow an investigation to exonerate them without attempting to undermine it

I am one of those people that thinks the government should fuck off and leave innocent people alone. Innocent people have no need to be "exonerated."

You leave out the fact that Mueller was following the legal theory that you can't indict a sitting President. Also, Mueller left it to Congress to determine whether what Trump did amounted to Criminal Obstruction; Mueller didn't conclude either way.

It's my understanding that Mueller made his decision without regard to that long-standing DOJ policy, even though he acknowledged that it existed. In other words, Mueller would have reached the same conclusion either way.

Also, it's not Mueller's job to report to Congress. I pointed this out to the other poster above, but Mueller is a "special counsel," not an "independent counsel." What's the difference? Well, there used to be something called independent counsel, which was a prosecutor appointed by Congress, and reporting directly to congress. Unlike the special prosecutors of today, independent counsels were not under auspices of the AG. After Ken Starr's report, Congress allowed the independent counsel statute to lapse because of concerns that independent counsels concentrated too much power in an unelected person. As a result, there are no more independent counsels. All current special counsels are employees of the DOJ, and report either to the AG or Deputy AG. So you see, it was not for Mueller to "leave it to Congress"; that would amount to an usurpation of the AG's authority. Barr graciously made the report available to Congress, but they are stuck with Barr's final determination.

Finally, it's unclear whether what Trump did was legal or not. As I've said earlier, it's an issue that would likely end up in the SCOTUS

It's 100% clear. It's a sad commentary on our state of affairs that SCOTUS probably would ultimately have to clarify that. Then again, I'm sure the Left would argue that the SCOTUS are themselves criminal agents.

 

[SBJJ]

Edit

 

[Bloody Pulp]

^ What is happening with this thread?

 

[SBJJ]

On the contrary, you've admitted it's a crime and haven't stated why what Trump did doesnt meet the elements for obstruction. I gave you examples of several cases where the person convicted of obstruction was not guilty of any underlying criminal activity. That you summarily dismiss this is telling.

I'll just leave it at

1) You admitted obstructing an investigation where there is no underlying offense is still a crime

2) You bizarrly think most prosecutors would fail to pursue such charges if someone did in fact obstruct in such a scenario.

You are still arguing with yourself.

 

[SBJJ]

I am one of those people that thinks the government should fuck off and leave innocent people alone. Innocent people have no need to be "exonerated."



It's my understanding that Mueller made his decision without regard to that long-standing DOJ policy, even though he acknowledged that it existed. In other words, Mueller would have reached the same conclusion either way.

Also, it's not Mueller's job to report to Congress. I pointed this out to the other poster above, but Mueller is a "special counsel," not an "independent counsel." What's the difference? Well, there used to be something called independent counsel, which was a prosecutor appointed by Congress, and reporting directly to congress. Unlike the special prosecutors of today, independent counsels were not under auspices of the AG. After Ken Starr's report, Congress allowed the independent counsel statute to lapse because of concerns that independent counsels concentrated too much power in an unelected person. As a result, there are no more independent counsels. All current special counsels are employees of the DOJ, and report either to the AG or Deputy AG. So you see, it was not for Mueller to "leave it to Congress"; that would amount to an usurpation of the AG's authority. Barr graciously made the report available to Congress, but they are stuck with Barr's final determination.



It's 100% clear. It's a sad commentary on our state of affairs that SCOTUS probably would ultimately have to clarify that. Then again, I'm sure the Left would argue that the SCOTUS are themselves criminal agents.

Winner.... James Russler

Method of Victory.....KO Round 1

 

[BKMMAFAN]

That in no means stops him from making a CONCLUSION on what he was tasked to.......conclude

I am willing to bet you that if asked Mueller will testify you are incorrect here and that it had no bearing on his conclusion or lack of. This much has been said by both Barr and Rosenstein who say he was asked on THREE different occasions if this had any bearing on not coming to a conclusion on obstruction

You are parroting the media narrative that since Mueller thinks he can not indict it means he felt he could not conclude. Not even realizing this would also have to pertain to part 1(conspiracy) but in that case he made a conclusion

Bottom line. He punted part 2 because he found evidence on both sides and could not make a conclusion on guilt

That in no means stops him from making a CONCLUSION on what he was tasked to.......conclude

I am willing to bet you that if asked Mueller will testify you are incorrect here and that it had no bearing on his conclusion or lack of. This much has been said by both Barr and Rosenstein who say he was asked on THREE different occasions if this had any bearing on not coming to a conclusion on obstruction

You are parroting the media narrative that since Mueller thinks he can not indict it means he felt he could not conclude. Not even realizing this would also have to pertain to part 1(conspiracy) but in that case he made a conclusion

Bottom line. He punted part 2 because he found evidence on both sides and could not make a conclusion on guilt

You could be correct, but given the language Mueller used, I think it's clear that even if he thought enough evidence was there he wouldn't conclude it was criminal due to his adherimg to those DOJ policies.

I agree he mostly punted on part II

 

[BKMMAFAN]

You are still arguing with yourself.

You don't answer any questions. You're so unresponsive you couldve drafted Trumps written answers to Mueller. Good day.

 

[SBJJ]

You could be correct, but given the language Mueller used, I think it's clear that even if he thought enough evidence was there he wouldn't conclude it was criminal due to his adherimg to those DOJ policies.

I agree he mostly punted on part II

Oh. He totally punted. And it was a Bush league pussy move. I have an idea why he did it which makes me think he has tiny balls. The kinda balls @hillelslovak87 likes to dream about

 

[hillelslovak87]

Oh. He totally punted. And it was a Bush league pussy move. I have an idea why he did it which makes me think he has tiny balls. The kinda balls @hillelslovak87 likes to dream about

It's odd how in one breath you bemoan a dick reference then muse about balls. It's kind of like how you whined about me, who you know nothing about, being aged while you're in your 40s.

 

[TrumpSupporter]

My gosh, it's about interfering with a legally authorized INVESTIGATION, regardless of if there's any crimes.

Think about this. Law enforcement is investigating a missing person report and, based upon an erroneous assumption/evidence, believes Person A is responsible for either kidnapping or murdering the missing person. An investigation is opened into Person A.

Person A is in fact in no way responsible for the missing person. In reality, the missing person eloped to wherever without telling anyone. There is actually no crime committed by anyone, law enforcement is simply dead wrong. Person A is not allowed to interfere with law enforcement's investigation even though the investigation is over a matter where, in fact, no crime occurred. If Person A interferes in the investigation he is guilty of obstruction of justice.

The fact that you can't see why this is so is crazy. Just because there is no underlying crime at all, by anyone, does not mean you can interfere with the investigation. Gabish?!?

but the investigation is over. hoping your president is a criminal will not make it true.

 

[TrumpSupporter]

It's odd how in one breath you bemoan a dick reference then muse about balls. It's kind of like how you whined about me, who you know nothing about, being aged while you're in your 40s.

you sound old

 

[BKMMAFAN]

but the investigation is over. hoping your president is a criminal will not make it true.

I never thought Trump colluded with Russia, or hoped he did. I thought it was near hysteria regarding that topic and Trump, and I am no fan of his.

My views on his potential obstruction are different than collusion, but I certainly didn't hope Trump would engage in that behavior as some do/did.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

That's a bit differemt, but yeah, I remember arguing on here that it was clear HC lied to the public when she said that inane video caused Benghazzi when she knew that was false. Not a fan.

I was pointing out that they don't take obstruction all that serious at all - at least when Hillary and her staff did it.

It's more of a charge they throw at you if they can't get you on an actual crime or they're really pissed and want to pile on charges.

 

[hillelslovak87]

you sound old

I was born in 1909. There, you happy?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

AG Barr is Mueller's boss. He is the head honcho, the man with the plan, the gorilla in the room, etc. Mueller is a nobody. Motherfucker looks like a ball sack with ears. Who gives a fuck what Mueller thinks? Nobody. He can shove that report right up his ass. It means nothing.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It amazes me how even after the investigation into collusion was exposed as a sham that Democrats can feign outrage at that process being “obstructed.” This is why everyone hates the Left SMH.

I saw Lawrence O'Donnell say on air a couple nights ago that "Mueller had already proven collusion - his report just said he didn't find a conspiracy." I literally yelled WTF at the tv.