Law For Mueller report, court ruling implies Barr must redact grand jury information

[computer fogie]

So where is the controversy? "No enough to charge" by Barr with Rosenstein's input is not sufficient?...

I didn't say it isn't sufficient, but the decision by Barr's office to not charge Trump doesn't mean Mueller's report should be kept secret, or that the dirt on Trump should be kept redacted. That's the topic of this thread, and that's why I posted in it.

There is no controversy as long as we get to see what is in the report. It isn't going to change anything, since Trump will not be charged with anything that is in the report. That's not in doubt, and I'm not saying it is.

I would ask: What is the controversy in anything I've said about the report, or what Barr has said about it?

 

[grizzard2bid]

I didn't say it isn't sufficient, but the decision by Barr's office to not charge Trump doesn't mean Mueller's report should be kept secret, or that the dirt on Trump should be kept redacted. That's the topic of this thread, and that's why I posted in it.

There is no controversy as long as we get to see what is in the report. It isn't going to change anything, since Trump will not be charged with anything that is in the report. That's not in doubt, and I'm not saying it is.

I would ask: What is the controversy in anything I've said about the report, or what Barr has said about it?

Implication about controversy being that if it's not released along with some grand jury confidential information, then it's an obvious cover up. When it's not. Yes, Trump would rather not give more ammunition to democrats than he has to, given that the end result won't change. D's want dirt, Trump wants to bury it. It's politics, and as long as we get the main conclusions of the report, I don't care about every word in there.

 

[computer fogie]

...Answer me: what’s the difference between no obstruction and no chargeable obstruction from the perspective of prosecuting officials?

Who said "no obstruction"? Not Mueller's report, not Barr's summary of Mueller's report. Please don't keep forgetting the simple basic fact that Barr himself said the report contains evidence that Trump committed obstruction, and that he didn't. Mueller left the question open regarding prosecuting Trump. Again, these are Barr's words about what was in the report, not my words.

Barr's office decided to not charge Trump for obstruction. It was a decision they made. One is a description of what is in the report, the other is a decision by Barr's office. Are you arguing that this is incorrect?

Do you think Barr lied about what is in the report? If not, then you have nothing to argue with me about. You claim "no obstruction", but that's not what Mueller said, nor what Barr said about his report. It's accurate to say that Trump will not be charged with obstruction, regardless of what is in the report. What exactly are you claiming?

 

[hillelslovak87]

This is how we ended up in all of this mess.

Say anything enough times and people start to believe it.

THANKS Madison Avenue

fixed

 

[bobgeese]

Lol I hadn't heard of this one before. Two years out from the election too. I wonder what the though behind that was...

She had to sell books.

 

[computer fogie]

Implication about controversy being that if it's not released along with some grand jury confidential information, then it's an obvious cover up. When it's not. Yes, Trump would rather not give more ammunition to democrats than he has to, given that the end result won't change. D's want dirt, Trump wants to bury it. It's politics, and as long as we get the main conclusions of the report, I don't care about every word in there.

I have not said they should release the grand jury info. Would you want to keep the report secret if it said Trump was exonerated of obstruction, that there was no evidence of that? I think Trump supporters just don't want the truth to be told. Barr already gave us enough info about it to know that Trump was not exonerated of obstruction. His words.

 

[Bargey]

Who said "no obstruction"? Not Mueller's report, not Barr's summary of Mueller's report. Please don't keep forgetting the simple basic fact that Barr himself said the report contains evidence that Trump committed obstruction, and that he didn't. Mueller left the question open. Again, these are Barr's words about what was in the report, not my words.

Barr's office decided to not charge Trump for obstruction. It was a decision they made. One is a description of what is in the report, the other is a decision by Barr's office. Are you arguing that this is incorrect?

Do you think Barr lied about what is in the report? If not, then you have nothing to argue with me about. You claim "no obstruction", but that's not what Mueller said, nor what Barr said about his report. It's accurate to say that Trump will not be charged with obstruction, regardless of what is in the report. What exactly are you claiming?

Since you’re just rambling on a strawman I’ll repeat the question: from a legal perspective what’s the difference between “no obstruction” and “no chargeable obstruction”?

 

[ocean size]

Well, Hillary already walked having broken the law and FBI director, later to be fired Twitter poet Jim Comey, just gave her a pass "just because".
And here is the bottom line- Trump voters feel that the investigation was bogus, and that's not a crazy asumption given how shady things were done in FBI and getting warrants, so even if Trump somehow impeded the investigations, his base feels it was justified. You had establishment forces trying to subvert a democratically elected president. And when people who voted President in feel that way, no AG is going to twist himself into knots to charge him with "obstruction". Especially since it came back there was no "Russian collusion". It just wouldn't fly among Republican voters and would enrage Trump's base.

I understand what you are saying mate but Barr knew what he was doing when he sent that memo. It was a letter from an actress to Weinstein saying actresses should always give ass-to-mouth action to producers.

Comey also fucked over Hillary just before the election as well, and IIRC Barr's team cited Comey speaking on the investigation as a reason why not to unnecessarily release info from the report. That's besides the point, but "she did it too" holds no weight unless it is in the form of court precedent.

And I also understand it could be bad politics with the base. However backing up from politics this cycle, it is important that politicians get investigated for cronyism and abusing power. In general, pay for play, campaign violations, finance violations, conflicts of interest are not things we should want our politicians to engage in, and not let them think they can make investigating them so politically unpalatable that they will skate free.

Further, the legislative branches should push back against the actions of the Trump appointed Barr when it concerns whether his boss did anything wrong. Honestly that's how govt is designed. If Nadler is investigating things that concern national security, he should be pushing for his right to the report material under exemptions for grand jury material that concern national security. Legally does he have a chance? I don't know, but I don't blame him for doing his job and wanting access to all information out there.

 

[7437]

Doesn’t matter bro, he wants to see it. Cuz, he’s totally more knowledgeable of the law that the AG, Rosenstien, and the office of legal council...

Or not being charged with a crime is not the single and only standard for the president.


Maybe, just maybe, people should know what actually happened to make an informed voting decision.

I know you hate being informed though.

 

[ocean size]

Since you’re just rambling on a strawman I’ll repeat the question: from a legal perspective what’s the difference between “no obstruction” and “no chargeable obstruction”?

The difference is not every legal expert agrees with Barr's narrow definition of 'corrupt intent' and not all agree with his 18 page memo a year ago railing against the investigation and describing his opinion that Trump can't legally be charged with OoJ. Hard to know exactly what the difference is here without other lawyers looking at the facts.

Mueller wouldn't punt if it was a black and white 'no obstruction'.

 

[bobgeese]

Or not being charged with a crime is not the single and only standard for the president.


Maybe, just maybe, people should know what actually happened to make an informed voting decision.

I know you hate being informed though.

Where have I ever stated they shouldn’t release the report?


The reality is Dems just want it because they desperately need a talking point to (attempt to) “save face” for the last two years of embarrassment.


And yes, taking out trump was the only thing that mattered. That is the reality of politics.

 

[computer fogie]

Since you’re just rambling on a strawman I’ll repeat the question: from a legal perspective what’s the difference between “no obstruction” and “no chargeable obstruction”?

I didn't give you a strawman argument, and I didn't ramble. From a legal standpoint, Trump will not be charged with obstruction. Mueller's report could have contained anything at all regarding committing obstruction, and if Barr's office decided not to charge then he won't be charged. So legally he did not commit obstruction because it was decided that he won't be charged. That is not the same thing as Mueller's report saying that there was no evidence of obstruction, and that he is exonerated. It's a simple but important distinction, and merits the report being made public (besides the grand jury stuff). Trump followers just don't want everyone to know what's in the report. You're being obtuse, not me.

 

[computer fogie]

The difference is not every legal expert agrees with Barr's narrow definition of 'corrupt intent' and not all agree with his 18 page memo a year ago railing against the investigation and describing his opinion that Trump can't legally be charged with OoJ. Hard to know exactly what the difference is here without other lawyers looking at the facts.

Mueller wouldn't punt if it was a black and white 'no obstruction'.

This.

 

[grizzard2bid]

I have not said they should release the grand jury info. Would you want to keep the report secret if it said Trump was exonerated of obstruction, that there was no evidence of that? I think Trump supporters just don't want the truth to be told. Barr already gave us enough info about it to know that Trump was not exonerated of obstruction. His words.

I don't care about his obstruction of a case that was bogus to begin with. Trump's base doesn't either.

 

[glenwo2]

Yeah but even with an economy seemingly strong (Feb's #s for example - 75% of new jobs originated in CA https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/cal...ee-quarters-of-us-jobs-added-in-february.html, wages continue to be stagnate https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...inally-seeing-rising-wages-donald-trump-said/), there are issues that maybe indicate the economy isn't as strong as it seems.

Add that in with tRUmp as of Mar 23 in 538's polling average have him at 42.2%. I wish this was a state by state basis but it's the data we have to work with. If Rust belt doesn't see turnarounds, given the closeness of some races (hello Wisconsin), tRUmp could be a one and done provided the Dems run the right candidate (economic populace/worker candidate)

Don't forget though that they can only Poll those who WANT to be Polled.

With today's climate of people being harrassed just for revealing that they're Trump Supporters, it's possible that a good number just don't want to be identified as such.

But when the time comes, those people will vote.

FOR EXAMPLE, I live in NJ and am designated as a Democrat....but have voted for Trump (so in essence, voted Republican). But I don't go around trumpeting that fact 'cause it's not a Healthy thing to do these days.

And I can definitely say that I'm not alone in this.

And when 2020 arrives, I'll vote for him again like the others.

But I never participate in any of these Polls 'cause I just don't want to be out'ed so the nutcases out there can harrass me.

 

[Bargey]

The difference is not every legal expert agrees with Barr's narrow definition of 'corrupt intent' and not all agree with his 18 page memo a year ago railing against the investigation and describing his opinion that Trump can't legally be charged with OoJ. Hard to know exactly what the difference is here without other lawyers looking at the facts.

Mueller wouldn't punt if it was a black and white 'no obstruction'.

Could you provide the source for the “expert” who’s seen the report and disagrees with Barr’s finding? Or is this more partisan conjecture?

What Barr said outside of his Attorney General role is irrelevant right now.

 

[glenwo2]

I think Trump supporters just don't want the truth to be told.

Your "truth" and *THE* Truth are two different things.

Get off your high horse, please.

Thanks.

 

[bobgeese]

I didn't give you a strawman argument, and I didn't ramble. From a legal standpoint, Trump will not be charged with obstruction. Mueller's report could have contained anything at all regarding committing obstruction, and if Barr's office decided not to charge then he won't be charged. So legally he did not commit obstruction because it was decided that he won't be charged. That is not the same thing as Mueller's report saying that there was no evidence of obstruction, and that he is exonerated. It's a simple but important distinction, and merits the report being made public (besides the grand jury stuff). Trump followers just don't want everyone to know what's in the report. You're being obtuse, not me.

It’s actually a literally meaningless distinction.

Meullers decision was to leave the decision to his boss.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

I could see it. I could also see the Primaries dividing the Democratic base to a point where Trump wins in a landslide.

That's what I'm most curious to see. I can say that as someone who sat out the last election I'll be voting blue this time.

I can't see someone like Biden or Sanders losing to Trump considering this administrations failure to appeal to moderate leftists. If Biden gets endorsed by Obama I'd say it's a lock.

 

[glenwo2]

That's what I'm most curious to see. I can say that as someone who sat out the last election I'll be voting blue this time.

I can't see someone like Biden or Sanders losing to Trump considering this administrations failure to appeal to moderate leftists. If Biden gets endorsed by Obama I'd say it's a lock.

Biden, imo, has the BEST SHOT if he can get by the Touchy-feely-Pedo-Uncle situation.

Sanders is a Socialist. He'd get crushed 'cause no one wants Socialism.

And btw, to reply to @HereticBD 's point, Trump won't win in a landslide, imo.

But he will win.

That's my fearless prediction.