The OLC memo was not considered in his making his report.
-
Welcome to TalkWeather! We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion. CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread
- Thread starter Bama Ravens
- Start date
- Status
The OLC memo was not considered in his making his report.
Evan
Member
Arcadia,
See below. Yet another Conservative legal scholar finds that Barr's letter about the SCO investigation was highly misleading.
I would urge you to go back and read Barr's letter again, and then punish yourself with re-reading the 150 some odd pages of the SCO's report dealing with obstruction. Then re-read the Barr letter again. I think you'll find that Barr's letter cannot be justified, and that the letter had only one goal - - not to inform the American people - - that goal was to satiate Trump, and prevent him from further unhinged rants toward the investigation and Mueller. Barr's unethical gambit clearly failed. All one has to do is peruse Trump's twitter feed to see that Trump is just as volatile, unhinged, and disturbed as he's ever been.
I am on a flight to Colombia right now, but once I land and get settled, I will respond to your earlier post about your frustrations. I understand where you are coming from, but at the same time I think you are giving Trump the benefit of the doubt when he clearly doesn't deserve that, and not extending that same courtesy to Mueller.
I'll say one final thing. Let's not forget that the SDNY of listed Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in relation to Cohen's campaign finance violations (paying off Trump's mistresses). There is an underlying crime, and Trump has lied to the American people and/or been "unable to recall" that he authorized Cohen to make those illegal payments, even though he's on tape AND paid Cohen back the money. A notorious skinflint like Trump didn't do that out of the kindness of his heart - - he did so to keep Cohen quiet in the hopes he could obstruct any public disclosure or potential investigation of his actions.
Besides, there's absolutely zero case law or precedent that says an underlying crime is required for obstruction to be possible. People are convicted all the time for obstructing or lying to investigators even though they themselves were not guilty of or implicated in any other criminal act. Trump shouldn't be held to a lower standard simply because he acts like a spoiled brat and man-child. He's the President! Our standards for him should be significantly higher than what we apply to ordinary citizens.
See below. Yet another Conservative legal scholar finds that Barr's letter about the SCO investigation was highly misleading.
I would urge you to go back and read Barr's letter again, and then punish yourself with re-reading the 150 some odd pages of the SCO's report dealing with obstruction. Then re-read the Barr letter again. I think you'll find that Barr's letter cannot be justified, and that the letter had only one goal - - not to inform the American people - - that goal was to satiate Trump, and prevent him from further unhinged rants toward the investigation and Mueller. Barr's unethical gambit clearly failed. All one has to do is peruse Trump's twitter feed to see that Trump is just as volatile, unhinged, and disturbed as he's ever been.
I am on a flight to Colombia right now, but once I land and get settled, I will respond to your earlier post about your frustrations. I understand where you are coming from, but at the same time I think you are giving Trump the benefit of the doubt when he clearly doesn't deserve that, and not extending that same courtesy to Mueller.
I'll say one final thing. Let's not forget that the SDNY of listed Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in relation to Cohen's campaign finance violations (paying off Trump's mistresses). There is an underlying crime, and Trump has lied to the American people and/or been "unable to recall" that he authorized Cohen to make those illegal payments, even though he's on tape AND paid Cohen back the money. A notorious skinflint like Trump didn't do that out of the kindness of his heart - - he did so to keep Cohen quiet in the hopes he could obstruct any public disclosure or potential investigation of his actions.
Besides, there's absolutely zero case law or precedent that says an underlying crime is required for obstruction to be possible. People are convicted all the time for obstructing or lying to investigators even though they themselves were not guilty of or implicated in any other criminal act. Trump shouldn't be held to a lower standard simply because he acts like a spoiled brat and man-child. He's the President! Our standards for him should be significantly higher than what we apply to ordinary citizens.
Evan
Member
WHAT!?!??!? Do you want me to screenshot Mueller's discussion of the OLC memo in his report? You've got to either be trolling or you've totally lost it, Matt. Maybe you should go read the report instead of making false claims about what's in it and what it says.
Evan
Member
gangstonc
Member
Willful ignorance is dangerous.
- Moderator
- #4,906
I'm pretty sure the OLC was discussed in detail. I don't know where you get your information but it's bothersome to see someone so easily persuaded into believing so many falsehoods.
Never let truth get in the way of disproving your prejudged narrative and agenda.
Arcadia
Member
Evan,
I understand the argument people are making; two separate definitions of obstruction: one from Barr and one from the Mueller report. In Barr's argument he states:
"In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."
This is a more narrowly defined view than the broader view of the Mueller report. For example section 1503 says: The nexus showing has subjective and objective components. As an objective matter, a defendant must act "in a manner that is likely to obstruct justice ," such that the statute "excludes defendants who have an evil purpose but use means that would only unnaturally and improbably be successful. " Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 601-602 ( emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he endeavor must have the natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice."
Wow. That's pretty much a catch-all. And if strictly applied as written there would be a whole lot of obstruction cases being tried. Like say, Hillary Clinton. But I digress.
My point is this, Barr applied an narrower interpretation of the law, but he did not bastardize the law. That is my opinion on it. You, of course, can lament how wrong I am. But I assure you, I have read this with a critical, objective eye. I have nothing against Mueller other than I don't feel as though he finished his job. He is a prosecutor who didn't want to make a final decision about a matter he was investigating. He said so in his report. Okay. Fine. Let's forget about bringing charges against a sitting president, which I'll get to in a minute, but let's look at the language again in his conclusion.
The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time , 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, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
I know, I know, everyone is stuck on alllllll the rest of it. He's not exonerated!!! Yes, I know! But you know what else I know? Mueller did not conclude a thing. So, for those who want to get mad at Barr's interpretation, I say, get mad at Mueller. The ball was in his court. He dropped it. Now, regarding not charging a sitting president, which everyone seems fine with when excusing Mueller's reasons for not charging Trump--it suddenly becomes inexcusable when Barr doesn't charge him. Funny how one is doing his job and the other is a puppet for Trump. This is said, by the way, toward the media and left-wing propagandist. The hypocrisy is wildly blatant. As for the other side of the aisle, anyone who doesn't see the moral decay inside this WH has lost their own moral compass, and probably did so when they decided to elect someone who never owned one.
I understand the argument people are making; two separate definitions of obstruction: one from Barr and one from the Mueller report. In Barr's argument he states:
"In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."
This is a more narrowly defined view than the broader view of the Mueller report. For example section 1503 says: The nexus showing has subjective and objective components. As an objective matter, a defendant must act "in a manner that is likely to obstruct justice ," such that the statute "excludes defendants who have an evil purpose but use means that would only unnaturally and improbably be successful. " Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 601-602 ( emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he endeavor must have the natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice."
Wow. That's pretty much a catch-all. And if strictly applied as written there would be a whole lot of obstruction cases being tried. Like say, Hillary Clinton. But I digress.
My point is this, Barr applied an narrower interpretation of the law, but he did not bastardize the law. That is my opinion on it. You, of course, can lament how wrong I am. But I assure you, I have read this with a critical, objective eye. I have nothing against Mueller other than I don't feel as though he finished his job. He is a prosecutor who didn't want to make a final decision about a matter he was investigating. He said so in his report. Okay. Fine. Let's forget about bringing charges against a sitting president, which I'll get to in a minute, but let's look at the language again in his conclusion.
The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time , 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, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
I know, I know, everyone is stuck on alllllll the rest of it. He's not exonerated!!! Yes, I know! But you know what else I know? Mueller did not conclude a thing. So, for those who want to get mad at Barr's interpretation, I say, get mad at Mueller. The ball was in his court. He dropped it. Now, regarding not charging a sitting president, which everyone seems fine with when excusing Mueller's reasons for not charging Trump--it suddenly becomes inexcusable when Barr doesn't charge him. Funny how one is doing his job and the other is a puppet for Trump. This is said, by the way, toward the media and left-wing propagandist. The hypocrisy is wildly blatant. As for the other side of the aisle, anyone who doesn't see the moral decay inside this WH has lost their own moral compass, and probably did so when they decided to elect someone who never owned one.
Last edited:
gangstonc
Member
The problem isn’t that Barr didn’t charge him, it’s that Barr attempted to exonerate him when that is Congress’ job
Arcadia
Member
No one is stopping Congress from doing their own investigation. They can do so at any time. If they want to go for Impeachment, they are free to give it a whirl. And Barr did not exonerate him. He didn't charge him. Don't change the language. You are exhibiting the hypocrisy I spoke of.
“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,” he wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgement.”
Mueller is an unethical Rat. You don't slam someone you don't charge.
Mueller is an unethical Rat. You don't slam someone you don't charge.
Kory
Member
Terror attack on Easter Sunday against Christians in Sri Lanka.
gangstonc
Member
No I’m not:
The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Why would Barr say it is up to the AG to decide? We know it’s congress’ job. That’s where i have a problem. It’s his direct quote.
He said there wasn’t enough evidence. That’s exoneration. It wasn’t his place to say that at all, especially given the ton of evidence that was actually in the report.
gangstonc
Member
He couldn’t charge him. How do you not understand that?
Will you at least admit your last several posts about what was in the Mueller report were wrong? I think Evan and I proved it to you pretty well.
Mueller is a man of character who has served his country with honor. Yet you call him an unethical rat but you revere the man who has the lowest standard of character and ethics to inhabit the White House that I've ever seen?
Kory
Member
Harassing the man as he leaves Easter Sunday services. No friggin shame from the media.
www.businessinsider.com
People are criticizing an MSNBC reporter for hounding Robert Mueller with questions outside of his Easter Sunday service
Some people are saying that Mueller's Easter service should be off limits from the 24-7 news cycle.
www.businessinsider.com
gangstonc
Member
Harassing the man as he leaves Easter Sunday services. No friggin shame from the media.
People are criticizing an MSNBC reporter for hounding Robert Mueller with questions outside of his Easter Sunday service
Some people are saying that Mueller's Easter service should be off limits from the 24-7 news cycle.
It’s ridiculous. And you know he isn’t gonna talk. Just plain rude.
Kory
Member
It's almost like there's a single word for "Easter Worshippers." It's okay to say Christians. It's okay to acknowledge that Christians are persecuted around the globe. It was an attack on Christians on their holiest day.
He did not come to a conclusion. Thus he should have shut his mouth and not smeared the target of his investigation.
Do you possess the same opinion of William Barr ?
- Status
