Questions for William Barr?

[Fuzzy Bear]

that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

It didn't conclude that. Of the 10 potential obstruction events he looked at, he concluded all the elements of obstruction were met for 4 of them. No charges were brought because he believes no prosecutor has the authority to bring charges against the President.

We're seeing the circular logic of Trump excuse-making rise ever farther above the murky depths where it's been lurking for some time:

1) You can't indict the President.
2) If there's no indictment, there's no crime.
3) If there's no crime, Trump has done nothing wrong.
4) Since Trump has done nothing wrong, any attempt at impeachment or even investigation is a purely political witch-hunt.


It's sheer nonsense, of course. And there are multiple different riffs. But that's the heart of it.

I agree there appears to be some degree of circular logic being employed. And it's somewhat disguised in that you have different people on different parts of the circle sometimes.

Even with a conservative reading of the report, I don't see how you can't come away with the notion that he did something very wrong here. Even if it's not as bad as Dems were hoping.

Whether you can indict a sitting President or not is a legal question that goes on and on.  What is clear to me is that the report could have easily said that an indictment for the President would have been sought had Probable Cause of a crime been found by the investigators.  This did not happen, and it's complete fiction to assert that it did.

This is simply false.  This is what the Mueller report actually says:

"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 OLC found 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," the report said.

Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations ... this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction," prosecutors said.

In the obstruction case, prosecutors wrote, "We recognize 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 conduct."

So, no Fuzzy Logic, what you wrote is simply wrong.  You have been fooled by the liar William Barr. Personally I'd appreciate it if you stopped stating lies.

I'll start off by saying that you are a pretty awful human being.  One of Atlas's Worst.

"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 outrageousness of this statement is boundless.  It is the statement of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" logic.  Trump is not above the law, but he's not below it, either.  So why, in failing to indict Trump, in failing to name Trump an unindicted co-conspirator to a crime, in failing to indict additional individuals who would certainly have been part of "collusion", and after the key indictments are for either process offenses, matters unrelated to Trump (Manafort), or offenses by Russian Nationals who have never set foot on American soil, does a Special Prosecutor make a statement that says, essentially, "By our actions, we cannot say that the President Colluded/Obstructed Justice, but there's always the chance that he did."  This is an outrageous statement for a Prosecutor to make in a document; it is a purely political statement that has no place in a Report such as this.

And people are OK with this.  They would not be OK with a prosecutor dismissing charges against Delucca Rolle (the kid in Broward County) with an aside saying that by doing so does not mean they can't say that he did not Assault an Officer.  They would not be OK if a prosecutor, after dismissing a Domestic Violence charge against them, wrote in a legal document that they could not say for certain that they die not commit Domestic Violence and they are not saying that.  Of course, the inability to prove a negative goes without saying.  The fact that Mueller said what he said is not factual; it is political, and let's not kid ourselves.

That's a PRINCIPLE.  Now 136 or 142 is an unprincipled poster, so I get it that he doesn't see this. 

People can read the Mueller Report.  People can read the facts of the Mueller Report, and make decisions about what they think of Trump's actions, or the actions of his subordinates.  Trump has not always avoided the APPEARANCE of impropriety, and the flak he gets from that is of his own doing.  But to use an inappropriate political statement on the part of Mueller is ridiculous.  The fact is that they could not say that he DID obstruct justice, because even if they could not indict Trump (a debatable point), they could name him as an unindicted co-conspirator, and they could indict additional subordinates closer to him.

[ProudModerate2]

I would ask AG Barr to elaborate the ways in which Mueller has injected his own politics and biases into a process which, in the end, determined that there was no collusion, and that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

LOL.
What a line of bull.
Barr is the one "injecting his own politics and biases into the process," not Mueller.
You are such a hack, Fuzzy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would ask AG Barr to elaborate the ways in which Mueller has injected his own politics and biases into a process which, in the end, determined that there was no collusion, and that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

LOL.
What a line of bull.
Barr is the one "injecting his own politics and biases into the process," not Mueller.
You are such a hack, Fuzzy.

Great to see I've gone up in your estimation, lol.

[Badger]

I would ask AG Barr to elaborate the ways in which Mueller has injected his own politics and biases into a process which, in the end, determined that there was no collusion, and that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

Yes Mister barr, tell us how a lifelong Republican who is a personal friend of yours did that.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I would ask the honourable AG Barr when he will lock -->her up?

[Slander and/or Libel]

that there was not sufficient evidence (at a minimum) to conclude that Obstruction of Justice occurred by anyone.

It didn't conclude that. Of the 10 potential obstruction events he looked at, he concluded all the elements of obstruction were met for 4 of them. No charges were brought because he believes no prosecutor has the authority to bring charges against the President.

We're seeing the circular logic of Trump excuse-making rise ever farther above the murky depths where it's been lurking for some time:

1) You can't indict the President.
2) If there's no indictment, there's no crime.
3) If there's no crime, Trump has done nothing wrong.
4) Since Trump has done nothing wrong, any attempt at impeachment or even investigation is a purely political witch-hunt.


It's sheer nonsense, of course. And there are multiple different riffs. But that's the heart of it.

I agree there appears to be some degree of circular logic being employed. And it's somewhat disguised in that you have different people on different parts of the circle sometimes.

Even with a conservative reading of the report, I don't see how you can't come away with the notion that he did something very wrong here. Even if it's not as bad as Dems were hoping.

Whether you can indict a sitting President or not is a legal question that goes on and on.  What is clear to me is that the report could have easily said that an indictment for the President would have been sought had Probable Cause of a crime been found by the investigators.  This did not happen, and it's complete fiction to assert that it did.

This is simply false.  This is what the Mueller report actually says:

"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 OLC found 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," the report said.

Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations ... this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction," prosecutors said.

In the obstruction case, prosecutors wrote, "We recognize 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 conduct."

So, no Fuzzy Logic, what you wrote is simply wrong.  You have been fooled by the liar William Barr. Personally I'd appreciate it if you stopped stating lies.

I'll start off by saying that you are a pretty awful human being.  One of Atlas's Worst.

"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 outrageousness of this statement is boundless.  It is the statement of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" logic.  Trump is not above the law, but he's not below it, either.  So why, in failing to indict Trump, in failing to name Trump an unindicted co-conspirator to a crime, in failing to indict additional individuals who would certainly have been part of "collusion", and after the key indictments are for either process offenses, matters unrelated to Trump (Manafort), or offenses by Russian Nationals who have never set foot on American soil, does a Special Prosecutor make a statement that says, essentially, "By our actions, we cannot say that the President Colluded/Obstructed Justice, but there's always the chance that he did."  This is an outrageous statement for a Prosecutor to make in a document; it is a purely political statement that has no place in a Report such as this.

And people are OK with this.  They would not be OK with a prosecutor dismissing charges against Delucca Rolle (the kid in Broward County) with an aside saying that by doing so does not mean they can't say that he did not Assault an Officer.  They would not be OK if a prosecutor, after dismissing a Domestic Violence charge against them, wrote in a legal document that they could not say for certain that they die not commit Domestic Violence and they are not saying that.  Of course, the inability to prove a negative goes without saying.  The fact that Mueller said what he said is not factual; it is political, and let's not kid ourselves.

That's a PRINCIPLE.  Now 136 or 142 is an unprincipled poster, so I get it that he doesn't see this. 

People can read the Mueller Report.  People can read the facts of the Mueller Report, and make decisions about what they think of Trump's actions, or the actions of his subordinates.  Trump has not always avoided the APPEARANCE of impropriety, and the flak he gets from that is of his own doing.  But to use an inappropriate political statement on the part of Mueller is ridiculous.  The fact is that they could not say that he DID obstruct justice, because even if they could not indict Trump (a debatable point), they could name him as an unindicted co-conspirator, and they could indict additional subordinates closer to him.

From the Mueller Report, page 2 of Volume II:

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. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern. Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual 9-27.220

Here's a shorter version:

1) We couldn't indict because of the OLC memo.

2) Because we couldn't indict, we judged that we couldn't say the President committed a crime, because a criminal trial is the only venue to answer an accusation of criminality.

3) THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, here's the statutes on obstruction, here's what we'd need to prove, and here's a bunch of instances where we believe there's ample proof that the President fulfilled all of the necessary predicates.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

House Judiciary to begin contempt proceedings against Bill Barr this week

The House Judiciary Committee announced Monday that it plans to begin contempt proceedings against Attorney General Bill Barr on Wednesday after he failed to produce a full, unredacted copy of the Mueller report to the committee.

Much as with Mnuchin's refusal to turn over Trump's tax records, this is both illegal and spoilation of evidence.

[S019]

Mr. Barr given that you either perjured yourself during your confirmation hearing or have grossly failed in your duties as Attorney General, can we expect your resignation immediately or will you force the American people to remove you from office?

The American people can't remove him from office unless they vote Trump out of office in 2020.

Though the second amendment people, maybe there is something you can do

The second Amendment must be repealed

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Yeah, he should be held in contempt.

[Lincoln Republican]

Mr. Barr, please explain to us what it feels like being a flunky yes man for the President.