Bill Barr

[Babagounj]

When will this show end ?
For 2 years every D stated that Mueller would provide the smoking gun.
But he failed.
Now they want more blood and they don't care who has to be taken down.
All because the Ds failed to elect HRC.
HRC is the biggest crook in America.

 

[floridays]

Don't worry, we have a real AG now, and with 2920 looming nothing would benefit Trump more than showing the world what really happened. Expect indictments, arrests, trials, and convictions within the next year.

Time period way to short, indictments likely, trials and convictions quite unlikely, guilty pleas probable if not likely.
My opinion. I think a lot rests on who folds first and who holds out. My opinion.
I say this with the assumption that justice is truly the target.
I trust no one, not even myself, less heartbreak.

 

[floridays]

Only if they get to Trump's Supreme Court, which is probably what the Orange Weasel is counting on.

I see.

 

[vantexan]

Have Mueller testify.

Why not? He helped with the redactions, should be enlightening.

 

[vantexan]

They'd be fine with that. Trump is killing our democracy, and trying to abolish the system of checks and balances.

I guess Republicans like being sheep kneeling at the feet of their Orange King.

He's not doing any such thing. Did you take drama in school or does it come naturally to you?

 

[newfie]

You don’t know how FISA courts act. That’s the point and it’s how they want it.

I know they approve 99 percent of the requests to spy on americans. that number does not indicate a court that protects its citizens.

 

[newfie]

What’s FISA court?

a place where the secret police go to get their secret spying activities approved.

 

[newfie]

Sometimes I look over here ... and shake my head ......

 

[PTPunchingBag]

It's pretty amazing seeing Team Trump try and spin the Mueller Report into a "witch hunt", now featuring spies, at least according to AG Barr. After all of the nonsense and criminality discovered in the Mueller probe, now it's poor Donald, the VICTIM once again.

This is pure Republican strategy, apparently aided and abetted by a complicit Attorney General who won't show the unredacted report to the House Intelligence Commitee, and is probably quite busy making sure any reference to Trump in the report that looks bad is never seen.

Today, in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Barr performed like a trained pony, and exceeded the wildest GOP expectations by saying there was "spying" on the Trump campaign. Hmmm. Why would ANYONE want to investigate someone like Donald J. Trump, or Paul Manafort, or Michael Cohen, or any of the other members of the band of thugs surrounding the Head Thug?

It makes my head spin to watch Trump dismantle our democracy. If he loses in 2020, my guess is Cohen was right when he said Trump won't cede power... because somehow it must have been rigged, UNFAIR, or otherwise against Trump.

Barr needs to be investigated for being in Trump's pocket. After all, didn't he write essentially an application for the job by saying a sitting president was immune from prosecution?

All of this certainly isn't making America great again.

Barr didn’t exonerate Trump, instead he found there was NO COLLUSION and for there to be a crime for obstructing justice there has to be intent. When HRC deleted 33,000 emails, Corrupt Comey pointed out everything she did illegal and still said “no prosecution.” Trump was saying everything public and had executive privilege to fire Mueller but he didn’t. Stop watching CNN and actually read the report!

 

[El Correcto]

Barr didn’t exonerate Trump, instead he found there was NO COLLUSION and for there to be a crime for obstructing justice there has to be intent. When HRC deleted 33,000 emails, Corrupt Comey pointed out everything she did illegal and still said “no prosecution.” Trump was saying everything public and had executive privilege to fire Mueller but he didn’t. Stop watching CNN and actually read the report!

Not only that but they walked back grossly negligent in his statement to avoid prosecution. Her crime had no standard of intent to meet, she was busted and got to walk.

 

[Rutherford B Hays]

Trump was saying everything public and had executive privilege to fire Mueller but he didn’t.

According to the report he tried


"
On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call
the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be
removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather
than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre".

for there to be a crime for obstructing justice there has to be intent.

The Mueller report also has an "intent" section

"c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions
limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended
to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President' s and his campaign's conduct.
As previously described, see Volume TT, Section II.B, supra, the President knew that the
Russia investigation was focused in part on his campaign, and he perceived allegations of Russian
interference to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election. The President further knew that the
investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice.
Those investigations would not proceed if the Special Counsel's jurisdiction were limited to future
election interference only.
The timing and circumstances of the President's actions support the conclusion that he
sought that result. The President's initial direction that Sessions should limit the Special Counsel's
investigation came just two days after the President had ordered McGahn to ~ave the Special
Counsel removed, which itself followed public reports that the President was personally under
investigation for obstruction of justice. The sequence of those events raises an inference that after
seeking to terminate the Special Counsel, the President sought to exclude his and his campaign's
conduct from the investigation's scope. The President raised the matter with Lewandowski again
on July 19, 2017, just days after emails and information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between
Russians and senior campaign officials had been publicly disclosed, generating substantial media
coverage and investigative interest.
The manner in which the President acted provides additional evidence of his intent. Rather
than rely on official channels, the President met with Lewandowski alone in the Oval Office. The
President selected a loyal "devotee" outside the White House to deliver the message, supporting
an inference that he was working outside White House channels, including McGahn, who had
previously resisted contacting the Department of Justice about the Special Counsel. The President
also did not contact the Acting Attorney General, who had just testified publicly that there was no
cause to remove the Special Counsel. Instead, the President tried to use Sessions to restrict and
redirect the Special Counsel's investigation when Sessions was recused and could not properly
take any action on it.
The July 19, 2017 events provide further evidence of the President's intent. The President
followed up with Lewandowski in a separate one-on-one meeting one month after he first dictated
the message for Sessions, demonstrating he still sought to pursue the request. And just hours after
Lewandowski assured the President that the message would soon be delivered to Sessions, the
President gave an unplanned interview to the New York Times in which he publicly attacked
Sessions and raised questions about his job security. Four days later, on July 22, 2017, the
President directed Priebus to obtain Sessions's resignation. That evidence could raise an inference
that the President wanted Sessions to realize that his job might be on the line as he evaluated
whether to comply with the President's direction that Sessions publicly announce that,
notwithstanding his recusal, he was going to confine the Special Counsel's investigation to future
election interference.

 

[newfie]

According to the report he tried


"
On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call
the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be
removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather
than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre".



The Mueller report also has an "intent" section

"c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions
limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended
to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President' s and his campaign's conduct.
As previously described, see Volume TT, Section II.B, supra, the President knew that the
Russia investigation was focused in part on his campaign, and he perceived allegations of Russian
interference to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election. The President further knew that the
investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice.
Those investigations would not proceed if the Special Counsel's jurisdiction were limited to future
election interference only.
The timing and circumstances of the President's actions support the conclusion that he
sought that result. The President's initial direction that Sessions should limit the Special Counsel's
investigation came just two days after the President had ordered McGahn to ~ave the Special
Counsel removed, which itself followed public reports that the President was personally under
investigation for obstruction of justice. The sequence of those events raises an inference that after
seeking to terminate the Special Counsel, the President sought to exclude his and his campaign's
conduct from the investigation's scope. The President raised the matter with Lewandowski again
on July 19, 2017, just days after emails and information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between
Russians and senior campaign officials had been publicly disclosed, generating substantial media
coverage and investigative interest.
The manner in which the President acted provides additional evidence of his intent. Rather
than rely on official channels, the President met with Lewandowski alone in the Oval Office. The
President selected a loyal "devotee" outside the White House to deliver the message, supporting
an inference that he was working outside White House channels, including McGahn, who had
previously resisted contacting the Department of Justice about the Special Counsel. The President
also did not contact the Acting Attorney General, who had just testified publicly that there was no
cause to remove the Special Counsel. Instead, the President tried to use Sessions to restrict and
redirect the Special Counsel's investigation when Sessions was recused and could not properly
take any action on it.
The July 19, 2017 events provide further evidence of the President's intent. The President
followed up with Lewandowski in a separate one-on-one meeting one month after he first dictated
the message for Sessions, demonstrating he still sought to pursue the request. And just hours after
Lewandowski assured the President that the message would soon be delivered to Sessions, the
President gave an unplanned interview to the New York Times in which he publicly attacked
Sessions and raised questions about his job security. Four days later, on July 22, 2017, the
President directed Priebus to obtain Sessions's resignation. That evidence could raise an inference
that the President wanted Sessions to realize that his job might be on the line as he evaluated
whether to comply with the President's direction that Sessions publicly announce that,
notwithstanding his recusal, he was going to confine the Special Counsel's investigation to future
election interference.

Trump tried to have McGahn make the argument to Rosenstien that Mueller by being good friends with Comey was conflicted.

if you were being investigated would you make the same argument about the guy who had the power to be your judge, jury and executioner or would you meekly accept a possible biased outcome.

to me this is a poor reflection on McGahn. its his job to make sure all relevant issues that may hurt his client are addressed. McGann needed to have the conversation with Rosenstien and at least get some assurance that Mueller would do his job fairly despite this conflict. it looks like McGann never did his job.

the other point that is made and ignored by the consolation prize crowd is this issue is only obstruction if trump is trying to end the investigation not if he is trying to have a person who feels is conflicted replaced.

 

[oldngray]

According to the report he tried


"
On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call
the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be
removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather
than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre".



The Mueller report also has an "intent" section

"c. Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions
limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended
to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President' s and his campaign's conduct.
As previously described, see Volume TT, Section II.B, supra, the President knew that the
Russia investigation was focused in part on his campaign, and he perceived allegations of Russian
interference to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election. The President further knew that the
investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice.
Those investigations would not proceed if the Special Counsel's jurisdiction were limited to future
election interference only.
The timing and circumstances of the President's actions support the conclusion that he
sought that result. The President's initial direction that Sessions should limit the Special Counsel's
investigation came just two days after the President had ordered McGahn to ~ave the Special
Counsel removed, which itself followed public reports that the President was personally under
investigation for obstruction of justice. The sequence of those events raises an inference that after
seeking to terminate the Special Counsel, the President sought to exclude his and his campaign's
conduct from the investigation's scope. The President raised the matter with Lewandowski again
on July 19, 2017, just days after emails and information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between
Russians and senior campaign officials had been publicly disclosed, generating substantial media
coverage and investigative interest.
The manner in which the President acted provides additional evidence of his intent. Rather
than rely on official channels, the President met with Lewandowski alone in the Oval Office. The
President selected a loyal "devotee" outside the White House to deliver the message, supporting
an inference that he was working outside White House channels, including McGahn, who had
previously resisted contacting the Department of Justice about the Special Counsel. The President
also did not contact the Acting Attorney General, who had just testified publicly that there was no
cause to remove the Special Counsel. Instead, the President tried to use Sessions to restrict and
redirect the Special Counsel's investigation when Sessions was recused and could not properly
take any action on it.
The July 19, 2017 events provide further evidence of the President's intent. The President
followed up with Lewandowski in a separate one-on-one meeting one month after he first dictated
the message for Sessions, demonstrating he still sought to pursue the request. And just hours after
Lewandowski assured the President that the message would soon be delivered to Sessions, the
President gave an unplanned interview to the New York Times in which he publicly attacked
Sessions and raised questions about his job security. Four days later, on July 22, 2017, the
President directed Priebus to obtain Sessions's resignation. That evidence could raise an inference
that the President wanted Sessions to realize that his job might be on the line as he evaluated
whether to comply with the President's direction that Sessions publicly announce that,
notwithstanding his recusal, he was going to confine the Special Counsel's investigation to future
election interference.

Mueller looks at "intent" through a prosecutors eyes. Every instance mentioned also had other possible explanations - which he ignored because his job was not to look for exculpatory evidence. He knew he could never win a case with the supposed evidence - but wouldn't admit it in the report so passed the buck to Barr. He (and his team) also showed their bias by the slanted language in the report. There was no case so they wanted it in the court of public opinion.

A bunch of "coulds" and "mights" are not evidence. Just opinions.

 

[oldngray]

Trump tried to have McGann make the argument to Rosenstien that Mueller by being good friends with Comey was conflicted.

if you were being investigated would you make the same argument about the guy who had the power to be your judge, jury and executioner or would you meekly accept a possible biased outcome.

to me this is a poor reflection on McGann. its his job to make sure all relevant issues that may hurt his client are addressed. McGann needed to have the conversation with Rosenstien and at least get some assurance that Mueller would do his job fairly despite this conflict. it looks like McGann never did his job.

the other point that is made and ignored by the consolation prize crowd is this issue is only obstruction if trump is trying to end the investigation not if he is trying to have a person who feels is conflicted replaced.

Even if Mueller had been fired it wouldn't have been obstruction. He would have been replaced by someone else without the conflicts of interest and the investigation would still continue.

Which also leaves out the fact that the President has Constitutional authority to fire people in the Executive branch.

 

[newfie]

Mueller looks at "intent" through a prosecutors eyes. Every instance mentioned also had other possible explanations - which he ignored because his job was not to look for exculpatory evidence. He knew he could never win a case with the supposed evidence - but wouldn't admit it in the report so passed the buck to Barr. He (and his team) also showed their bias by the slanted language in the report. There was no case so they wanted it in the court of public opinion.

A bunch of "coulds" and "mights" are not evidence. Just opinions.

Mueller did a comey . Its a binary decision . if he couldn't find any chargable offenses then he needed to eliminate volume 2

 

[oldngray]

Mueller did a comey . Its a binary decision . if he couldn't find any chargable offenses then he needed to eliminate volume 2

It showed how badly Mueller wanted to find something on Trump. But the evidence wasn't there.

 

[Rutherford B Hays]

Mueller looks at "intent" through a prosecutors eyes. Every instance mentioned also had other possible explanations - which he ignored because his job was not to look for exculpatory evidence. He knew he could never win a case with the supposed evidence - but wouldn't admit it in the report

It's not the dept of justice job to indict a sitting president. That's is the job of Congress. It was his job to investigate

 

[oldngray]

It's not the dept of justice job to indict a sitting president. That's is the job of Congress. It was his job to investigate

Nope. Congress can't indict. As Mueller pointed out in his report the question of whether a sitting President could be indicted was not a factor in the decision. It was mentioned as a hypothetical question but that was as far as it went. And the report goes to the AG, not Congress.

 

[Rutherford B Hays]

the other point that is made and ignored by the consolation prize crowd is this issue is only obstruction if trump is trying to end the investigation not if he is trying to have a person who feels is conflicted replaced

You mean like right here?

"That evidence could raise an inference
that the President wanted Sessions to realize that his job might be on the line as he evaluated
whether to comply with the President's direction that Sessions publicly announce that,
notwithstanding his recusal, he was going to confine the Special Counsel's investigation to future
election interference."

 

[newfie]

You mean like right here?

"That evidence could raise an inference
that the President wanted Sessions to realize that his job might be on the line as he evaluated
whether to comply with the President's direction that Sessions publicly announce that,
notwithstanding his recusal, he was going to confine the Special Counsel's investigation to future
election interference."

if the president commits a clearly chargable crime then Mueller needed to make that case
anything else that speculates on what an individuals motives may or may not have been should never see the light of day
if you want to guess what is inside my head then I have to question what is inside yours and how what is inside your head may affect your judgement ability
its a mind chase that should never have been revealed