Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

Heh,

 

It is not what Barr said, it's what he left out saying. You really should read the report not Barr's abbreviated Cliff Notes.

 

As for access to the unredacted report I am pretty certain you do not understand.

 

The report was commissioned by the Justice Department, under FOI any citizen or representative can request a copy and have the Department show just cause as to why there are redactions.

 

That is not going to be justifiable under a cloak of "confidential" because too many people involved in the report in its totality would not meet that criteria. Strangely the very notification of the report possibly being "Confidential" in parts has been struck through.

 

The redaction is nothing but a smokescreen and just why you would think any lies are blacked out is beyond me,.The report is in large measure about uncovering lies and its success in that regard is already measurable in the number of prosecutions it has generated, with very likely more to follow.

 

Barr is in the end nothing but a Trump scapegoat, whether willingly or unwillingly is uncertain but he is not above the law, not close to as protected as the President is, by a large margin.

 

The public interest is such that the full report WILL be released, what is going on is nothing but a delaying tactic.

 

Expect then for Barr to disappear, under a cloud.

 

Meanwhile the many other investigations into Trump will continue to add to the pile of evidence against his presidency.

 

I said previously I never expected the Mueller report to bring Trump down, in that regard it has gone further than I anticipated and is a rich environment for follow-up investigation just as Mueller it is widely believed intended.

 

What is interesting is that its very brief does not go to the real underlying questions.

 

Those are:

 

Why were the Russians interested in influencing the 2016 election in the first place, and to what extent did they succeed ?

 

Some but I'd suspect by no means all of the latter has been answered and from the tone and content of the report that leaves questions to be answered that will dig closer and closer to House Trump culpability. The House is becoming ever more entangled in its history of lies and deceit.

 

Time will tell.

 

Cheers

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/19/2019 at 2:43 PM, Waltish said:

Mueller did not make it clear that he was heavily influenced by the not indict a sitting president rule at all, in fact he strongly emphasised the opposite and that the rule played no part at all in his decision.

Why keep getting supposed facts from the lieing looney left.

Here lets hear the facts before they are respun into a web of lies.

😎

[FOX news video]

 

LOL Fox 🤣 

 

no.

 

no, lets use our brains and actually read the FACTS, shall we?

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III
Submitted Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c)
Washington, D.C.
March 2019

 

 


INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I

...
The report on our investigation consists of two volumes:

 

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel' s investigation of Russia' s interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.

 

Volume II addresses the President' s actions towards the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel's investigation.  Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations that guided that investigation.
...

 


...

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II

 

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.2

 

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

 

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.5

 

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."6 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.

 

Fourth,  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 evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not  conclude  that  the  President  committed  a  crime,  it  also  does  not exonerate him.
...

 

...

[footnotes to Volume II]


1
A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 222, 260 (2000) (OLC Op.).

 

2
See U.S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting  President).

 

3
OLC Op. at 257 n.36 ("A grand jury could continue to gather evidence throughout the period of immunity").

 

4
OLC Op. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment").

 

1087
OLC applied such a balancing test in concluding that the President is not subject to criminal prosecution while in office, relying  on many  of  the  same  precedents  discussed in this section. See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 237-238, 244-245 (2000)  (relying  on,  interalia, United  States  v.  Nixon,  Nixon  v.  Fitzgerald,  and  Clinton  v. Jones, and quoting the legal standard from Administrator of General Services v. Nixon that is applied in the text). OLC recognized that "[t]he balancing analysis" it had initially relied on in finding that a sitting President is immune from  prosecution had "been adopted as  the appropriate mode of analysis by the Court."  Id. at 244.

 

1091
A possible  remedy  through  impeachment  for  abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office.  Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or  serve  the  usual purposes of  the  criminal  law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official's conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. l, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC has recognized. A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.").

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

yeah, from the first line of the introduction on, you can really tell he just wasnt influenced by "the not indict a sitting president rule at all" /smfh

 

Edited by @~thehung
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Of course you have to READ the report, or perhaps be ABLE to read...   🙂

 

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

🙂

 

Of course you have to READ the report, or perhaps be ABLE to read...   🙂

 

Cheers

 

geez chrisg ... that's no good :( ... sorry you be havin' troubles reading .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your just citing statutes from the intro , find me the part where muller said he used those statutes to decide not to procede.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

A number of those quotes are in the first person, hardly statutes, they define how Mueller and his team chose to proceed with the report and the information they had, in other words to proceed with respect for the office, not the man.

 

I read perfectly fine Ev, I finished reading the report late yesterday - a partial re-read because some of the later sections refer back to earlier items.

 

Read it yourself yet, or happy to let Trumpites translate it for you ?

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So show me the part where Mueller let the OLC statute prevent an inditement.

Ahh dont worry Barr and Mueller will be before the House Intelegence Comity soon enough, I am sure that Mueller will be asked that question, we can get the answer from Mueller himself.

😎

 

Edited by Waltish
spellings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

I really do begin to wonder if you can read...

 

No matter, you are splitting hairs. It was not a requirement of the scope of the report per se, it was the way, as Mueller plainly explains to anyone who can read, that it was the decision of those preparing the report to not depart at all from the facts they had, to stay both within the letter and the spirit of the law and in total observance of the Constitution and its relevant amendments.

 

However in doing so they have handed the gun to the Congress and by extension to the American people. It doesn't matter what happens in front of the Intel Committee, the report is in the wind now only needing the fully redacted version to catch up to it's edited sibling.

 

Depending upon how the Committee sees things though I'd not like to be Barr, he's going to be asked if he can read...

 

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

😎 The comity is made of fail and a mountain of sour grapes and will cause itself more issues than it will Mueller and or Barr.

 

trump18_1555601114.jpg

 

Its tricky wording I keep saying did not prevent an inditement which is kinda true the inditement would just have to wait till President Donald Trump left office.

What I should have articulated more specifically is that Mueller did not let the fact that there couldnt be an immediate inditement colour his determination of guilt/nonguilt.

Or put another way he did not detrmin guilt using the OLC

statute as a framework , he ignored it for the purpose determining inocence or guilt 😎

Edited by Waltish
spellings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good, I'm glad the report being released didn't just boost people in the pre-existing corners.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Waltish said:

So show me the part where ...

 

I'm done trying to show you anything, Walt.  When I do, you ignore it or handwave it away - nor will you look at the materials for yourself.  Yet you also won't show anyone else material (other than Faux News) which supports your side.

 

As much as I initially thought Kimmo's 'flat earth' posting was a bit on the nose, I have to admit that there's a striking similarity of attitude.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Waltish said:

Or put another way he did not determine guilt using the OLC statute as a framework , he ignored it for the purpose determining innocence or guilt 😎

 

well thats far more correct.  but still not correct.  the OLC memos werent ignored at all, but rather it was adherence to them that was clearly stated as instrumental in the report being non-committal on the question of guilt.

 

and to my understanding at least, no specific "statute" applies here.  the 'rule' (such that it is) in question, is that of a prevailing (and arguably binding) interpretation of the constitution by the DoJ (detailed here) which was observed during the Nixon and Clinton presidencies.

 

Edited by @~thehung
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Trump put that meme up before the deeper implications of the report began to be discussed.

 

It's by no means over, the first set is at deuce but the advantage is swinging away from el  Presidente.

 

Just like you Walt he has no contrary evidence to put up, he and his cohorts are grasping at straws trying to twist the report's words but very few people are being fooled, only the fools.

 

I find it particularly amusing that the highest ranked liar can only call evidence lies with no substance to support that assertion.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Waltish said:

😎 The comity is made of fail and a mountain of sour grapes and will cause itself more issues than it will Mueller and or Barr.

 

trump18_1555601114.jpg

 

Its tricky wording I keep saying did not prevent an inditement which is kinda true the inditement would just have to wait till President Donald Trump left office.

What I should have articulated more specifically is that Mueller did not let the fact that there couldnt be an immediate inditement colour his determination of guilt/nonguilt.

Or put another way he did not detrmin guilt using the OLC

statute as a framework , he ignored it for the purpose determining inocence or guilt 😎

 

Interesting use of Game of Thrones, we all know what happens to the Kings of Westeros in the end. They all die ... not a nice way.

Edited by Jeruselem
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

According to a U.S. friend a number of people in Washington have been muttering about stringing Trump up by his balls. The realists have suggested not possible, if he ever had any a plethora of hookers chewed them off years ago...

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jeruselem said:

 

Interesting use of Game of Thrones, we all know what happens to the Kings of Westeros in the end. They all die ... not a nice way.

Neither of us have watched any of GoT series. I listened to a radio chat about the latest series, on my way to work, not really flattering tbh. Maybe they shouldn't keep pumping it out ... but yeah kings usually get deaded one way or another. Not to be too picky here but I don't see Trump calling himself a king in that GoT tweet .

 

...just sayin' 🙂

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is effectively a King, we just call them Presidents or Prime Ministers in the modern age. Politics has not changed, the knives are not literal but they are in a different form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe US President Donald Trump differs from those who claim power by birthrite and or {corupt} political {machinations} and  prowess {at lieing} by virtue of the fact that he is a duely elected president , a man of the people.

At the risk of being presumptive, (hm looking at this thread, being presumptive seems to be acceptable, so I will continue) may I suggest that Meme Meister US Ptesident Donald Trump, knows how to meme.

I posite the meme is suggesting the power hungry and conniving would be kings, are going to get sorted in the end game, and when the dust clears the man chosen by the people will be upstanding.

Hahaha

Words enclosed by { } added to clarify my intended meaning which as Nich showed, had not been specificd enough.

 

Edited by Waltish
spellings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only an idiot or someone truly naive would claim Trump got to where he is with no political prowess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nich... said:

Only an idiot or someone truly naive would claim Trump got to where he is with no political prowess.

😉

 

Really Nich ?

 

The politics of the boardroom and hiring lobbyists perhaps but he had zero previous political experience until his campaign for President was launched in 2016.

 

Perhaps that is why he doesn't really know what he is doing  🙂

 

What the report has so far revealed is that members of his staff have enough sense to not follow his every whim, if he happens to find out, probably from seeing it on Fox News, he fires them of course.

 

Consequently a rather large amount of talent is no longer in in his circle, he's getting to be down to sycophants.

 

cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet he has developed a large demographic of rusted on supporters that don't care what anyone says against him, unless occasionally it affects them personally in ways they were surprised by. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I assume he brought along his audience from "The Apprentice" along with their intellectual fellow travelers.

 

I suppose the Democrats are mostly to blame, they became complacent and thought they could sell America another Clinton.

 

In all seriousness though he is doing an awful amount of damage, not just domestically, that's entirely up to the country, but his Foreign Affairs track record is going to be seen as a decided low point in America's interaction with the rest of the world and at a time when the global stage is a particularly unsafe place to be living.

 

Hopefully there will be a wake-up call, I'm not sure the world can cope with him much longer.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nich... said:

Only an idiot or someone truly naive would claim Trump got to where he is with no political prowess.

Ok will edit my post to more cleariy indicate what I meant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Waltish said:

Maybe US President Donald Trump differs from those who claim power by birthrite and or {corupt} political {machinations} and  prowess {at lieing} by virtue of the fact that he is a duely elected president , a man of the people.

At the risk of being presumptive, (hm looking at this thread, being presumptive seems to be acceptable, so I will continue) may I suggest that Meme Meister US Ptesident Donald Trump, knows how to meme.

I posite the meme is suggesting the power hungry and conniving would be kings, are going to get sorted in the end game, and when the dust clears the man chosen by the people will be upstanding.

Hahaha

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Words enclosed by { } added to clarify my intended meaning which as Nich showed, had not been specificd enough.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×