[y66]

While there is a momentary lull ... I want to put in a plug for Firing Line which PBS put back on the air last year. I watched a recent episode in which Margaret Hoover, President Hoover's great granddaughter, interviewed HR McMaster and an older episode from last summer in which she interviewed AOC shortly after her primary victory over long time incumbent Joe Crowley. Both episodes were informative. It is refreshing to see a representative of the conservative point of view who is genuinely interested in helping her audience understand various points of view vs catering to the tribe and provoking lefties.

[Winstonm]

Here is a quote directly from the Mueller report:

Quote

“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.”

After two years, the SCO could not clear the president of an obstruction charge, yet AG Barr could over a weekend?

[hrothgar]

In case it isn't clear, the Mueller report is very close to a recommendation to start impeachment proceeding.

Pairing statements like

"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"

with

"We concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice"

(or in plain English, we were allowed to indict the President. Congress, yo have the power to address this)

[jjbrr]

Quote

We received the President's written responses in late Nov 2018. In Dec 2018 we informed counsel of the insufficiency of those responses in several respects. We noted, among other things, that the President stated more than 30 occasions that he 'does not recall' or 'remember' or have an 'independent recollection' of information called for by the questions. Other answers were incomplete or imprecise. The written responses, we informed counsel, 'demonstrate the inadequacy of the written format, as we have had no opportunity to ask follow up questions that would ensure complete answers and potentially refresh your client's recollection or clarify the extent or nature of his lack of recollection. We again requested an in-person interview, limited to certain topics, advising the President's counsel that 'this is the President's opportunity to voluntarily provide us with information for us to evaluate in the context of all of the evidence we have gathered. The President declined.

Quote

Dowd then explained to Mueller and Quarles why he was trying to keep the president from testifying: “I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot. And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the guys overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a ***** dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?'

“John, I understand,” Mueller replied, according to Woodward.

[cherdano]

 rmnka447, on 2019-April-15, 15:21, said:

Well, did Mueller get fired? Nope, and that's the fact that counts. Trump has enough smarts to know that firing Mueller would have been politically catastrophic in the caustic atmosphere fomented by the "resistance". Contrary to your beliefs, the guy's no dummy, just one heck of a provocateur of the left.

Quote

The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. Comey did not end the investigation of Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn’s prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President’s order. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President’s message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President’s direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President’s multiple demands that he do so. Consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction charges against the President’s aides and associates beyond those already filed.

I guess it's ok that Trump orders his aides to commit crimes because (so far) he has had aides who refused to carry out such orders?

[cherdano]

I'll resist from trying to score more cheap points. Instead, I'd ask the Trump supporters in this thread to consider the scenario that Hillary Clinton
- ordered her WH counsel to fire a special counsel investigator (who refused),
- asked her WH counsel to lie to the special counsel investigators about this order,
- asked one of her staff to deliver a message to his AG to unrecuse himself from the special counsel probe.

If you had read all that (and more), wouldn't you have wanted impeachment proceedings against Clinton?

[johnu]

 Winstonm, on 2019-April-18, 09:28, said:

After two years, the SCO could not clear the president of an obstruction charge, yet AG Barr could over a weekend?

LOL, Barr had already concluded that Dennison had not committed obstruction without seeing any of the evidence that Mueller had gathered, and that was before he was appointed AG (I prefer to call Barr "Dennison's personal attorney but paid by the Federal Government"). It didn't matter what Mueller's report said.

[johnu]

 cherdano, on 2019-April-18, 13:09, said:

I guess it's ok that Trump orders his aides to commit crimes because (so far) he has had aides who refused to carry out such orders?

For almost all the Republicans in Congress, that would be a loud "Hell yeah".

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2019-April-18, 09:28, said:

Here is a quote directly from the Mueller report:



After two years, the SCO could not clear the president of an obstruction charge, yet AG Barr could over a weekend?

OTOH, if the Special Counsel had enough to conclude that the President was guilty of obstruction, he could have also stated that, but he didn't. So his result was clearly inconclusive in a legal sense. Mueller also said that the investigation was not interfered with or impeded by the President. If no actual obstruction of the investigation occurred, then there's no crime. AG Barr said he used Mueller's definition of obstruction to make his decision on obstruction and concluded no crime occurred.

Now, if you feel what the President did politically crossed some line that justifies impeachment, have at it. Nancy Pelosi was right when she said impeachment had to have wide bipartisan support to be pursued. You may bring articles out of the House on partisan lines, but convicting Trump in the Senate is a pipedream.

[rmnka447]

 johnu, on 2019-April-18, 14:49, said:

LOL, Barr had already concluded that Dennison had not committed obstruction without seeing any of the evidence that Mueller had gathered, and that was before he was appointed AG (I prefer to call Barr "Dennison's personal attorney but paid by the Federal Government"). It didn't matter what Mueller's report said.

Thanks for your opinion about AG Barr's decision. But where's your proof that that's what he did?

[rmnka447]

 johnu, on 2019-April-16, 17:28, said:

LOL, Fox Propaganda Network loves people like you who never question the crap that they are spewing.

LOL, I guess you feel challenging the progressive myth that collusion occurred is propaganda and, thus crap. Sorry to see you so brainwashed.

This opinion piece that appeared jn WAPO a couple days ago says it all --

https://www.washingt...m=.9f3962a57b83

Quote

Wow, are you applying for the job as the world's most gullible person? As Dennison himself said on the Dennison/Fox Propaganda Network about Comey's firing,

Sure, Comey was not being forthcoming with the President about the investigation. And the President apparently had sources that exposed the duplicity that Comey was up to. See the following --

https://www.msn.com/...ocid=spartandhp

[hrothgar]

 rmnka447, on 2019-April-18, 15:22, said:

Thanks for your opinion about AG Barr's decision. But where's your proof that that's what he did?

https://www.document...bstruction.html

[rmnka447]

 hrothgar, on 2019-April-18, 15:37, said:

https://www.document...bstruction.html

AG Barr said he used Mueller's criterion for deciding the obstruction issue, not his previous legal opinion. Are you suggesting AG Barr is lying?

[hrothgar]

 rmnka447, on 2019-April-18, 15:40, said:

AG Barr said he used Mueller's criterion for deciding the obstruction issue, not his previous legal opinion. Are you suggesting AG Barr is lying?

Absolutely

[cherdano]

 rmnka447, on 2019-April-18, 15:18, said:

OTOH, if the Special Counsel had enough to conclude that the President was guilty of obstruction, he could have also stated that, but he didn't.

You clearly didn't read the report. It states quite clearly that under no circumstances this report would have stated a conclusion that the president is guilty, because it would undoubtedly leak and such a statement becoming public would be as harmful to the presidency as an indictment, and would thus be against existing DOJ guidelines.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2019-April-18, 15:18, said:

OTOH, if the Special Counsel had enough to conclude that the President was guilty of obstruction, he could have also stated that, but he didn't. So his result was clearly inconclusive in a legal sense. Mueller also said that the investigation was not interfered with or impeded by the President. If no actual obstruction of the investigation occurred, then there's no crime. AG Barr said he used Mueller's definition of obstruction to make his decision on obstruction and concluded no crime occurred.

Now, if you feel what the President did politically crossed some line that justifies impeachment, have at it. Nancy Pelosi was right when she said impeachment had to have wide bipartisan support to be pursued. You may bring articles out of the House on partisan lines, but convicting Trump in the Senate is a pipedream.

You should read the report and then get back to us. Once you do, you and I should be able to put aside our political differences in order to focus on our common enemy, Russia, who attacked our democracy with a coordinated effort culminating in the 2016 election.

[hrothgar]

 Winstonm, on 2019-April-18, 18:19, said:

You should read the report and then get back to us.

I doubt that we will see Trump impeached.
I am still expecting to see his family members indicted.

And, once Trump is not longer President, we'll see what happens.

In the mean time, I look forward to the state of New York doing a thorough investigation of money laundering and tax evasion.

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2019-April-18, 18:31, said:

I doubt that we will see Trump impeached.
I am still expecting to see his family members indicted.

And, once Trump is not longer President, we'll see what happens.

In the mean time, I look forward to the state of New York doing a thorough investigation of money laundering and tax evasion.

The power of the presidency is immense - that the power is in the hands of a totally corrupt individual is immensely damaging. It will take state level prosecutions to make a difference because AG Barr can now quash any U.S. federal inquiry, including the SDNY, and will be happy to do so under the direction of the president as that fits with his unitary executive beliefs.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2019-April-18, 15:18, said:

OTOH, if the Special Counsel had enough to conclude that the President was guilty of obstruction, he could have also stated that, but he didn't.

Quoting from page 214 of the Mueller report:

Quote

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 judgement.

Again, read the report. It is eye opening.

[Zelandakh]

Could anyone suggest realistic points that might be behind the 2 GJ redactions (labelled #11 and #12) directly after jjbr's quote?

Quote

We received the President's written responses in late Nov 2018. In Dec 2018 we informed counsel of the insufficiency of those responses in several respects. We noted, among other things, that the President stated more than 30 occasions that he 'does not recall' or 'remember' or have an 'independent recollection' of information called for by the questions. Other answers were incomplete or imprecise. The written responses, we informed counsel, 'demonstrate the inadequacy of the written format, as we have had no opportunity to ask follow up questions that would ensure complete answers and potentially refresh your client's recollection or clarify the extent or nature of his lack of recollection. We again requested an in-person interview, limited to certain topics, advising the President's counsel that 'this is the President's opportunity to voluntarily provide us with information for us to evaluate in the context of all of the evidence we have gathered. The President declined.