Jason Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, osxmatt said: On 3/22/2019 at 2:53 PM, Chairslinger said: Seems so. I think an important question that has gotten lost a bit in the shuffle is obstruction. I have an open mind about collusion. I'll pretty much just take Mueller's word on what he determines, but from what we already know it seems like there had to be some finding of obstruction. If Trump didn't obstruct, then the concept is basically meaningless. Barr is seriously going with "no collusion is part of why Trump couldn't have obstructed". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Amazatron said: 4 pages to say absolutely nothing, impressive. I hate that I'm about to go to bat for Trump, but it very clearly states: Trump and no one involved with the Trump campaign colluded with Russia While the SCO did not make a determination on obstruction, Bill Barr has reviewed all the evidence that the report lays out, and has declined to bring forth charges of obstruction. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 hour ago, osxmatt said: Hmmmmm. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazatron Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jason said: Barr is seriously going with "no collusion is part of why Trump couldn't have obstructed". While it's not a court case, to my mind what Mueller and Barr have done to claims of presidential obstruction is akin to what McDonnell's SCOTUS case did for bribery. They have nitpicked it out of existence. If the standard is applied consistently, anyone concerned with presidential power should be terrified by this standard. We occasionally talk about how Trump is bad, but the guy after Trump will be worse because he'll be smarter and less impulsive. Imagine what the next guy will do with the precedent that, essentially, anything short of being recorded saying, "I am in the act of obstructing this investigation" is not obstruction. This is important not principally because it makes them harder to be charged with obstruction, but because it makes it functionally impossible to investigate the president at all if they're a little smarter, and a little more careful than Trump. I look forward to more details being released, and reading some legal analysis I trust on the subject, but that is my first reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 The text explicitly said that Barr's report was going to be very different from the Mueller report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Trying to commit a crime is okay as long as you're too incompetent to pull it off. https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-russia-lawyer-emails/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Trump couldn't have conspired with Russia or obstructed justice because he is too dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jose said: The text explicitly said that Barr's report was going to be very different from the Mueller report. Absent something earth breaking, this isn't going anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, osxmatt said: I thought it was a witch Hunt doe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: I thought it was a witch Hunt doe. That narrative has officially evaporated today. Trump, Fox, and the GOP will undoubtedly play at how respected Mueller is and how thorough the investigation was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spork3245 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 R/Trump right now probably 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Meuller should issue a statement stating whether or not he concures with Barr's letter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreePi Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, osxmatt said: The Barr letter literally says "does not exonerate." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Just now, ThreePi said: The Barr letter literally says "does not exonerate." The Mueller report says that. Barr's letter says he and DOJ officials reviewed the evidence set out in the Mueller report and said it was not sufficient to bring forth charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, osxmatt said: The Mueller report says that. Barr's letter says he and DOJ officials reviewed the evidence set out in the Mueller report and said it was not sufficient to bring forth charges. Go figure that's the conclusion of the guy who already had his mind made up in that unsolicited letter to DOJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Jason said: Go figure that's the conclusion of the guy who already had his mind made up in that unsolicited letter to DOJ. That's fair criticism. I think we need to see the entire Mueller report. Like, yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Jason said: It's not the letter from the AG, it's from the Mueller report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, osxmatt said: It's not the letter from the AG, it's from the Mueller report. The confusion over this point is pretty blatant intentional FUD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, osxmatt said: It's not the letter from the AG, it's from the Mueller report. The letter from the AG says that ABOUT the Mueller report. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage Quote Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said: The letter from the AG says that ABOUT the Mueller report. Quote The Special Counsel states "that while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate." https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/AG March 24 2019 Letter to House and Senate Judiciary Committees.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, osxmatt said: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/AG March 24 2019 Letter to House and Senate Judiciary Committees.pdf Read the first two paragraphs of page 3... it was left up to Barr and Rosenstein. What you quoted is Barr's and Rosenstein's conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said: Read the whole thing the first two paragraphs of page 3... it was left up to Barr and Rosenstein. What you quoted is Barr's and Rosenstein's conclusion. No, Barr and Rosenstein's conclusion upon reviewing all the underlying evidence was there was not sufficient evidence to charge the president with obstruction. I don't know how the preface "The Special Counsel states" could be anymore clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, osxmatt said: No, Barr and Rosenstein's conclusion upon reviewing all the underlying evidence was there was not sufficient evidence to charge the president with obstruction. I don't know how the preface "The Special Counsel states" could be anymore clear? It literally says that Mueller made no conclusion about obstruction either way. Like it LITERALLY SAYS that. Please read those two paragraphs I point too... The second paragraph states that because Mueller made no determination, it was up to the Dept. of Justice (AG Barr and Dept. AG. Rosenstein) to make the determination. It's literally there in black and white. Either way... I'm not gonna go back and forth on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 If you are looking for brightside here, this is just the kick in the ass Dems in the House need to go full court press on their investigations. Ending the possible conflicts with the Special Counsel investigation was always going to be a time for the Dems to rev things up. But with these findings, the Dems should feel minimal concern about stepping on the DoJ's toes. I don't think Mueller was bias at all, but I think his much talked about conservatism led him to be hesitant to claim crimes without an extremely high standard being met. Dems need to make the case to the American people that an election is not a trial. Just because it can't be proved in a court of law doesn't mean Trump Moscow wasn't super sketchy and Helsinki wasn't Trump shivving his own IC in favor of Putin. Put simply, if you're not going to convict him, give us the evidence so we can make our own determination of what passes the smell test. 4 minutes ago, Jason said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said: It literally says that Mueller made no conclusion about obstruction either way. Like it LITERALLY SAYS that. Please read those two paragraphs I point too... The second paragraph states that because Mueller made no determination, it was up to the Dept. of Justice (AG Barr and Dept. AG. Rosenstein) to make the determination. It's literally there in black and white. Either way... I'm not gonna go back and forth on this. I'm on the same (metaphorical) page as you. I think we're arguing semantics here. The genesis of this, my issue with Josh's tweet, was the statement "the letter from the Attorney General says" and then he proceeds to directly quote the portion that was written by Mueller, without citing it properly. This to me, makes it sounds like something the Attorney General was saying, not something the Attorney General was quoting from the Mueller report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.