Jump to content

Update: Mueller to testify before House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on July 24

Commissar SFLUFAN
 Share

Recommended Posts

Chairslinger

Chairslinger

Posted
Posted

Interesting analysis here. This is why it will be important to get legal analysis from experts.

 

Matthew Miller seems to be saying that Barr put his finger on the scale in an unusual way.

 

Apparently Mueller's determination on obstruction may have been akin to passing it off to Congress and saying, "It's up to you".

 

What Barr did was interject and say, "Since Mueller couldn't decide, I did.". And Miller is saying that is unusual.

 

Without knowing the DoJ protocol, it did seem strange to me that Mueller was basically passing the buck to Barr. Sounds like Mueller may have actually been almost saying that it was a political matter left up to Congress, but Barr interjected his opinion.

 

An important point if all this is true is that Barr went out of his way to say that his determination was not influenced by the precedent to not indict a president(to head off any criticism that Trump only got off on a technicality). But he does not say that Mueller's determination was made on that basis.

 

If Mueller was actually saying simply that the weight of the evidence for obstruction did not outweigh both the high standard and the DoJ's policy not to indict a president and thus he is passing the determination to Congress.....that is a master class in semantic manipulation by Barr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chairslinger

Chairslinger

Posted
Posted

Upon further rereading, I beleive Barr is explicitly stating that Mueller determined that indicting Trump for obstruction would be out of bounds because of DoJ precedent.

 

He appears to be saying that in place of that possible indictment Mueller decided to basically lay out a positive/negative list.

 

Quote

Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President—most of which have been the subject of public reporting—that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion—one way or the other—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

 

 

The impression that Barr gives is that Mueller is saying, "I couldn't decide if he obstructed, so oh well".

 

When, in fact, what Mueller may have been saying is essentially, "DoJ policy won't let me bring a conventional judgment on obstruction, so here's all the evidence and why don't you guys who are Constitutionally charged with checking the President's power decide".

 

This strikes me as the most obvious area in which there can be so much distance between what Barr's letter says, and the report itself being very damaging(allegedly).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jwheel86

Jwheel86

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

Upon further rereading, I beleive Barr is explicitly stating that Mueller determined that indicting Trump for obstruction would be out of bounds because of DoJ precedent.

 

He appears to be saying that in place of that possible indictment Mueller decided to basically lay out a positive/negative list.

 

 

 

The impression that Barr gives is that Mueller is saying, "I couldn't decide if he obstructed, so oh well".

 

When, in fact, what Mueller may have been saying is essentially, "DoJ policy won't let me bring a conventional judgment on obstruction, so here's all the evidence and why don't you guys who are Constitutionally charged with checking the President's power decide".

 

This strikes me as the most obvious area in which there can be so much distance between what Barr's letter says, and the report itself being very damaging(allegedly).

 

Unless Mueller himself comes out and says that, Barr gave the GOP all the cover it needs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chairslinger

Chairslinger

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Unless Mueller himself comes out and says that, Barr gave the GOP all the cover it needs. 

 

Yeah, if Barr is playing some brinkmanship here it is well conceived because it strikes me as just enough shenanigans to not make a guy like Mueller put out a statement or something.

 

He'll wait until the House calls him, I think.

 

The important fight now is to get the report and the underlying evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
osxmatt

osxmatt

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

Upon further rereading, I beleive Barr is explicitly stating that Mueller determined that indicting Trump for obstruction would be out of bounds because of DoJ precedent.

 

He appears to be saying that in place of that possible indictment Mueller decided to basically lay out a positive/negative list.

 

 

 

The impression that Barr gives is that Mueller is saying, "I couldn't decide if he obstructed, so oh well".

 

When, in fact, what Mueller may have been saying is essentially, "DoJ policy won't let me bring a conventional judgment on obstruction, so here's all the evidence and why don't you guys who are Constitutionally charged with checking the President's power decide".

 

This strikes me as the most obvious area in which there can be so much distance between what Barr's letter says, and the report itself being very damaging(allegedly).

 

 

This is my take as well.

 

Mueller is a patriot and plays by the book. He was never gonna be the person to test DOJ policy.

 

The fact he so definitively says Trump did not collude with Russia, and then says the evidence on obstruction does not exonerate the president, reads to me like he was saying "this guy did it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
osxmatt

osxmatt

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

The Trump supporters I'm seeing are just gloating. 

 

I never really expected much from the Mueller Report. Trump is still a criminal and general piece of shit no matter what the report says. 

 

It's remarkable the one person who can end Trump, is the same person that can vindicate Trump.

 

I don't use the term often, but Republican's and Trump's attempt to have it both ways is mental gymnastics at its finest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason

Jason

Posted
Posted
Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Yep. I want to see the country issue a strong rebuke of Trump by kicking him out of office next year. 

 

The system is broken if you can be such a blatant criminal, including crimes committed to win the presidency, and get to serve out your full term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
osxmatt

osxmatt

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

The system is broken if you can be such a blatant criminal, including crimes committed to win the presidency, and get to serve out your full term. 

 

This. Also, a win in 2020 is a very shortsighted goal.

 

Whether Trump loses in 2020 or not, he has completely and irrevocably changed the Republican party, and the Republican electorate. Trump has become a template for future Republican nominees to fill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jwheel86

Jwheel86

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I know, but what else are you gonna do at this point? 

 

Vote him out next year. That's all we can do.

Create the Office of the Inspector General of the United States who can only be hired and fired by the Speaker of the House, President, and Chief Justice and serves a 10 year term.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chairslinger

Chairslinger

Posted
Posted

If I were Micheal Cohen I'd be pretty pissed and disgusted right now.

 

I am aware there are plenty of reasons to dislike the man, but it's another example of the justice system being fundamentally fucked if the one guy to stand up against Trump and cooperate with the investigation is also the guy who spends the most time in jail for it(or second-most, but it's hard to see how Trump doesn't see this report as liscense to pardon Manafort).

 

What kind of message does that send to people who might go through something like this again? Seems like it says cooperating is for suckers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...