1357

no i am not. He put it in barrs hands because he was following protocol. Indicting a president is up in the air, Well not according to barr. You could according to him.

anyways it was up to barr to bring charges up on trump, he didnt find the evidence to be punishable, just like comey with Clinton. " no prosecutor would bring these before a judge" Its the same exact logic.

Mueller felt it wasnt his call to charge a president and was following along doj guidelines that we all have talked about here. Mueller tends to be a by the book guy so it makes sense that he followed those “rules”.

This is what happened. Its not a bad thing, it just is what it is. What barr did afterwords is the bad thing.

Again you are welcome to join me in reality any time you want.

1358

No. Mueller followed the law under which he was operating. He could indict people, if he felt there was enough to indict a sitting president he could have done so and let it take it’s course through the courts. Not doing so, the law instructed Muellter to issue a CONFIDENTIAL report to the attorney general. The AG then was to submit a summery to congress.

If a special prosecutor operating under the law as currently written turned information over to the house (when have they done that for a sitting president or cabinet member or anyone who can be removed by impeachment – please provide a link).

There is NOTHING in the law dictating information be turned over to the house or the senate by the special prosecutor.

1359

Please again, tell me what SP and SC operating under the constrains of the current law sent to the house anything for obstruction to determine if they should impeach someone.

1360

If nothing else this President and his administration are shining bright lights on some very flawed, even if well intentioned, legislation.

The two fresh examples are the National Emergency Act and the current Special Counsel law.

1361

“We’ll accept whatever the Mueller report says. Will you conservative Republicans do the same”?

How often I have seen something to that effect written over the past year.

Now its “…but, but, but…”

They are hooked on their Russian and obstruction fantasies. They can’t give them up no matter what. Its like if I were still posting about Whitewater investment issues.

And, P.S., Barr didn’t interject anything. The House was not presented the report to make a decision, the DOJ was presented the report to make a decision.

2 Likes
1362

That is your opinion. And he did the right thing and left it to the highest ranking person at DOJ, who according to his letter consulted others in the department, including the office of legal counsel and Rosenstien. CNN (your libers source) says Barr was told three weeks prior of what he was going to do in that part of the report. So Barr had time to consult with others on what he was told.

No the report says Mueller turned over evidece to support charging with obstruction, AND the evidence against charging with obstruction.

How do you know they are out of context? You are making a HUGE assumption with that statement.

1363

there is nothing in the law stating he cant turn over the info either. So there is that.
Yes he could indict people but you also run into the DOJ guidelines that state a sitting president shouldnt be. Mueller followed those because that was his job. To gather info and present it to the AG when it came to the president. He farmed out basically everything else to other places.

1364

more assumptions, upon assumptions, based on assumptions.

As far as obstruction and collusion . . . it sure is. Unless you think congress is going to find something Mueller and the FBi didn’t find in all this time.

Yup, many libbers and never trumpers are going to point to the redacted portions and scream – see they won’t show us the evidence he actually committed crimes!

1365

I think I’m gonna vote for mueller for president next go round. He did his job honorably and by the book. He didn’t lie, cheat or steal. He didn’t cheat on his wife. He plays his bills.

1 Like
1366

And in Barrs letter, that played NO part in the no charges. So do you have evidence Barr lied in an official letter to congress, that was to be sent according to law?

1367

And Barr has said he is letting the appropriate agencies point out what parts (under law, and national security) can’t be released. Do you have a problem with those people looking at it to redact parts that can’t and shouldn’t be released?

Will you accept the report issued with those exceptions or do you think laws should be ignored, and national security should be compromised?

1368

no it is not my opinion. It is literally up in the air because it never has been brought before the courts. Legal minds on both sides do not have a concrete answer for this.

Had trump not been President what would be stopping Mueller from bringing charges? Zero. The president is a special case. These are facts and reality

Lets go to the video tape for you snow and show you how you are wrong as usual

In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

See the word many? Read the quote snow, try to understand what barr is saying. Many where in public view. Thats means many where not.
what you are stating actually is well pointless. No ■■■■ he turned over evidence. How redundant.

i am not.

Ex. A)
“the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,"

Here barr is quoting part of the report. Something we all have done in order to make a point, while typically the context tells another story.

ex. b)
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

same deal, barr is leaving out the context in order to paint a picture of what happened.

My source is a lawyer who knows how lawyers speak and word things. Yours is nothing.

Like i said you support a criminal and nothing more. You support a liar and nothing more. You support a fraud who cheats on his taxes, cheats on his wife numerous times, and comments bank fraud.

My moral compass is clean.

1369

I don’t understand your argument.

I have not made any statements claiming that Barr “lied”.

1370

not at all.

But thank you for admitting i was right and moving the goal posts to something else.

1371

That’s certainly one perspective … and your prerogative to think it’s the only one.

1372

Ah…you got nothing…good to know.

1373

Meh. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

1374

Oh i see they have nothing to hide…lol…

1375

Yup, and right there is his reson for not obstruction charge, In OUR (not mine) judgment, it identifies NO conduct worthy of charges. He lists the three area’s of contemp charges . No obstructive conduct. No conduct that had a nexus to a pending or cantemplated proceeding. And no conduct that were done with corrupt intent.

For Barr to file a obstruction charge, it would have to meet those three criteria. Not just one, not just two, but all three.

many were in public view. many might not have been (could have been a few in private many public – you don’t know, I don’t know). but the private one’s still – in Barr’s opinion and those he consulted with – did not hit all three items needed.

1376

I have said all along that nothing prevents him from turning it over (however doing so with a report that law defines as CONFIDENTIAL needs to be screened by appropriate agencies).

If nothing prevents him, then he is allowed. Personally, I would tell congress they have got what was required by law. Let the courts decide how much congress might be able to get.

And as I said in a previous thread. If Mueller is subpeaned, his answer to nearly every question should be “as required by law, the report and underlying information has been turned over to the Department of Justice as a condifential report.”