Release of the Mueller report is imminent, AG Barr has in-hand, judiciary committees being briefed

[Foxi4]

That's not what happened. With regard to some of the instances of obstruction of justice, Mueller and Barr both agree the following three things occurred, which are all that are needed:

1. Obstructive acts occurred
2. There was a connection to an ongoing investigation
3. There was evidence of corrupt intent

Since Mueller and Barr both agree, these are not controversial. What are controversial are the following:

1. The reason Mueller didn't reach a determination
2. The reason Barr chose not to prosecute

Mueller says in his report that, since the Justice Department cannot indict a sitting president per Justice Department guidelines, he could never say that a sitting president committed obstruction of justice. To accuse someone of a crime requires, in his mind, the ability to prosecute and have a trial, which is where the accused can defend himself. Without a trial for a sitting president, he couldn't defend himself, and it would be unfair. Mueller then goes on to say the obstruction of justice could be charged one of the following ways:

1. After Trump is no longer president (statutes of limitation are included for this reason)
2. Congress could use the report as a roadmap for impeaching him

Ignoring that I disagree with the aforementioned Justice Department policy, I agree with Mueller here.

We found out yesterday that Barr chose not to prosecute solely because the obstructive acts failed (i.e. the people in the chain of obstruction didn't do what Trump told them to do). I wholeheartedly disagree with Barr's position here, and it's probably just his rationale after the fact, since everything about how he handled this demonstrates that his main goal was to make this look as good for Trump as possible.

That's your interpretation of the events. I read the same report you did and have a completely different take on all this, as we've discovered before.

Let's have a look at what Barr had to say:

Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision (...)

Seems to me like they weren't in agreement. At all.

 

[Lacius]

That's your interpretation of the events. I read the same report you did and have a completely different take on all this, as we've discovered before.

Other than my views on the Justice Department policy of not indicting sitting presidents, everything I said was objective fact. Some of what I included was reported after the release of the report, not in the report (i.e. Barr's thinking on not pursuing obstruction charges against Trump).

1. Obstructive acts occurred.
2. There was a connection to an ongoing investigation.
3. There was evidence of corrupt intent.
4. Mueller didn't conclude Trump obstructed justice solely because of the aforementioned Justice Department policy.
5. Trump could be charged after he's no longer president, assuming it's before the statute of limitations is up.
6. Trump could be impeached for this.
7. Barr is not pursuing charges, according to him and/or people close to him, solely because the obstructive acts failed.
8. According to the law, obstructive acts don't have to succeed for one to have obstructed justice, so Barr is objectively wrong.

 

[Foxi4]

Other than my views on the Justice Department policy of not indicting sitting presidents, everything I said was objective fact. Some of what I included was reported after the release of the report, not in the report (i.e. Barr's thinking on not pursuing obstruction charges against Trump).

1. Obstructive acts occurred.
2. There was a connection to an ongoing investigation.
3. There was evidence of corrupt intent.
4. Mueller didn't conclude Trump obstructed justice solely because of the aforementioned Justice Department policy.
5. Trump could be charged after he's no longer president, assuming it's before the statute of limitations is up.
6. Trump could be impeached for this.
7. Barr is not pursuing charges, according to him and/or people close to him, solely because the obstructive acts failed.
8. According to the law, obstructive acts don't have to succeed for one to have obstructed justice, so Barr is objectively wrong.

Is that so? Barr seems to disagree with you.

"In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability."

Sounds to me like, according to Barr, the president was annoyed with being investigated from Day 1 regarding collusion that didn't happen and asked a bunch of people to wrap it up without actually using any of his executive authority to end it. You're forgetting that as the head of the executive he could've just fired everyone on the spot and closed this thing shut, he had full authority to do so.

I don't know if you genuinely believe what you're saying or if you're just trying to muddy the waters, but I know the game the Democrats are playing right now - it's painfully obvious and transparent. You and your ilk tried to get him on collusion, but couldn't due to lack of evidence, so now you're going to hammer obstruction all day long. I don't know what you expected Trump to do or say - I don't think any president would welcome his authority being questioned. You've been obstructing the White House for over two years simply because you hate the guy - it's the pinnacle of pettiness.

 

[Lacius]

Is that so? Barr seems to disagree with you.


Sounds to me like, according to Barr, the president was annoyed with being investigated from Day 1 regarding collusion that didn't happen and asked a bunch of people to wrap it up without actually using any of his executive authority to end it. You're forgetting that as the head of the executive he could've just fired everyone on the spot and closed this thing shut, he had full authority to do so.

I don't know if you genuinely believe what you're saying or if you're just trying to muddy the waters, but I know the game the Democrats are playing right now - it's painfully obvious and transparent. You and your ilk tried to get him on collusion, but couldn't due to lack of evidence, so now you're going to hammer obstruction all day long. I don't know what you expected Trump to do or say - I don't think any president would welcome his authority being questioned. You've been obstructing the White House for over two years simply because you hate the guy - it's the pinnacle of pettiness.

If you're going to put words in my mouth and purposefully mischaracterize my position, we are done here.

We can continue this conversation when you're less disingenuous.

 

[Foxi4]

If you're going to put words in my mouth and purposefully mischaracterize my position, we are done here.

We can continue this conversation when you're less disingenuous.

The pearl-clutching doesn't change the fact that the only Democratic priority over the course of the last few years was to depose Trump by any means necessary and it continues to be the driving force behind everything Democrats say and do, the entire platform appears to be "Orang man bad" for the casual observer. The only disingenuous thing about all this is that the whole shabam is rooted in some kind of principle, I would respect the Democrats, and yourself, much more if you just outright said that you hate Trump and that's why you want him gone - many others have said as much and credit to them, it's as good a motivation as any.

 

[Lacius]

The pearl-clutching doesn't change the fact that the only Democratic priority over the course of the last few years was to depose Trump by any means necessary and it continues to be the driving force behind everything Democrats say and do, the entire platform appears to be "Orang man bad" for the casual observer. The only disingenuous thing about all this is that the whole shabam is rooted in some kind of principle, I would respect the Democrats, and yourself, much more if you just outright said that you hate Trump and that's why you want him gone - many others have said as much and credit to them, it's as good a motivation as any.

Please don't misrepresent my position and then tell me I'm pearl-clutching when I call you out on it. Regardless of how you view it, you can understand I don't want to spend the time nor effort responding to what I perceive to be strawman arguments and pettiness. You're asking me to respond to things I never said as if your perceptions of what other people might be saying or doing are at all relevant to whether or not Trump obstructed justice.

In addition to being disingenuous, it's also irrelevant.

 

[Hanafuda]

We found out yesterday that Barr chose not to prosecute solely because the obstructive acts failed (i.e. the people in the chain of obstruction didn't do what Trump told them to do). I wholeheartedly disagree with Barr's position here

I wholeheartedly disagreed with Comey's position that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted without proof of her intent in violating the law, even though intent isn't an element of the crimes alleged. Lot of good that did me though.

That's the funny thing about someone making a discretionary call. There are always some people who will disagree. This time, it's you.

 

[Lacius]

I wholeheartedly disagreed with Comey's position that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted without proof of her intent in violating the law, even though intent isn't an element of the crimes alleged. Lot of good that did me though.

That's the funny thing about someone making a discretionary call. There are always some people who will disagree. This time, it's you.

The allegations against Secretary Clinton are irrelevant to whether or not Trump obstructed justice.

 

[Foxi4]

Please don't misrepresent my position and then tell me I'm pearl-clutching when I call you out on it. Regardless of how you view it, you can understand I don't want to spend the time nor effort responding to what I perceive to be strawman arguments and pettiness. You're asking me to respond to things I never said as if your perceptions of what other people might be saying or doing are at all relevant to whether or not Trump obstructed justice.

In addition to being disingenuous, it's also irrelevant.

And yet you do respond. Hit a nerve? To be honest, it's not something worth arguing over, I'm just telling you how it looks, and it doesn't look good. All I can see in the current climate is the stages of grief - we're at denial now, but we'll eventually get to acceptance. The election of Trump allowed us to have discussions and enact (or more importantly, roll back) legislation that wouldn't be possible under any other candidate, and I'll always be grateful for that, regardless of any future investigations or the 2020 results. I can only hope that the Republican party learned something from the Trumpism phenomenon and will tailor candidates with it in mind in the future, once the Trump era is over. Perhaps good old Ted could run in 2028, I'd be pretty stoked if he did.

 

[Lacius]

And yet you do respond.

I'm trying to respectfully give you a succinct explanation for why I'm not responding to the substance of your posts. I've also gone out of my way to word my response so you can at least understand where I'm coming from without actually agreeing with anything else I've said. Please don't act like I'm contradicting myself.

And yet you do respond. Hit a nerve?

I don't know how I can say this more respectfully, but this kind of condescending baiting makes me question how you're a moderator.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm trying to respectfully give you a succinct explanation for why I'm not responding to the substance of your posts. I've also gone out of my way to word my response so you can at least understand where I'm coming from without actually agreeing with anything else I've said. Please don't act like I'm contradicting myself.

I don't know how I can say this more respectfully, but this kind of condescending baiting makes me question how you're a moderator.

I can assure you that teasing and making jokes is not beneath the dignity of my office.

 

[Lacius]

I can assure you that teasing and making jokes is not beneath the dignity of my office.

I'm not sure that's how I would characterize your most recent post(s), but it's not particularly important.

 

[Hanafuda]

The allegations against Secretary Clinton are irrelevant to whether or not Trump obstructed justice.

I was just making the point that persons in positions of authority that make discretionary decisions usually have the force of law backing them up, and for the most part if you disagree there's not much you can do about it.


Of course Congress still has the option, but I don't expect they will. I don't think we'll ever even see Mueller testifying.

 

[Lacius]

I was just making the point that persons in positions of authority that make discretionary decisions usually have the force of law backing them up, and for the most part if you disagree there's not much you can do about it.

I agree 100%.

Of course Congress still has the option, but I don't expect they will. I don't think we'll ever even see Mueller testifying.

A lot can happen between now and 2021, but I could see impeachment happening, albeit without a conviction from the Republican Senate. I also think a Mueller testimony is more likely than not down the road.

 

[SG854]

Other than my views on the Justice Department policy of not indicting sitting presidents, everything I said was objective fact. Some of what I included was reported after the release of the report, not in the report (i.e. Barr's thinking on not pursuing obstruction charges against Trump).

1. Obstructive acts occurred.
2. There was a connection to an ongoing investigation.
3. There was evidence of corrupt intent.
4. Mueller didn't conclude Trump obstructed justice solely because of the aforementioned Justice Department policy.
5. Trump could be charged after he's no longer president, assuming it's before the statute of limitations is up.
6. Trump could be impeached for this.
7. Barr is not pursuing charges, according to him and/or people close to him, solely because the obstructive acts failed.
8. According to the law, obstructive acts don't have to succeed for one to have obstructed justice, so Barr is objectively wrong.

How can you obstruct something that doesn’t exist. What exactly was he obstructing?

So they didn’t charge any American with collusion and you are trying to get Trump for obstructing something that doesn’t exist on an investigation that should have never taken place in the first place because of lack of evidence.


Trump saying they were on a wild goose chase and would waste millions of tax payer dollars and waste time, but I’m not going to stop you making a fool of yourself. Trump advising them to not go that route is not obstruction of justice. No sane person would see this as obstruction of justice, for a crime that doesn’t exist.

 

[Xzi]

How can you obstruct something that doesn’t exist. What exactly was he obstructing?

How are you still confused about this? He was obstructing investigations, tampering with witnesses, threatening to fire investigators, destroying evidence that was requested...the list goes on. It's all in the report.

Trump saying they were on a wild goose chase and would waste millions of tax payer dollars and waste time, but I’m not going to stop you making a fool of yourself.

You're the only one making a fool of himself, the Mueller investigation paid for itself and and then some when they seized Manafort's assets. Not that it makes any difference. I certainly didn't hear Republicans complaining about the millions they wasted investigating Hillary just to find nothing.

 

[Foxi4]

You're the only one making a fool of himself, the Mueller investigation paid for itself and and then some when they seized Manafort's assets. Not that it makes any difference. I certainly didn't hear Republicans complaining about the millions they wasted investigating Hillary just to find nothing.

There is zero doubt that Hillary Clinton broke the law and attempted to conceal that fact by destroying the evidence, Comey just chose not to press any charges because he couldn't establish intent, neglecting to mention the fact that the crimes Hillary was accused of did not require an established intent. Nobody *intends* to be criminally negligent, "intentional criminal negligence" is called sabotage. That's neither here nor there, it's water under the bridge, my point was that whataboutism is not a good argument - one massive waste of money does not excuse another massive waste of money.

 

[Xzi]

There is zero doubt that Hillary Clinton broke the law

Considering it's "innocent until proven guilty" and Republicans failed to prove her guilty innumerous times, I'd argue that there's quite a bit of doubt. They would've creamed their pants upon getting their hands on the kind of evidence against the subject that the Mueller report provides, but no such evidence existed in Hillary's case.

 

[Foxi4]

Considering it's "innocent until proven guilty" and Republicans failed to prove her guilty innumerous times, I'd argue that there's quite a bit of doubt. They would've creamed their pants to get their hands on the kind of evidence against the subject that the Mueller report provides, but no such evidence existed in Hillary's case.

What's there to prove? The facts are already public and she admitted to her conduct. She did run a private e-mail server, she did run it in secrecy without any oversight, she did wipe it and she did order mountains of equipment to be destroyed. The negligence aspect of the case isn't and never was in question. She got off because Comey characterised her as an old lady with no understanding of what she was doing and claimed that she "didn't intend" to put national secrets at risk. The problem is that neither fact excuses her as far as the relevant statute is concerned. Comey overstepped his boundaries instead of relaying the results of his investigation's results to someone actually responsible for making the estimation on whether or not she should be prosecuted. Sending and receiving classified communications via insecure, unauthorised means is de facto a crime, whether she was aware of that or not is irrelevant, intent never enters the picture, it's not a prerequisite. I'm not even sure why intent is in question anyway - she didn't set the server up by accident, it's very clear to me that she intended to do so. Did you ever start an e-mail server by accident? "Damn, I tripped over the doorstep and unintentionally built a server, silly me!" - likely story.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I can read. Can Comey?

 

[Xzi]

What's there to prove? The facts are already public and she admitted to her conduct. She did run a private e-mail server, she did run it in secrecy without any oversight, she did wipe it and she did order mountains of equipment to be destroyed. The negligence aspect of the case isn't and never was in question. She got off because Comey characterised her as an old lady with no understanding of what she was doing and that she "didn't intend" to put national secrets at risk.

You neglected to mention that her predecessor, Colin Powell, also used a private server and recommended she do the same. Also of importance: the State Department servers she was meant to be using were woefully outdated and in fact were hacked during Sec. Clinton's tenure at the State Department.

Then there's the matter of Ivanka and Jared also currently using private e-mail servers. Seems like it's become standard practice rather than something which is being actively punished.