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

[Foxi4]

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 Also of importance: the State Department servers she was meant to be using were woefully outdated and in fact were hacked during Sec.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.

I would be perfectly happy with everyone doing this getting punished as the statute dictates, regardless of political affiliation, if the server is used for classified communication at any point in time. This isn't a partisan issue to me, it's law. Again, whataboutism is not a good strategy - if Powell is guilty of the same kind of negligent conduct then he too should be prosecuted for doing so.

 

[Xzi]

I would be perfectly happy with everyone doing this getting punished as the statute dictates, regardless of political affiliation, if the server is used for classified communication at any point in time. This isn't a partisan issue to me, it's law. Again, whataboutism is not a good strategy - if Powell is guilty of the same kind of negligent conduct then he too should be prosecuted for doing so.

Clearly the issue runs deeper than the individual if the State Department servers are getting hacked far more often than private ones. Somehow I'm not expecting a sweeping referendum on cybersecurity to come from the Trump administration, though.

 

[Foxi4]

Clearly the issue runs deeper than the individual if the State Department servers are getting hacked far more often than private ones. Somehow I'm not expecting a sweeping referendum on cybersecurity to come from the Trump administration, though.

He's more focused on securing the border, to be fair. With that said, there has to be a point at which you say "no more", otherwise the law is meaningless. Either it's a crime or it isn't, you can't pick and choose. That, and it's not just the hackers you have to worry about. Do you want a Blackberry full of national secrets to get left behind in a hotel by a forgetful secretary of state? Or lost at an airport? Or plain stolen? I don't. The clause exists for a reason, it minimises the amount of things that can possibly go wrong to a minimum.

 

[Xzi]

He's more focused on securing the border, to be fair.

Cutting off all aid to South American countries has managed to do the exact opposite of make the border secure. But then I get the feeling that was the point: to help escalate an already-brewing crisis. Trump will surely call them all "Mexicans" too.

 

[Lacius]

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Whether or not Secretary Clinton committed a crime is irrelevant to whether or not Trump committed a crime.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

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.

He obstructed the investigations.

 

[Foxi4]

He obstructed the investigations.

It is unclear whether investigations performed by the Special Counsel or any previous investigations by the F.B.I. constitute criminal investigations. The statute regarding obstruction of justice clearly states that it concerns criminal investigations and due administration of justice. No investigation of such nature took place, the investigation had the objective of determining whether or not collusion took place, and later whether or not that former investigation was obstructed neither was, in and out of itself, an investigation that was meant to dispense any form of justice whatsoever. It is still unclear whether any action taken by the president would satisfy the statute, let alone constitute criminal obstruction of justice.

EDIT: Edited slightly for further clarity.

 

[Lacius]

It is unclear whether investigations performed by the Special Counsel or any previous investigations by the F.B.I. constitute criminal investigations. The statute regarding obstruction of justice clearly states that it concerns criminal investigations and due administration of justice. No investigation of such nature took place, the investigation had the objective of determining whether or not a crime took place, it was not, in and out of itself, an investigation that was meant to dispense any form of justice whatsoever. It is still unclear whether any action taken by the president would satisfy the statute, let alone constitute criminal obstruction of justice.

We are talking about criminal investigations. People were indicted.

 

[Foxi4]

We are talking about criminal investigations. People were indicted.

And what does that have to do with anything? Perhaps you should read the relevant statute?

 

[Lacius]

And what does that have to do with anything? Perhaps you should read the relevant statute?

There's apparently no reasoning with you. I just told you everything you need to know with regard to this point. It was a criminal investigation Trump attempted to obstruct. The Mueller report is quite clear on this point.

 

[Foxi4]

There's apparently no reasoning with you. I just told you everything you need to know with regard to this point. It was a criminal investigation Trump attempted to obstruct. The Mueller report is quite clear on this point.

You seem to be misunderstanding the statute. The initial investigation into Russian interference in the election was not a criminal investigation, it was a counterintelligence investigation not bound by the obstruction statute, which only concerns criminal investigations and the due administration of justice. It is unclear whether Trump *could've* criminally obstructed it if he tried because it doesn't fulfill the requirements of the statute. As such, it is unclear whether the obstruction investigation itself, which followed shortly, had any merit to begin with. Reasoning with me is fairly easily provided you actually read the statute before you make conclusory statements. Actual attorneys are split on this issue, let alone "keyboard lawyers".

 

[Lacius]

You seem to be misunderstanding the statute. The initial investigation into Russian interference in the election was not a criminal investigation, it was a counterintelligence investigation not bound by the obstruction statute, which only concerns criminal investigations and the due administration of justice. It is unclear whether Trump *could've* criminally obstructed it because it doesn't fulfill the requirements of the statute. As such, it is unclear whether the obstruction investigation itself, which followed shortly, had any merit to begin with. Reasoning with me is fairly easily provided you actually read the statute before you make conclusory statements. Actual attorneys are split on this issue, let alone "keyboard lawyers".

I'm referring to the big four (although I could point to six that satisfy this criteria):

1. Efforts to fire Mueller after it was known publicly to be a criminal investigation.
2. Efforts to restrict Mueller after it was known publicly to be a criminal investigation.
3. Tampering with McGahn and his testimony to a known grand jury criminal investigation.
4. Trump's tampering with Manafort's cooperation in a criminal investigation.

These are objectively obstruction of justice, and Mueller lays them out very clearly with the relevant statues cited.

I could list the other two, but they have their own problems related to intent.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm referring to the big four (although I could point to six that satisfy this criteria):

1. Efforts to fire Mueller after it was known publicly to be a criminal investigation.
2. Efforts to restrict Mueller after it was known publicly to be a criminal investigation.
3. Tampering with McGahn and his testimony to a known grand jury criminal investigation.
4. Trump's tampering with Manafort's cooperation in a criminal investigation.

These are objectively obstruction of justice, and Mueller lays them out very clearly with the relevant statues cited.

I could list the other two, but they have their own problems related to intent.

Trump could fire Mueller because he didn't like the tie he was wearing, he's the head of the executive. He didn't. As for the "tampering", I've addressed this before - this entire investigation was seen as bad PR by Trump, and as such he most certainly tried to put an end to it as quickly as humanly possible, and in the process of doing so he said a bunch of dumb stuff. I'm not terribly surprised, but do I consider that obstruction? Not in particular, I consider that the usual Trump behaviour. If anything, he wanted to accelerate the process so that the investigation reaches its conclusion without incriminating himself. Thankfully he has good aides who know better than him, politics and business sadly do not work the same way.

 

[Lacius]

Trump could fire Mueller because he didn't like the tie he was wearing, he's the head of the executive.

Are you arguing that firing Mueller was not an obstructive act, or are you arguing there's no evidence of criminal intent? Pick a lane and stay there, or concede before moving on.

Regardless, it is an obstructive act, and there's evidence of intent.

 

[Foxi4]

Are you arguing that firing Mueller was not an obstructive act, or are you arguing there's no evidence of criminal intent? Pick a lane and stay there, or concede before moving on.

Regardless, it is an obstructive act, and there's evidence of intent.

According to you. I can pick any lane I want, there are so many holes in all this that I can manage multitrack drifting fairly easily. All I see is circumstantial evidence. I'll happily take the AG's opinion on this rather than yours.

 

[Lacius]

According to you. I can pick any lane I want, there are so many holes in all this that I can manage multitrack drifting fairly easily. All I see is circumstantial evidence. I'll happily take the AG's opinion on this rather than yours.

If you're going to argue one thing and then shift to something else instead of defending the original topic, that's difficult to respond to. I don't necessarily feel like dealing with a scattershot approach to arguing. That's usually what someone does when the argument isn't very good.

You argued the firing of Mueller wasn't an obstructive act, but when I demonstrated otherwise, you shifted to obstructive intent as if it was evidence of not being an obstructive act. Whether or not you agree with me on substance, we can agree that I need to know which lane you're in to be able to respond. They are two completely different things. You can have an obstructive act with or without a nexus to an investigation and/or obstructive intent. The four I mentioned have all three. Barr and Mueller seemingly agree.

 

[SG854]

We are talking about criminal investigations. People were indicted.

Which could’ve of been handled separately from Muller. You don’t need a Russia Collusion investigation for that.

 

[Foxi4]

If you're going to argue one thing and then shift to something else instead of defending the original topic, that's difficult to respond to. I don't necessarily feel like dealing with a scattershot approach to arguing. That's usually what someone does when the argument isn't very good.

You argued the firing of Mueller wasn't an obstructive act, but when I demonstrated otherwise, you shifted to obstructive intent as if it was evidence of not being an obstructive act. Whether or not you agree with me on substance, we can agree that I need to know which lane you're in to be able to respond. They are two completely different things. You can have an obstructive act with or without a nexus to an investigation and/or obstructive intent. The four I mentioned have all three. Barr and Mueller seemingly agree.

You haven't "demonstrated" anything, actually. Barr and Mueller agree on one thing - that the president had interfered with the investigation in a non-official manner, which doesn't necessarily mean that he intended to obstruct it, or obstructed it at all. It's not a "scattershot" approach, I'm explaining to you certain holes in your reasoning as they come up. It's not even an argument per se since there's nothing to argue about - no prosecution is going forward, and it's unlikely that that's going to change anytime soon, if ever. As I mentioned before, I'm not particularly bothered by what happens to Trump once he's no longer president, his period of usefulness is his term.

EDIT: You also keep using the word "fired" in reference to Mueller - Mueller was never actually fired. You can tell by how he completed the report. If Trump wanted to fire him, he could've, at any point, and at his own discretion - he would've Nixonned himself if he did that. I haven't "argued that it wasn't an obstructive act" - it never happened, I couldn't argue that if I wanted to. As I said, he was frustrated and said a bunch of shit. At no point did he use his executive privilege to put an end to the investigation in progress.

 

[SG854]

If you're going to argue one thing and then shift to something else instead of defending the original topic, that's difficult to respond to. I don't necessarily feel like dealing with a scattershot approach to arguing. That's usually what someone does when the argument isn't very good.

You argued the firing of Mueller wasn't an obstructive act, but when I demonstrated otherwise, you shifted to obstructive intent as if it was evidence of not being an obstructive act. Whether or not you agree with me on substance, we can agree that I need to know which lane you're in to be able to respond. They are two completely different things. You can have an obstructive act with or without a nexus to an investigation and/or obstructive intent. The four I mentioned have all three. Barr and Mueller seemingly agree.

Trump was pissed because he believed the investigation was a hit job by a bunch of corrupt people. I can see why he wouldn’t like it.

You keep saying efforts efforts efforts but the investigation still finished. Him letting of steam they saw is not a criminal offense.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This guy is a historian and he excellently breaks down the investigation.

 

[Lacius]

You haven't "demonstrated" anything, actually. Barr and Mueller agree on one thing - that the president had interfered with the investigation in a non-official manner, which doesn't necessarily mean that he intended to obstruct it, or obstructed it at all. It's not a "scattershot" approach, I'm explaining to you certain holes in your reasoning as they come up. It's not even an argument per se since there's nothing to argue about - no prosecution is going forward, and it's unlikely that that's going to change anytime soon, if ever. As I mentioned before, I'm not particularly bothered by what happens to Trump once he's no longer president, his period of usefulness is his term.

EDIT: You also keep using the word "fired" in reference to Mueller - Mueller was never actually fired. You can tell by how he completed the report. If Trump wanted to fire him, he could've, at any point, and at his own discretion, at which point he would've Nixonned himself. I haven't "argued that it wasn't an obstructive act" - it never happened, I couldn't argue that if I wanted to. As I said, he was frustrated and said a bunch of shit. At no point did he use his executive privilege to put an end to the investigation in progress.

Whether or not prosecution is going forward is irrelevant to whether or not criminal obstruction occurred.

I also know Mueller was never fired, but that is what Trump attempted to do.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Trump was pissed because he believed the investigation was a hit job by a bunch of corrupt people. I can see why he wouldn’t like it.

You keep saying efforts efforts efforts but the investigation still finished. Him letting of steam they saw is not a criminal offense.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This guy is a historian and he excellently breaks down the investigation.

For at least four instances of obstruction, Mueller outlines evidence of criminal intent.

 

[Foxi4]

Whether or not prosecution is going forward is irrelevant to whether or not criminal obstruction occurred.

I also know Mueller was never fired, but that is what Trump attempted to do.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

For at least four instances of obstruction, Mueller outlines evidence of criminal intent.

Why use the word "fired" then? And then use the hypothetical I posed as a bounce pad? Seems disingenuous, although that's your favourite word. You also seem to be forgetting that we read the same report? Mueller has never established intent, nor did he conclude that the acts were illegal, that's a complete fabrication. Just to be perfectly clear, the word "intent" is used on numerous pages, we're talking specifically about the intent to obstruct an investigation.