Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe

This is absolutely FALSE.

Under DoJ policy, Mueller was not allowed to charge a sitting president.

This was well known from the start. In fact, Barr wrote a significant paper on this before he was nominated - saying that the only possibilities of holding a sitting president accountable were impeachment and indictment AFTER having left office.

Mueller itemized the legal requirements for conviction on obstruction. Under each element he laid out the proof of that element for use by congress in impeachment or by a prosecutor subsequent to Trump leaving office.

 

Read it as you like... to me, it's crystal clear, just from the Table of Content of Volume 2

A - Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice
II - Factual results of the Obstruction Investigation
III - Legal defenses to the Application of Obstruction of Justice Statutes to the President

He outlined 11 potential charges without making a formal charge or indicting... works for me...

 

Warning Will.... do NOT feed.... Move on and save repeating yourself over and over again.

I'm taking my same advice...

 

I agree with this 100%

I disagree with this 100%. What lies did Barr make?

Because it is a very weak argument. Mueller could have easily stated that he felt Trump obstructed at a criminal level and explained that he did not indict because he was a sitting President. He did not do that. Instead, he waffled on whether Trump's obstruction reached any criminal level because of "difficult issues". Mueller is not a virgin to the system. He knew that the AG/DOJ would have to make the determination if he did not. Some people claim he was making a statement that Congress would need to decide. I do not read it that way. I read it that he was attempting to explain that Congress has the authority to impeach should they decide the obstruction was criminal. However, the decision was ALWAYS the AG's to make should the SC not make a determination.

 

Yes, he found no charge he could formally make.

 

He stated under congressional questioning that he wasn't aware of any objection by Mueller to the Barr caricature of the Mueller report when in fact there was written notification as well as other communication from Mueller.

Mueller outlined the prosecution for obstruction point by legal point, tying evidence to prove each point.

Impeachment is entirely up to congress. And, DoJ policy is that a sitting president may not be charged with a crime - the only avenue for holding a sitting president accountable being impeachment.

So, by DoJ policy it is NOT the AG's decision until Trump leaves office.

As of today, it is up to congress.

And, the executive branch is stonewalling congress to prevent that process.

 

That is not true. The question did not pertain to Mueller specifically and related to unnamed people of Mueller's staff. While it might be a weasel answer, it is a weasel stance to make it out as a lie.

The Executive Branch is not stonewalling anything. Pelosi has even said impeachment is off the table...probably because she knows they have nothing that will stick

 

Policy is not law. Even a dem questioning Barr knew this but evidently you don't. Mueller may have made a laundry list of items but still found nothing actionable WHICH WAS HIS JOB. Time to get over it.

 

True, but I like to highlight stuff on hardcopy so I can pass it around and amaze my friends.

 

The executive branch is stonewalling on just about everything.

Congress doesn't have the Mueller report. Mnuchin is stonewalling. Barr is refusing to testify. And, there are several other cases that appear to be requiring moving to subpoena.

Impeachment isn't an option when the Republican led Senate is ready to accept absolutely anything that Trump does.

 

LOL, the Mueller report has been made public, redacted by Mueller. Even you can read it. Congress has no right to see grand jury testimony but can see the classified items unredacted but the democrats have refused that. After 2 years of investigation that found nothing actionable the dems are now on another witch hunt and it is about time some adults stood up to their clown show.

 

Mueller was working as an employee of the DoJ and subject to DoJ policy.

If the DoJ considers criminal charges against a sitting president to be unconstitutional (which is the case), then having Mueller make such charges would be just plain STUPID.

What Mueller did was to work within the guidelines of his employer - the DoJ.

If you don't like that, you should have been lobbying against Barr being the AG.

 

False.

 

False? That's all you have? The Mueller report isn't public? The DOJ didn't offer the report to the intelligence committee without the national security items unredacted? The Congress (and in fact no one in any legal case) has a right to grand jury testimony? The democrats didn't refuse the DOJ's offer?

So far you are batting zero.

 

Still not law. You just don't get it but at least a democrat questioning Barr did. I guess you think you know more than a lawyer.

 

The only thing false is the idea that William Barr lied. I'm going to respond to everything(including the discussion you've had with others) in this post. For starters, thanks to the Mueller report we are now aware that Mcghan's episode with Trump was LEAKED to the NYT. And in their own words, it came from sources close to the investigation.

We also have confirmation from Buzzfeed for the same. So the idea that Mueller ever ran a tightlipped ship, is now a LIE. Given that lie, let's ask the question again: Why couldn't he speak to the public during the ongoing investigation? He didn't have to reveal confidential or otherwise information. He could've given weekly/monthly updates on the investigation's status.

But ah, without the rapid speculation(to which Trump responded) there wouldn't have been an Obstruction case. It literally was NOT in Robert Mueller's interest to be forthcoming to the American Public and by extension the President.

Nunya D illustrates succinctly my point on Mueller's excuse and I'm going to repeat it: He could've had the indictment under seal, and it could've been unsealed when Trump's term is done. Mueller had done no such thing, Mueller didn't even 'recommend' charges, but rather punted the football to the AG/DAG and to Congress.

And yes, if you elect a democrat president, you'll have the power to appoint your own AG and you may very well then prosecute Trump(It however, would not be a good political look. In fact, it'd be the end of the Republic.)

Willing ignorance isn't the same thing as being obtuse though. I suspect Democrats at large are aware of this, but this is the ploy necessary to elevate a Democrat to the WH. Just like HRC didn't get charged, Trump likely won't be either.

 

Color me amazed... it's a good idea... I have a text file with page numbers on certain topics... Not high tech, but it works for me...

And I was wrong in my post... Trump now says McGahn is under Executive Privilege..... This has to go to court YESTERDAY....

 

Sounds like Mueller made a political decision when he was appointed to do a job which he couldn't find the cajones to do. Just like his bff Jim Comey he passed the buck. I hate bureaucrats!!

 

Congress DOES have the Mueller report. They have the redacted version that is in it's redacted condition BECAUSE OF LAWS!! Also, any member of Congress that is authorized (which is everybody, I think) that wants to read the unredacted version can do so in the secure room. Pelosi's removing impeachment happened before Barr refused to testify at the House Committee.

If the House believe that anything that Trump did was illegal, they should impeach whether they think they will be successful or not. To be honest, I doubt they would even have the votes in the House.

In regards to Mueller and the belief the President can not be indicted: That is a cop-out. First off, it is not a LAW. It is not really even a policy. It is a memo from the DOJ Law Counsel (twice). If Mueller thought there was enough to indict Trump, he should have filed his brief of Intent to Indict and let a Judge decide on whether the President can be indicted or not. I have no doubt Mueller knows that. Claiming to not indict because of the "policy" is just as lame as Comey saying that HC was grossly negligent and even possibly criminal but he did not indict because "no prosecutor would prosecute".

I understand that you do not like Trump and I respect that. There is a lot to not like. However, from a legal stance, there is nothing that can nail Trump with in the Mueller report. Not liking him is not a reason to indict or impeach.

 

Congress has every right to the evidence and a less redacted report. Congress routinely handles secure material including national security material. Suggesting they should get no more than what the public gets is ludicrous.

 

It's a matter of interpretation of the constitution.

We don't have law on every such issue. One can't write every possibly interpretation of the constitution into law - congress just doesn't have any possibility of doing that.

Barr and others have written policy papers illuminating the policy that a sitting president may not be charged. They appeal to reasons that are not ridiculous. A primary example is that the only way to clear a charge is trial, and a sitting president may not be tried in a court of law. Thus, the president would have no legal means to defend himself and would carry that charge into subsequent duties, election cycles, etc.

This is not some new idea. And, Mueller IS a DoJ employee - even today.

 

There is no possibility of denying that the Mueller investigation has been the most tight lipped such investigation in decades.

That would still be an indictment against a sitting president - which is contrary to DoJ policy.
Besides, why would that have more meaning the the case he spelled out in such detail in his report - which is NOT redacted or otherwise under seal???

I'm just stating DoJ policy. Barr says Trump could be charged after leaving office.

Your political BS is really pathetic.

 

It's not my political BS, It's the Democrat's political BS. It's 'obstruction' into an 'investigation' into something that was fundamentally NONEXISTENT. There's no valid justification for opening up an investigation to begin with, which is the whole point. That's what I'd love to ask Rosenstein(who appointed Mueller.)

At what point did the DOJ gather actual evidence it can testify would justify opening an investigation? And no, hearsay doesn't count for the same reason it doesn't count in court.

This has always been political, there's never been a moment in the investigation where it wasn't political.

 

There are are redactions that congress has every right to see. Plus, the version congress has does not include the supporting material. This is pure stonewalling.

I've stated this is DoJ policy many times over. I disagree with your comment on the House. What we're seeing is an assault on congress by a president striving to be dictator. This is an issue of our democracy.

You are proposing that Mueller should have rebelled against those to whom he reports. While I might have liked that, suggesting it is a copout that he didn't do so is just plain silly. Mueller is a Republican and is well known to NOT be disruptive in the manner you propose. His full intent was to follow his remit and DoJ policy.

The reasons that Trump should be impeached don't have anything to do with whether I "like" him.

They have to do with support for our form of government.

 

Trump firing Sessions was beyond what the democrats expected. Barr is a problem for the dems. They knew it then and are feeling it now. They must discredit him before he releases his indictments on some really powerful democrats. Anyone without bias can see democrats have been caught rigging the 2016 election and an attempted frame job and coup of candidate and President Trump.

The democrat posters are losing their fight and are no longer able to reason their position.

More Winning....