Judge Orders Release of DoJ Memo Justifying Not Prosecuting Trump

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-weissmann-20180216-story.html

https://www.chron.com/business/enro...overturns-Arthur-Andersen-s-Enron-1940557.php

9-0

"From day one, Andrew Weissmann and the Enron Task Force have been pushing the envelope beyond where it could go," said Ramsey. "This is a destruction of their credibility."

It was Weissmann that killed Arthur Andersen and 85,000 jobs. He also was the force that put 4 of their officers into prison where 2 died. The other 2 were released, that to the the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS got a whiff of how disgusting Weissmann's scandalous behavior was and torn into him on the decision.

 

What's this judge doing? Is it to go after Trump again? I have no appetite for this. It's over as far as I'm concerned. Why bring this up now? Is it to stir the pot? Push people's buttons?

 

The CEO and CFO went to jail. The founder and Chairman of the Board dropped dead before sentencing. A similar problem existed with the rating agencies in rating what were essentially junk bonds as triple A securities during the housing and banking crisis that led to the Great Recession. When the company or investment bank pays for the audit, you invite corruption. But, if Weissman got it wrong, what does that have to do with this?

 

It's impossible for Barr to overstep his authority. He is(or was at the time) the ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States. Laws are made, then they are interpreted. It's not the judiciary's job to interpret until it gets inside of a court room, that distinction belongs to AG Barr, not Judge Jackson.

We have laws, it's Judge Jackson circumventing them.

 

No one is above the law...if Barr lied to a jury or a court, he's in deep dodo and could be held to have obstructed justice himself. We'll see in a bit. Personally, I don't think Barr would spend 10 minutes in jail to protect Trump, who threw him under the bus because he wouldn't back Trump's perspective of a fraudulent election.

 

Not if she believes Barr or someone in DoJ, at his direction, lied to a Grand Jury or to a Court.

 

She can believe whatever she wants, but she doesn't have the knowledge of the deliberations inside of the DOJ. So this is literally a judge going on an expedition, based on what she read and what she believes. Imagine if this were a criminal case regarding a defendant, a judge being actively involved in the trial proceedings would be cause for a mistrial. As it is the jury(if a trial by jury) that must make those decisions, and her only activity should be to relegate the rules of evidence, etc and the trial proceedings.

She's out of line here, and the memo will bare out that she's out of line. if she wants to make these decisions, she can take off the robe and apply for a job within the DOJ.

 

Apparently, she's read the redacted portions of the memo only recently, in response to a case filed under the Freedom of Information ACT, which she has to adjudicate. That reading apparently has caused her to now question whether or not she was lied to earlier.

 

I read your link, it had mixed views regarding the significance of the 9-0 ruling in Arthur Anderson's favor. Ramsey was, I believe, the attorney not for Arthur Anderson, but for Ken Lay.
But, again, what does Weissman have to do with this story?

 

I understand how she came to read those redacted portions, but she doesn't have the capacity to understand judgmental calls made by the department. Nor is she in a legal position to. try and influence said decision making ability. That's why she wants to order the release of the memo, hoping public opinion sways that and the Biden DOJ acts.

It's an order beneath the court, of blatant political activism.

 

Trump did not collude with Russians
Trump did not obstruct the investigation.
That is all I am going to day about that, so carry on without me.

 

Why don't we wait for the memo to be released, before we decide the limits of her adjudication. Would you agree that it is in her purview if it's discovered Barr (or someone acting at his direction) lied to the Court?

 

Sure, that would be perjury, obstruction of justice as well as contempt of court. I imagine however that Barr( or a lawyer representing him) will clear up any misconceptions. We keep talking about the integrity of the system and the 'pillars' of the system, yet look now at how we're questioning the then-top law attorney in the US.

The reason these separations exist, is that she typically doesn't have access to their meetings, deliberations nor their interpretations of the law. It's also Rosenstein who stands to lose since he de-facto signed off along with Barr on the DOJ's decision.

 

She's ruling on the Freedom of Information Act involving the release to the public of the OLC memo. That makes her actions within her adjudication powers, particularly if it involves lies to the Court or to a Grand Jury. True, Barr apparently believes in a theory of a unitary presidency, in regard to a separation of powers. It's possible this could end up testing that theory before the Supreme Court, but that would not justify lying to either or to his own department. Let's take it one step at a time. The ball is now in DoJ's court. They must either release the un-redacted memo or appeal within the next two weeks.

 

I hope that they appeal, the document is one of the DOJ's deliberation, not for the judge to see because she lacks the necessary tools and knowledge to make that judgment call(the system exists this way, for a reason.). I doubt they will appeal, but I hope Biden sees national interest over political vendetta. There's very little probability over 'deception', but what it would do is undermine Biden's DOJ and future DOJ's in deliberative decisions, that can be challenged by a judge whenever they review them.

 

Lol…there were no judgement calls by the department. There was only Barr lying about the Mueller report and acting like trump’s lapdog.

 

This obsession with Hunter Biden is reaching epic proportions. His name is now inserted into almost every thread no matter the topic.

 

There needs to be a new obsession. The Trump obsession has ran its course.

 

Well, here's the truly SCARY part of this case

SNIP
Justice Department attorneys also argued that the memo is covered by attorney-client privilege
ENDSNIP

At no point was the DOJ designed to be an "attorney" to a POTUS "client".

Also, I have to assume this "argument" was made before Garland took over. Why can't Garland just release this memo today?

Why ISN'T Garland just releasing this memo today??

 

Actually, it seems like the judge is indicating THIS memo was written to support Barr's interpretation of the fact that he was never going to prosecute anyway. The cart was put before the horse, although there are 2 OLC memo's that predate the T**** administration that say a POTUS is immune from indictment.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity

It sounds to me like the sequence of events is that Barr made his decision using those older memos, then had an updated one written to cover his voluminous ass... I guess one of the keys is when this newer memo was written, not so much what it says.

My opinion is that it's a reasonable interpretation that a POTUS IS immune from some indictments. Hell, a POTUS isn't even in a position to do many things that normal people can be indicted for.

I call it case by case, and OOJ falls into the indictable category.

 

Democrats should like Barr. He helped cover up their illegal spying and FISA abuses.

 

Oh hell, I knew what Barr was the moment he was nominated..."impeccable integrity, yada, yada, yada..", the MORE they spout that crap about lifelong swamp fauna the LESS they actually are. it's a measure that never fails.

 

The Senate wasn’t going to confirm someone who wouldn’t have covered it up.

 

Are you indicating McConnell was in on the "cover up"?

Oh, right.... of course you are....

Because..... why not?

 

Yep. The Republicans on the Senate Intel committee know for sure, too. Just like their Democrat pals.