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

Sorry, much as you cannot believe McGahn without some evidence, I cannot find evidence (via my google machine) that Barr repeatedly said Nadler caused him to release his summary.. Please provide your basis for that claim.

 

Supposition. Barr referenced to the "public need" for the report, and we are aware of this House's actions(as well as the sentiment by the Senate during the confirmation hearing). At no point did the legislative body not stop hounding the justice department. And we are aware of the threats by Nadler to subponea Barr, and then the actual action 48 hours after the threat.

Nadler substantially interjected himself into the DOJ, in ways far more perverse than Trump. I mean, we're not even contesting the action(because it's impossible to contest), it happened in real time in front of us. The only thing that you're contending, is whether or not these obtrusive and destructive acts played a role in releasing the summary, and logically I have no doubt.

Nadler should be subject to an ethics probe at the very least, but for the integrity of the committee he runs, he should be removed. Let's put it this way: I'd rather Schiff in his own department, rather than Nadler's in his. Schiff simply spoke crap. Nadler interfered into ongoing justice department business and threatened the AG of these United States.

And I fully admit(and is obvious from my strong language) that I have a personal vendetta against Nadler for his conduct. No business organization would stand for him as chairman.

 

He believes it purely out of convenience as he’s been told that 100 times.

 

Fair enough, but I could easily say the same about Donald J Trump (other than an organization he formed himself)...

I still think you have your timeline wrong... Nadler subpoenaed Barr for the unredacted report (not his testimony.... yet), which obviously had to come after the redacted report was released, which obviously came 3 weeks after the Barr summary. You can zap Nadler for his actions after the redacted report was released, but you have nothing tying him to the Barr summary 3 weeks earlier...

I personally find Nadler at the upper end of public D Congress people... He's well spoken, intelligent, and generally restrained, being a "lifer"... I don't think you find too many on either side of the aisle that meet all 3 of those characteristics...

 

He was going after the unredacted report, even before the redacted report was released. And even after that, he offered to allow the Gang of 8 to review the information, albeit under the stipulation that rank and file members couldn't see it(obviously due to classification issues.)

I actually imagine a lot of this will be settled when Stone's case is settled. That, then there's the matter of the mysterious Russian company that they're prosecuting for...something. We literally don't know what.

But as soon as those are finished, I bet the rest(that 8-10% of the document) can be universally declassified. Hell, if the Democrats want they can ask the President to declassify just like we dealt with this situation last year.

 

The irony of that DOJ decision is that is was submitted in October 2000, after the Slick Willie Impeachment... which saves Trump from legal issues (Now, not in 2021) but essentially forces Congressional action in lieu of legal action...

This will be one of the main points I believe Mueller will testify to in front of Nadler.... I mean, it's written in the DOJ opinion anyway, but hearing it directly from Mueller (without Barr/Trump spin) will cement it in history.

That poster knows all this... he's pulling your chain...

 

It's rather amazing Dems can't accept the Mueller Report, no crimes. It's rather obviously they can't handle the truth. It's sad, and desperate. Nobody looked more pathetically desperate the the DNC yesterday, when Barr literally destroyed and dismantled their false narratives

 

Well, there are 3 levels of Congress in your scenario, as I see it...

- Gang of 12 (See Politco article below).

- Nadler's Judiciary Committee

- The riff raff..

I'm fine with the riff-raff not seeing the full unredacted deal, but what is the purpose of allowing Nadler to see it, while the other members of his committee cannot, nor can Nadler convey information to them?? Nadler cannot (and will not) act alone...

I don't know if they ever make committee-level exceptions (they should), but if they don't, it appears to be all or nothing.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/30/mueller-report-redacted-1295105

Again, I've said it before.... I don't think the redactions will have any impact on Congress going forward... It's a power struggle between Congress and the DOJ, and I happen to side with Congress on this one...

 

Factual doesn't fit the narrative, does it. Blah blah blah there is no rabbit in the hat sorry.

 

The DOJ opinion was NOT submitted in 2000. It comes from an internal memo from 1973 where the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel adopted that position in relationship to the Nixon situation. It was reaffirmed in a 2000 memo that stated that the JDOLC had not changed it's stance on the issue.

 

I finally feel like we may get justice in this and it is long over due. The days of the DOJ being a joke appear to be over. If Trump colluded which I knew he didn't, but if he had, I would have been for him having to deal with the consequence. Now let's see what the left will do. I have a feeling we will see the true definition of obstruction. They are the ultimate hypocrites and I have a feeling they will prove it here soon enough. The left are trying to discredit him so when he brings the hammer down they can bring up all of this garbage.

 

You are on ignore, but I'll make a quick exception..

The 2000 memo was submitted in 2000. It is certainly based on the 1973 memo and the conclusions are basically the same, but it is it's own document and not simply a "reaffirmed" memo.

The 2000 memo mentions Clinton v Jones any number of times... hard to imagine that being in a reaffirmed 1973 document.

Don't bother answering... thanks!

 

The DOJ opinion, was from the 70s, because of Nixon. With that said, the DOJ didn't indict Johnson either. There were still lawyers that recommended charges, for the impeachment proceeding, that would be indicted for after removal. They did that in Clinton as well, as Nixon.

The irony here though, why all the Dems are upset, is that they charged the law on the special counsel after Clinton. Ken Starrr, who acted under the Independent Counsel law, was appointed by a three judge panel and reported directly to Congress....that's no longer the case, the Special Counsel reports still to the DOJ, and must submit his report first there. In this case, where Mueller couldn't reach a conclusion on one charge, the obstruction, it was then up to the DOJ to determine if a recommendation for a crime would be made, based on the law, the facts, and a review by Office of Legal Counsel, DAG and AG, they could not come up to that determination, and that was without reaching the legal opinion you are speaking of.

 

Clinton v Jones wasn't a criminal case. Moreover the 2000 memo, specifically states that it doesn't address the issue of if a sitting President can be indicted: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

 

Certainly, a compromise could've been reached. But that'd require a chairman who didn't threaten the people with the information:

https://www.scribd.com/document/408455007/Boyd-Letter-to-Nadler

Nadler's lucky that Barr isn't considering HIS actions obstruction lol. As it is, I feel like the scum should just resign. It takes A LOT to look less worse than Schiff. He did it. He managed to do it.

 

Maybe, but they are smart enough to know that EVERYONE in this theatrical drama lies. EVERYONE. Does anyone really know what the hell is going on here.

 

Absolutely - our democracy is under attack.

Our founders designed checks and balances for highly important reason.

It's the only defense against becoming a dictatorship.

That risk is why we do NOT suggest our form of government when helping other countries set up new governments - we propose parliamentary systems instead, because there is less risk of them becoming dictatorships.

We can NOT just stand by and have congress be taken over by the executive branch, and that is EXACTLY what this executive branch is attempting.

 

You are correct, Clinton is mentioned numerous times, but so is US vs Nixon and Nixon vs Fitzgerald. The mention of Clinton is more of a general example and the memo is not specific to Clinton vs Jones. It is most certainly a reaffirmation as the last sentence in the first paragraph states:

"We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution".

https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download

If that is not a affirmation, I don't know what is.

As far as being on ignore. What you claim to have put me on ignore for was because you thought I was being rude, though I failed to see any rudeness in the post you got bent out of shape over. However, since then, I have seen you make comments that were more rude than I have ever been.

Not saying I am not snarky at times, but if you are going to complain about others being rude, you might clean up your own act first.

 

He is only saying your are rude or snarky because you have totally repeatedly destroyed his incorrect arguments.

 

I suspect that is the case, though I will say that he does make some good points at times. While I can be snarky, I though I was being a good boy lately. Oh well....I'm definitely not losing sleep over it. It really does not affect me.

 

I mean, do you LIKE being proven wrong? Is it some sort of reward for you??

Page 238 (or page 17 in PDF world)

 

There will be partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans in Congress who will attempt to elicit information from Republican Mueller that serves their partisan purposes.

Miller seems fully capable of conducting himself in the interests of the nation, as an independent Special Counsel should do. I doubt he will feel the need to weasel out of testifying before either Senate or House hearings.

 

Which is why you have it under seal. If it's under seal, the president is technically not indicted. The person "Donald J Trump" is indicted. You unseal it when his presidency is over and BAM.

 

Mueller has done absolutely nothing that could possibly be considered outrageous. Your interpretation of his relationship with Rosenstein is both ridiculous and totally uninteresting. And, accusing him of not communicating more intermediate information directly to the people is preposterous. The investigation is supposed to be tight lipped, and that's how Mueller ran it.

Barr has lied to the American people and perjured himself before congress.

Again, under DoJ policy Mueller had no right to indict a sitting president. DoJ policy is that the way to hold a sitting president accountable is through impeachment. Why do you keep ignoring this fact? Mueller laid out his case for obstruction by identifying each element that must be proven. Under each element, he itemized the proof. That is available to congress for impeachment or to the DoJ after the president leaves office.

You keep ignoring this point - why?

 

Poor argument. He could have outlined any charge without indicting. He didn’t.