Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Trump vs. Mueller investigation?

257 posts in this topic

 
@SethAbramson - The real challenge?

A legal system that is by necessity & history slow, deliberate, evidentiary & fact based,

up against a tweet driven world that is fast, instant, often lacking in facts.

Resultant headlines driven by latter?

 

-This is all that people will see

:wacko:

D2nxYT0VAAA9i5N.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Critical Part of Mueller’s Report That Barr Didn’t Mention

The special counsel’s most interesting findings about Trump and Russia might be in his report’s narrative description of key relationships.

 

"....A counterintelligence probe, he added, would ask more than whether the evidence collected is sufficient to obtain a criminal conviction—it could provide necessary information to the public about why the president is making certain policy decisions. “The American people rightly should expect more from their public servants than merely avoiding criminal liability,” Kris said.

A spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee said in a statement on Monday that in light of Barr’s memo “and our need to understand Special Counsel Mueller’s areas of inquiry and evidence his office uncovered, we are working in parallel with other Committees to bring in senior officials from the DOJ, FBI and SCO to ensure that our Committee is fully and currently informed about the SCO’s investigation, including all counterintelligence information.”.......

 

to envision how a counterintelligence investigation targeting the president himself would have played out. “Normally, the bureau would investigate, and if criminal matters were involved, they’d ask prosecutors to get involved,” he said. “But if it is just a matter of there being a national-security threat, the FBI would report to the director of national intelligence, who would then report to the president. But what if the president is the threat? We don’t have a playbook for this.”

Generally speaking, the wide aperture afforded by a counterintelligence investigation might be key to understanding some of the biggest lingering mysteries of the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russians in 2016—mysteries that, if solved, could explain the president’s continued deference toward Russian President Vladimir Putin and skepticism about his conduct on the part of the U.S. intelligence community......

 

“This thing started as a counterintelligence investigation,” Figliuzzi said, “and it needs to end as a counterintelligence investigation.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/barrs-summary-omits-key-aspect-muellers-report/585703/

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy, collusion, obstruction: What Mueller's probe has told us so far

"....But a vast story of conspiracy, possible collusion and obstruction has been told in documents that have emerged from the probe,

particularly court filings in Mueller's indictment of 34 individuals and convictions of five former Trump associates.

 

Here's what we have learned up until now:

https://www.france24.com/en/20190323-conspiracy-collusion-what-muellers-probe-has-told-us-so-far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric HolderVerified account @EricHolder 1h1 hour ago

 
 

The conduct of AG Barr over the last few weeks and in the hearing today has been shown to be unacceptable.

I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people.

 

I was very wrong. He is protecting the President.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seth AbramsonVerified account @SethAbramson 22m22 minutes ago

 
 

As Barr testified about Trump and Flynn receiving *classified intelligence* on *August 17, 2016* about the Russian attack on America,

a briefing that's among the most important events in the Trump-Russia timeline,

Barr was literally *waving his hand* to indicate it didn't matter........

Seth AbramsonVerified account @SethAbramson 14m14 minutes ago

 
 

6/ I don't know what has to happen for media to start covering this

—the ISSUE is national security; the standard of proof is PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE;

the remedy is IMPEACHMENT;

the core facts on the issue are largely being WITHHELD from us. This is the top story in America.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamala HarrisVerified account @SenKamalaHarris

 

No prosecutor worth their salt would make a decision about whether the President of the United States obstructed justice without reviewing the evidence.

Attorney General Barr lacks all credibility.

=======================================

David AxelrodVerified account @davidaxelrod 2h2 hours ago

 
 

.@KamalaHarris elicited what seemed to me to be a pretty astonishing admission from Barr

that neither he nor Rosenstein or their staffs examined the underlying evidence gathered by the special counsel

before deciding the president would not be charged for obstruction.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natasha BertrandVerified account @NatashaBertrand

 

Something I'm hearing from lots of former DOJ/FBI folks tonight is just how rare & significant it is for a DOJ official, especially an institutionalist like Mueller, to "go to paper" like this.

"We are conditioned not to" do that, Chuck Rosenberg told me.

==========================================

Mueller complained to Barr about Russia report memo

‘This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel,’ the letter said.

Special counsel Robert Mueller wrote a letter to Attorney General William Barr last month complaining that a four-page memo Barr wrote characterizing Mueller’s findings “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the Russia investigation, two senior Justice Department officials confirmed to POLITICO on Tuesday.

Mueller sent the letter to Barr on March 27, three days after Barr issued his four-page summary,

and cited “public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.”

 

“This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel:

to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations,” Mueller wrote.......

 

it was “very rare“ for Justice Department officials to put anything in writing, as Mueller did.

“We are conditioned not to ‘go to paper,‘” Rosenberg said. “And the idea behind that is that we‘re all part of the same department and we‘re not trying to corner each other....."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/30/robert-mueller-william-barr-report-1295269

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

" The hearing, which was set to examine Barr's handling of special counsel Robert Mueller's report, would have included an extra hour to allow committee lawyers to question the attorney general. The Justice Department has argued it would be inappropriate for staffers to participate in the questioning. ......

 

“I think there are great difficulties with the attorney general at this point. He seems — besides the fact that he clearly misled the American people, he seems to have testified non-truthfully to the Senate and to the House, which raises major questions,” Nadler said Wednesday.

The revelation about Mueller’s letter prompted even more Democratic lawmakers to call for Barr’s resignation, including some Judiciary Committee members in addition to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/barr-testimony-house-democrats-1296377

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William Barr misled Congress about Mueller's report. He must resign as attorney general.

America deserves nothing less than objectively, neutrality, honesty and integrity from our top law enforcement official.

 

.... He has diminished the office with his partisanship, and the American public simply cannot have faith that he will fairly and impartially oversee any of the criminal and civil investigations regarding President Donald Trump that may be in the Justice Department's pipeline. ......

Barr has over and over during this process deceived the American public. Mueller reportedly told Barr he should release his executive summaries to the public, which makes sense given that these summaries contain almost no redactions — clearly they were written so they could be widely distributed and read. After Mueller said this, however, Barr testified before Congress. He could have used this opportunity to be honest about the differences in opinion between himself and the special counsel. Instead he said nothing. In fact, he went one step further and misled Congress and the American people. .....

 

We should expect and demand objectively, neutrality, honesty and integrity from our top law enforcement official. What Mueller was concerned with — ensuring public faith in his report and the investigation — has been severely diminished.

And now our faith in ongoing investigations, as well as ongoing litigation involving the president in which Department of Justice is involved, is also at risk."

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/william-barr-lied-congress-about-mueller-s-report-he-must-ncna1000881?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

 
 
 
 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

READ: White House counsel Flood's letter to Barr on Mueller report

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/white-house-letter-to-ag-barr/index.html

==================================

Deadline White HouseVerified account @DeadlineWH 3h3 hours ago

 
 

“It looks like the soul on today's menu belongs to WH lawyer Emmet Flood.

Flood… has slammed Mueller... The former Director of the FBI, a former Marine

... Who stood silent as Flood's boss, the president, maligned his integrity for 22 months” - @NicolleDWallace

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2019 at 4:32 PM, mr6666 said:

Eric HolderVerified account @EricHolder 1h1 hour ago

 
 

The conduct of AG Barr over the last few weeks and in the hearing today has been shown to be unacceptable.

I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people.

 

I was very wrong. He is protecting the President.

Just as Holder sided with Obama.

On 5/1/2019 at 4:35 PM, mr6666 said:

Jared Yates SextonVerified account @JYSexton 19h19 hours ago

 
 

So. Just to clarify.

A Republican prosecutor laid out a list of obstructions.

The Attorney General lied to obstruct justice.

The President is telling people to disobey subpoenas

and suing to keep sketchy bank records private.

<_<

 
 
 
 
 
 

Part of the American justice system.  

On 5/1/2019 at 4:42 PM, mr6666 said:

Kamala HarrisVerified account @SenKamalaHarris

 

No prosecutor worth their salt would make a decision about whether the President of the United States obstructed justice without reviewing the evidence.

Attorney General Barr lacks all credibility.

=======================================

David AxelrodVerified account @davidaxelrod 2h2 hours ago

 
 

.@KamalaHarris elicited what seemed to me to be a pretty astonishing admission from Barr

that neither he nor Rosenstein or their staffs examined the underlying evidence gathered by the special counsel

before deciding the president would not be charged for obstruction.

And we know Harris failed to look deeply into many of the cases her office prosecuted when she was a prosecutor and AG in CA.  She is running for president and not doing well in the polls.  Also, they trusted Mueller to spell out what he thought.  Mueller should have listed on page one that he thought Trump (or others) should be prosecuted for A,B,C, etc. and why.  Then explained why he did not do it himself.

On 5/1/2019 at 6:12 PM, mr6666 said:

After undergoing the grilling by Dem presidential candidates at Senate hearings, do you blame him?  He said he would not testify because Nadler insisted on letting staff attorneys question him.  If all the members of the Judiciary Committee (many of them attorneys) couldn't come up with enough questions, why should staff lawyers be allowed to question Barr?  Also, staff attorneys do not normally question witnesses at Congressional hearings.

On 5/1/2019 at 6:28 PM, mr6666 said:

TheBeat w/Ari MelberVerified account @TheBeatWithAri 24m24 minutes ago

 
 

NEW: House Judiciary Chair @RepJerryNadler

"The next step is seeking a contempt citation against the Attorney General" if he refuses to comply with subpoena

Past history indicates that a contempt citation from a Congressional hearing will play out for years in the federal courts.  Trump will already be re-elected and probably have a new AG by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

Just as Holder sided with Obama.

Part of the American justice system.  

And we know Harris failed to look deeply into many of the cases her office prosecuted when she was a prosecutor and AG in CA.  She is running for president and not doing well in the polls.  Also, they trusted Mueller to spell out what he thought.  Mueller should have listed on page one that he thought Trump (or others) should be prosecuted for A,B,C, etc. and why.  Then explained why he did not do it himself.

After undergoing the grilling by Dem presidential candidates at Senate hearings, do you blame him?  He said he would not testify because Nadler insisted on letting staff attorneys question him.  If all the members of the Judiciary Committee (many of them attorneys) couldn't come up with enough questions, why should staff lawyers be allowed to question Barr?  Also, staff attorneys do not normally question witnesses at Congressional hearings.

Past history indicates that a contempt citation from a Congressional hearing will play out for years in the federal courts.  Trump will already be re-elected and probably have a new AG by then.

The reason for this set-up is that Barr, and other Trump appointee's, have mastered the technique of stonewalling and obfuscating to run out the 5 minutes of each committee member.  Staff lawyers would have more time to elicit answers and ask follow-up questions.  Obviously Barr and the WH don't want this extra time giving him more than enough rope.

Whether contempt or impeachment are exercises in futility or running out the clock should not play in whether to do these things.  Despite Trump's, the GOP Senate's and the AG's intentions, this is still a nation of laws and separation of powers.  We cannot go down this rabbit hole and allow this executive lawlessness and its enablers go unchecked.  They need to be help accountable, or at least, attempt to do this.  Let it play out in the open, whatever the results or however long it takes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arturo said:

The reason for this set-up is that Barr, and other Trump appointee's, have mastered the technique of stonewalling and obfuscating to run out the 5 minutes of each committee member.  Staff lawyers would have more time to elicit answers and ask follow-up questions.  Obviously Barr and the WH don't want this extra time giving him more than enough rope.

Whether contempt or impeachment are exercises in futility or running out the clock should not play in whether to do these things.  Despite Trump's, the GOP Senate's and the AG's intentions, this is still a nation of laws and separation of powers.  We cannot go down this rabbit hole and allow this executive lawlessness and its enablers go unchecked.  They need to be help accountable, or at least, attempt to do this.  Let it play out in the open, whatever the results or however long it takes.

Based on my research staff attorneys have never questioned witnesses during hearings of this type. It has only been done for impeachment hearings.  Who established the five minute rule limiting members questioning?  Also, I am sure the staff attorneys sitting behind the Dem members could feed them questions and follow-up questions.

This is "a nation of laws and separation of powers."  But, the AG does not work for Congress, he works for the president-separation of powers. Congress does have oversight to check and balance the executive, but it is a very gray area.

"executive lawlessness and its enablers go unchecked"  There is still no evidence of lawlessness as contained in the Constitution.  If there was, Mueller should have stated that clearly in his report and he didn't.

I am not opposed to hearings, but the Dems are playing into the hands of the Republicans by their current methodology.  They will hand the 2020 election to Trump.  They need to have the hearings, get what information they can, issue whatever subpoenas they wish and stay the hell off the news shows.

It would also help if the news shows such as MSNBC and CNN would actually go back to reporting news.  Now they have 24/7 Mueller report coverage.  Every anchor has to cover it for their entire show almost.  When was the last time they actually reported what is happening in the rest of the nation and the world?  Almost none since Trump was elected.

I wish Trump and his enablers and the current crop of GOPers were gone, but the Dems are making a mistake.

Incidentally, the House Dems can impeach Barr if they so desire, so why don't they?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

Based on my research staff attorneys have never questioned witnesses during hearings of this type. It has only been done for impeachment hearings.  Who established the five minute rule limiting members questioning?  Also, I am sure the staff attorneys sitting behind the Dem members could feed them questions and follow-up questions.

This is "a nation of laws and separation of powers."  But, the AG does not work for Congress, he works for the president-separation of powers. Congress does have oversight to check and balance the executive, but it is a very gray area.

"executive lawlessness and its enablers go unchecked"  There is still no evidence of lawlessness as contained in the Constitution.  If there was, Mueller should have stated that clearly in his report and he didn't.

I am not opposed to hearings, but the Dems are playing into the hands of the Republicans by their current methodology.  They will hand the 2020 election to Trump.  They need to have the hearings, get what information they can, issue whatever subpoenas they wish and stay the hell off the news shows.

It would also help if the news shows such as MSNBC and CNN would actually go back to reporting news.  Now they have 24/7 Mueller report coverage.  Every anchor has to cover it for their entire show almost.  When was the last time they actually reported what is happening in the rest of the nation and the world?  Almost none since Trump was elected.

I wish Trump and his enablers and the current crop of GOPers were gone, but the Dems are making a mistake.

Incidentally, the House Dems can impeach Barr if they so desire, so why don't they?

Actually, a lawyer was recently used to question Christine Blasey Ford, re. her allegations against Brent Kavanaugh.  Republicans chose this set-up.  I have also seen footage of other staff lawyers, going back to the 1950s, used in this type of hearing.  Not just in impeachment hearings.

The AG does not "work for" the president; he works for the American people.  At least that is supposed to be the case.  This one is only there working on behalf of protecting Donald Trump, apparently.

 

The lawlessness I mention isn't just what may be in the Mueller Report, but in all aspects of Trump, his presidency and his associates.  Again, my concern is accountability and the rule of law.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Arturo said:

The lawlessness I mention isn't just what may be in the Mueller Report, but in all aspects of Trump, his presidency and his associates.  Again, my concern is accountability and the rule of law.

I think one thing we've learned from this presidency is how many things that were left as understandings, but not actually spelled out in law, need to be set in stone. There is a need for clearly drawn lines in regards to ethics and legalities, as so many steps have been taken that weren't even considered before, as people assumed that no one would ever stoop to such things, be it various conflicts-of-interest issues (foreign governments paying for use of Trump's private businesses while also seeking government favor), hampering government function via appointment of "acting" directors rather than permanent ones or just leaving positions empty, instructing functionaries to ignore congressional oversight, etc. The list is a mile long. And to dismiss it all because "Mueller found no Russian collusion" is ridiculous, yet it seems to have convinced some people.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheCid said:

Based on my research staff attorneys have never questioned witnesses during hearings of this type. It has only been done for impeachment hearings.  Who established the five minute rule limiting members questioning?  Also, I am sure the staff attorneys sitting behind the Dem members could feed them questions and follow-up questions.

 

Someone on CNN tonight rattled off a list of examples where attorneys were brought in for questioning witnesses in Congress including Bobby Kennedy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Arturo said:

Actually, a lawyer was recently used to question Christine Blasey Ford, re. her allegations against Brent Kavanaugh.  Republicans chose this set-up.  I have also seen footage of other staff lawyers, going back to the 1950s, used in this type of hearing.  Not just in impeachment hearings.

The AG does not "work for" the president; he works for the American people.  At least that is supposed to be the case.  This one is only there working on behalf of protecting Donald Trump, apparently.

 

The lawlessness I mention isn't just what may be in the Mueller Report, but in all aspects of Trump, his presidency and his associates.  Again, my concern is accountability and the rule of law.

The AG is part of the Executive branch and therefore works for the president.  He nominates the AG and can fire the AG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us