Mueller vs Barr round 1

[Chris]

[Brazil]

I'm not following all this mess in detail but I understood so far, correct me if I'm wrong:

- Trump and his closest collaborators spent their time lying on all topics all the time
- Trump and his entourage tried hard to obstruct justice but failed
- There is not enough substantial evidence to demonstrate that Trump campaign colluded with Russia.. does not mean they did not try

not sure by what magic trumpards can brag about that outcome but this is, I guess, the society we live on... if they don't catch you, you are an hero.. mind blowing. It's like worshipping Al Capone because he has never been caught for his criminal activities.. trump will maybe fall for tax reasons too..

[Chris]

"I'm not following" + lots of emojis really drives the point home

[Chris]

[Brazil]

"I'm not following" + lots of emojis really drives the point home

in detail

did I write something incorrect ?

[Winehole23]

Chris is a hand waver. He doesn't do in detail replies.

That's probably wise. Qhen he descends to details he routinely gets rekt.

[Chris]

[Brazil]

Chris is a hand waver. He doesn't do in detail replies.

That's probably wise. Qhen he descends to details he routinely gets rekt.

well in that particular case it's not a lot of details tbh.. just 3 generic statements.. I guess it's already too much for a dude who cannot do some simple math... 14%

[Chris]

[koriwhat]

awesome

how did west hollywood react to your tats?

lololol

didn't hang in west hollywood... but everyone is tattooed out there and didn't give 1 about a couple of spurs tbh. i met plenty of decent people out there minus one dumb #### that shares the same extreme side of the pol spectrum as yourself although she wasn't so political and more bitter than anything. that dumb ####!

[RandomGuy]

I'm not following all this mess in detail but I understood so far, correct me if I'm wrong:

- Trump and his closest collaborators spent their time lying on all topics all the time
- Trump and his entourage tried hard to obstruct justice but failed
- There is not enough substantial evidence to demonstrate that Trump campaign colluded with Russia.. does not mean they did not try

not sure by what magic trumpards can brag about that outcome but this is, I guess, the society we live on... if they don't catch you, you are an hero.. mind blowing. It's like worshipping Al Capone because he has never been caught for his criminal activities.. trump will maybe fall for tax reasons too..

You can be guilty of obstruction of justice even if you don't succeed. It is the very act of attempting that is the crime, regardless of any ultimate efficacy, which in this case was prevented by principled people, and amusingly, sheer incompetence on the part of Trump.

[CosmicCowboy]

You can be guilty of obstruction of justice even if you don't succeed. It is the very act of attempting that is the crime, regardless of any ultimate efficacy, which in this case was prevented by principled people, and amusingly, sheer incompetence on the part of Trump.

Well, you keep saying that. So do you want the House to impeach him for obstruction?

[vy65]

It’s never a prosecutor’s job to exonerate someone, that was my point.

Is he a prosecutor, or something else?

[vy65]

imo this is probably one of the more important legal passages in the entire report...mueller straight up said that because they are not allowed to indict a sitting president, that they were also not allowed to formally reach a conclusion that he committed a crime. so the report was never a question of "is trump guilty or not guilty" but rather, does the report exonerate trump or does it not exonerate trump. sure, its not the same legal standard as our criminal system (innocent until proven guilty), but given that they cannot bring trump into the criminal realm (due to potential cons utional limitations), that standard is inapplicable.

In line with what my nig Nono said and the CFR

(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

That the statute distinguishes between the grant of jurisdiction to create a "specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated" while also explicitly providing prosecutorial power for obstruction of the special counsel's work makes your point too: Mueller didn't have prosecutorial power vis-a-vis the President, unless Trump obstructed Mueller's work.

[Reck]

Looks like I’ll have to dunce this down for you.

Is underlying evidence and a legal theory the same thing? Yes or no.

What are you on about now?

Were you not prematurely celebrating the Mueller report saying how Mueller and Barr tag teamed this and how on the same page they were? Yes or no?

[Chris]

If Mueller wanted to pursue obstruction, he could have done so. He didn't. Instead, he abdicated. You have to have specific intent to obstruct justice. As a matter of law POTUS can direct the termination or replacement of a special counsel. The obstruction statute does not reach that conduct. Theoretically if it reached that conduct could you then establish corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt? If POTUS knew that the allegations were false and he was being falsely accused which is now backed up by evidence, then that is not considered corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel.

[TSA]

What are you on about now?

Were you not prematurely celebrating the Mueller report saying how Mueller and Barr tag teamed this and how on the same page they were? Yes or no?

I’m not on about anything different than what I started on. Is underlying evidence and a legal theory the same thing? Yes or no.

[Pavlov]

If Mueller wanted to pursue obstruction, he could have done so.

lol no

[CosmicCowboy]

lol no

See post 217 and definition of the special prosecutor statute.

[Pavlov]

See post 217 and definition of the special prosecutor statute.

I did.

[spurraider21]

In line with what my nig Nono said and the CFR



That the statute distinguishes between the grant of jurisdiction to create a "specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated" while also explicitly providing prosecutorial power for obstruction of the special counsel's work makes your point too: Mueller didn't have prosecutorial power vis-a-vis the President, unless Trump obstructed Mueller's work.

See post 217 and definition of the special prosecutor statute.

theres no doubt that he could pursue obstruction of justice claims... but he lacks authority to indict a sitting president

[CosmicCowboy]

theres no doubt that he could pursue obstruction of justice claims... but he lacks authority to indict a sitting president

Unless he (president trump) "obstructed his work" seemed pretty specific.

[spurraider21]

Good thing Trump has Barr to protect him

yeah cause that's the AG's role

[spurraider21]

Unless he (president trump) "obstructed his work" seemed pretty specific.

he could go after anybody who obstructs the investigation... thats not limited to trump

but generally speaking, the DOJ rule is that you cannot indict a sitting president

[Chris]

yeah cause that's the AG's role

I was being facetious. See post #168 for clarification, or just try to keep up.