The Four Loopholes Barr Used to Protect Trump
1. “Illegally participated.”
Notice the shift in Barr’s language. He starts by talking about whether anyone affiliated with Trump “encouraged or otherwise played a role” in the dissemination. But Barr doesn’t answer that question. Instead, he shifts to a different question: whether any Trump affiliates “illegally participated” in the dissemination. The answer, he says, is no, because WikiLeaks’ publication of the hacked material isn’t criminal. This distinction protects Roger Stone, a Trump campaign associate who colluded with WikiLeaks to promote the distribution of the hacked emails.
2. “Conspiracy to violate U.S. law.”
This paragraph covers the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between leaders of the Trump campaign and Russian intermediaries who had explicitly, as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” offered to give Donald Trump Jr. “official do ents and information that would incriminate Hillary … and would be very useful to your father.” This meeting meets the layman’s definition of collusion. But under Barr’s analysis, and ostensibly Mueller’s, it doesn’t cons ute a “conspiracy to violate U.S. law.”
3. “Illegally interfere.”
Barr concluded, the investigation “confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.” Here, Barr introduces the word collusion in order to deny that Trump or any of his associates engaged in it. Until this point, Barr carefully used the word conspiracy in order to shield the Trump campaign from culpability for its collusions. But now he shifts to collusion in order to create an appearance that Trump and his associates have been fully exonerated. And to make this claim technically accurate, he inserts the phrase “illegally interfere,” which excludes the Trump Tower meeting and the Stone-WikiLeaks contacts from consideration.
4. “No collusion.”
Having shuffled between conspiracy and collusion in order generate an impression that no collusion occurred, Barr then used that claim to argue that Trump’s attempts to obstruct the investigation weren’t obstruction of justice. Trump had a “sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency,” said Barr—never mind that the same could have been said of President Richard Nixon’s Watergate cover-up—and, as Trump “said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion.” Given the absence of collusion, according to Barr, Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation weren’t criminal. This sleight of hand insulates Trump against the argument that the offenses whose discovery he tried to prevent were, if not prosecutable, impeachable.
Barr auditioned for his job by writing a memo outlining how to protect Trump from the investigation.
As attorney general, he has used his position to fulfill that mission.
He’s a clever lawyer, and
his efforts to shield the president pay close attention to legal distinctions.
That does not, however, make them honest.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ect-trump.html
For what it's worth, I don't think the cases on intent will be all that applicable to a politician who can have a motive (votes, pandering to his cons uency, etc...) to impede a proceeding other than avoiding liability for the predicate offense. I doubt that situation comes up often in the case law.
nah.
mueller acknowledged early on that the DOJ cant indict a sitting president:
"The Office of Legal Counsle (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impoermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its cons utionally assigned functions' in violation of 'the cons utional separation of powers.' Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations . . . this office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."
and then later in the summary, "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
they talk quite a bit about his intent, and how the lack of finding of an underlying crime is a significant factor in proving intent... as well as the complication that it becomes fairly gray when determining if a particular action was done in the scope of presidential authority vs purely for corrupt purposes. it may lean one way or another, but a criminal conviction would require it to go "beyond a reasonable doubt"
No one here is even discussing collusionIt’s too embarrassing for them to even utter the words after the report was released.
And the statue being discussed on obstruction was specifically named in Mueller’s report
So is an FBI investigation an official proceeding? Yes or no.
If yes, back it with proof.
If no, is trying obstruction under 1512 DOA?
true. the underlying crime is a factor, but not determinative. political posturing to improve your chances of re-election would certainly be considered a corrupt motive
Last edited by spurraider21; 04-18-2019 at 01:39 PM.
NO UNDERCOVER HUBER SAID FBI INVESTIGATIONS CAN BE OBSTRUCTED BY ANYONE FOR ANY REASON WITHOUT PENALTY
I haven’t even read it yet but you do know that Benjamin Wittes is one of James Comey’s good friends that is constantly running cover for him from lawfareblog right?
No one here is even discussing collusion
The hallmark of every great piece of legal analysis is three red police light emojis ...
Fascinating. Please identify the problems in his analysis on the applicable statutes when you get a chance.
You really have no idea what a circuit split is.
Good point.
Question: Who is Undercover Huber?
Question should be simple to answer than. Is an FBI investigation an official proceeding? Yes or no.
If yes support with proof.
there was a two year investigation into collusion. the special counsel's report was less than conclusory in that respect...No one here is even discussing collusion
"The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information - such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media - in light of internal Department of Justice policies . . . Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was preemptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on it s ability to access relevant evidence as well - numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and do etns wre held outside the United States.
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated - including some associated with the Trump Campaign - deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of date or communication records. In such cases, the Office was not able toe corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about the statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."
I answered. You don't realize that because you don't know what a circuit split is.
well if we knew that, he wouldn't be undercover
Do you need it broken up into anonymous tweets, sweetie?
Questions for Mueller when he testifies;
1) how did you arrive at the decision to end your investigation?
2) who played a part in that decision?
3) you have a subject who has lied over 9000 times- why on earth would you decline to compel him to testify?
How can you possibly deny that this was not a political decision? Was this solely your decision? Why would perjury from this subject NOT compel YOU to compel testimony?
4) you stated that trumps testimony would delay the investigation-why was this a factor? Why were you in a rush to conclude?
5) several trump admin officials refused to answer questions under oath in congressional testimony- claiming that the white house restricted them from answering - without asserting exec privilege - did you compel this testimony?
6) did you investigate trump jrs perjury to congress? Why not?
more later
So let's recap:
TOTAL EXONERATION --> "This report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
No Obstruction because no collusion --> don't need a predicate offense for obstruction.
FBI Investigation doesn't qualify --> TSA don't know what a circuit split is.
But yeah, Hillary tho ...
Also, be sure to only read sources who consistently, unwaveringly, and anonymously shill for the most powerful man in the country. Be skeptical of anyone else.
Got around to reading it and thanks for posting very informative
So it’s an impeachment referral, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
