you were wrong a month ago and you are still wrong today
whatever helps you sleep at night
The only people crying today are still with her
you were wrong a month ago and you are still wrong today
but the COURT
will make that call
this is barr & rosensteins treason play
the court will rule on whether those two comrades-
or congress
makes that call
Come on-- what other reason would there be to fire Mueller other than obstructing justice?
Intent is an element; a predicate offense is not. So, no.
T
O
T
A
L
E
X
O
N
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
He was fired?
vy65 and spurraider21 --- thoughts on this thread from another lawyer that trying obstruction under 1512 as Mueller attempted is legally dubious
Pretty tough to argue against the above.
i stand by what i said a month ago
PM yourself, no one here gives a .
Yeah that’s where I’m confused
So the evidence supporting Barr's decision is....
Barr's memo.
only you are to blame for being gullible
please drink the poison upon trumps order and
MAGA!!!
crofl
im not going to pretend to have read through the full report. have read mostly the executive summaries and select portions. the part about mcgahn in the obstruction report reads almost comically tbh... its hard to explain that away.
my favorite part, just for comedic purposes:
"The President also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special COunsel's Office investigators that the President had told him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn responded that he had to and that his conversations with the President were not protected by attorney-client privilege. The President then asked, 'What about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes.' McGan responded that he keeps notes because he is a 'real lawyer' and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing. The President said, 'I've had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes.'"
Exhibit A right here.
the most interesting part of this, legally speaking, is the long discussion that begins on page 159 of vol 2, or page 371 of the PDF... talking about whether or not a president CAN commit obstruction.
"But counsel has made a categorical argument that 'the President's exercise of his cons utional authority here to terminate an FBI Director and to close investigations cannot cons utionally cons ute obstruction of justice.'
In analyzing counsel's statutory arguments, we concluded that the President's proposed interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2) is contrary to the litigating position of the Department of Justice and is not supported by principles of statutory construction.
As for the cons utional arguments, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these cons utional issues. We therefore analyzed the President's position through the framework of Supreme Court precedent addressing the separation of powers. Under that framework, we concluded, Article II of the Cons ution does not categorically and permanently immunize the President from potential liability for the conduct that was investigated. Rather, our analysis led us to conclude that the obstruction-of-justice statues can validly prohibit a President's corrupt efforts to use his official powers to curtail, end, or interfere with an investigation."
then goes on to explain each of those conclusions in great detail
Last edited by spurraider21; 04-18-2019 at 03:17 PM.
oddly enough, the obstruction section reads quite a bit like comey's presser on hillary's emails...
here's a list of all the things he did, but ultimately we couldn't prove intent (in part because he was not found to have committed the underlying crime). they also acknowledged early on that they agreed that they can't indict a sitting president.
Last edited by spurraider21; 04-18-2019 at 01:25 PM.
Do you know what a circuit split is?
i dont believe mueller landed there
barr did - not mueller
mueller landed on congress being the deciding authority
And for the record, we went from "No Collusion, No Obstruction," to a Twitter memo on what an official proceeding is under one of several statutes cited in the Report.
Rather than a coniption fit of tweets, here's what substantive legal analysis looks like:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/does-fbi...es-closer-look
"Trump may have been saved from an obstruction of justice charge by his own aides’ refusal to follow his orders. “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surround the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” Mueller wrote."
So he tried to obstruct justice, but no one would help him. Lmao.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)