Mueller vs Barr round 1

[spurraider21]

This doesn't seem well thought out to me. Where's the specific statutory text and an explanation of how Mueller's inconsistent actions. Note that he's pussyfooting around here by a) using the word seems -- you either violate a statute or you don't, you can't be half-pregnant and b) acknowledges that Mueller "followed the regulations" but somehow made a referral beyond the statute's contemplation. He's talking out of both ends of his mouth.

well he said that mueller followed regulations as to one aspect but not another.... dont think that was inconsisnent

[vy65]

well he said that mueller followed regulations as to one aspect but not another.... dont think that was inconsisnent

Not really. He said "Mueller’s action seems inconsistent with what the regulations tried to accomplish, which was to prevent extra-prosecutorial editorializing."

What the does that mean? Is an action that is *seemingly* inconsistent with the intent of the regulations a statutory violation? Where is he getting the notion that the statute is intended to prevent extra-prosecutorial editorializing? I took a quick look again: he's not citing anything for this claim; not the statute, or the legislative history, or anything. This is lazy and ty lawyering.

[vy65]

All of which is to say that Fat Harvard Prof doesn't really have a basis for claiming that anything that Mueller did was actually inconsistent with the CFR. Fat Harvard Prof just doesn't like certain things Mueller said and has invented an inconsistency out of whole cloth.

[spurraider21]

Not really. He said "Mueller’s action seems inconsistent with what the regulations tried to accomplish, which was to prevent extra-prosecutorial editorializing."

What the does that mean? Is an action that is *seemingly* inconsistent with the intent of the regulations a statutory violation? Where is he getting the notion that the statute is intended to prevent extra-prosecutorial editorializing? I took a quick look again: he's not citing anything for this claim; not the statute, or the legislative history, or anything. This is lazy and ty lawyering.

yeah i feel you. was just addressing in your post where you noted that he said that mueller both did and did not follow regulations... than in and of itself is not necessarily poor logic if he's talking about different things, which he was. he might have been bull ting one of those things, but its still logically sound

[vy65]

yeah i feel you. was just addressing in your post where you noted that he said that mueller both did and did not follow regulations... than in and of itself is not necessarily poor logic if he's talking about different things, which he was. he might have been bull ting one of those things, but its still logically sound

Fair point. I was a little sloppy there.

[TSA]

This doesn't seem well thought out to me. Where's the specific statutory text and an explanation of how Mueller's inconsistent actions. Note that he's pussyfooting around here by a) using the word seems -- you either violate a statute or you don't, you can't be half-pregnant and b) acknowledges that Mueller "followed the regulations" but somehow made a referral beyond the statute's contemplation. He's talking out of both ends of his mouth.



If this is all try, what's the point in writing the letter in the first place? Why was that necessary - other than to get out the claim that Barr/Rosenstein decided not to prosecute? Again, more talking out of both sides of one's mouth.



Blatantly dishonest. The SC statute contemplates that congress - not Justice - has ultimate decision making on whether or not there is a crime. See, 28 CFR 600.9 (AG notifies chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action ...). Again, for being a lawyer, Fat Harvard prof sure is afraid to talk about what the terms of the actual law says.



More dishonesty. Why is he getting out in front of the report with a letter saying Justice won't prosecute? Why didn't he just release the executive summaries prepared by Mueller? For someone who wants the Congress and American people to be the judges, why is he crafting opinion/saying anything at all?

I'll also leave this here. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/u...-excerpts.html

I actually wanted your thoughts on the three links I pulled from the Fat Harvard Prof's article relating Mueller's analysis concerning obstruction being legally wrong.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-...statement-rule

https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-...illing-effects

https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-...ke-care-clause

[vy65]

jesus christ

[vy65]

Initial thoughts are STCL is a stain law school with stain profs.

Also this: Josh is the founder and President of the Harlan Ins ute, the founder of FantasySCOTUS, the Internet’s Premier Supreme Court Fantasy League, and blogs at JoshBlackman.com.

[TSA]

Initial thoughts are STCL is a stain law school with stain profs.

Also this: Josh is the founder and President of the Harlan Ins ute, the founder of FantasySCOTUS, the Internet’s Premier Supreme Court Fantasy League, and blogs at JoshBlackman.com.

dude, I entertained an article you posted from Comey's BFF the least you could do is give it a quick glance.

[vy65]

dude, I entertained an article you posted from Comey's BFF the least you could do is give it a quick glance.

I stand by my initial thoughts ...

I'll review later

[TSA]

I stand by my initial thoughts ...

I'll review later