Mueller Investigation pt 6

[smartcooky]

Didn't we already establish that Judicial Watch is a far-right-wing cross-eyed hysterical source which has been rated among the worst of the tabloid trash for veracity?

Yep, please check out the edit in my previous post.

 

[Minoosh]

Well, according to Mueller's letter, Barr's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions."

According to the DOJ spokesperson, who is presumably taking Barr's word for the nature of the phone call, Mueller didn't think the summary was inaccurate.

Either Mueller changed his mind or the DOJ spokesperson is not accurately representing Mueller's views, because I don't believe that a summary can simultaneously be accurate while misrepresenting the report's conclusions.

Yeah. It's as clear as ... mud.

... the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis.

Is Mueller trying to have it both ways here? Lack of context can clearly be misleading. Or perhaps the sources at Justice are mischaracterizating the letter and/or phone call.

I believe Barr is grasping the nature of his dilemma. If he stonewalls, he could also be construed as trying to obstruct justice. But if he releases the less-redacted report, Trump's will viciously attack him. He's in a no-win situation.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Barr: "If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents, and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel."

 

[phiwum]

Warren'sHarris' exchange with Barr was quite something.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/will...tical-opponents_n_5cc9f478e4b0d123954da424?sl

You'd think she'd know the difference between "implied" and "inferred", but I guess we all misspeak on occasions.

 

[Horatius]

Barr: "If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents, and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel."

"If the president is being falsely accused"

See, this right there is the problem.

It's possible to obstruct justice, even if you are not personally accused of something.

He knew that other people were doing some shady ****, and used his position to provide cover for them. That's a crime, even if he himself wasn't involved in the shady ****.

 

[phiwum]

Special pleading.

What the hell does that mean in this context?

 

[smartcooky]

Barr: "If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents, and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel."

This is just Barr trying to impose his own personal stance on what constitutes obstruction of justice... its exactly what he claimed in the unsolicited memo he wrote as an application for the AG's job. He thinks that a president can only obstruct justice if he has done something illegal, is doing so to protect himself, and if he actually succeeds. This is a position that is unique to Barr; it is wrong and it is not what the statute says.

If the President tries to obstruct justice, and fails, THAT is still obstruction of justice. (Barr thinks it isn't)

If the president has not actually done what he is being investigated for, but tries to shut down an investigation to prevent the revelation of other criminal acts, THAT is obstruction of justice. (Barr thinks it isn't)

If the president tries to shut down an investigation because he thinks it might implicate other people (his family, for example) in criminal acts, THAT is obstruction of justice. (Barr thinks it isn't)

ETA: These are all ideas that Barr has essentially pulled out of his arse in order to first, audition for the job of protecting Trump, and second, to protect Trump once he got the job. They bear no resemblance in any obstruction of justice case that has been before the court, and have no precedent either.

 

[Minoosh]

Yeah. It's as clear as ... mud.

Oops . Obviously I was not caught up in my last post, because I didn't know the letter had been posted here.

Can the unredacted report be far behind?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

One thing to note:

When Mueller wrote his letter to Barr, he already expected to be called to testify to Congress at some point. And he expected that the letter might become public.
It seems pretty clear to me that Mueller wrote the letter as a list of topics he thinks Committee members should ask him about.

 

[Cabbage]

What the hell does that mean in this context?

I've noticed it seems to be his "Go To" whine when he doesn't have any better response.

 

[Stacko]

Barr has decided he’d just as soon not appear before Congress tomorrow.

Subpoena next?

He can't stand a portion of the scrutiny Christine Blasey Ford went through? He might want to study up on John Mitchell.

 

[Bob001]

In an interview with Rachel Maddow tonight, Hillary Clinton posits this (paraphrasing):

"Suppose a Democratic candidate for President came on your show and said 'Hey, China, Russia is helping the Republicans. How 'bout you guys giving us a hand? If you could get your hands on Trump's tax returns, I'm sure you'd be richly rewarded. And it would be great if you'd help us get out the vote for our side across the country.' Etc."

Her point, of course, is that if there's nothing wrong with anything the Trump crowd did -- and his Attorney General says there isn't -- then there's nothing to prevent the Democrats from doing the same thing. And that's crazy.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...at-the-russians-were-successful-1515955267847

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I listened to most of the hearing today while driving, wanted to hear new and interesting info, not Senators grandstanding for the most unaware of their constituents... thought Hirono was guilty of that, cringe-worthy for me.

Vox had a different POV about Hirono.

Winner: Mazie Hirono

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) stood out by not pulling any punches during her questioning time. She immediately laid into Barr, saying “the American people know you are no different from Rudy Giuliani or Kellyanne Conway, or any of the other people who sacrificed their once decent reputations for the liar and grifter who sits in the Oval Office.”

Hirono then called on Barr to resign.

I gotta say, what she said was true.

Edited to add: Colbert replayed both Hirono and Harris in his monologue tonight.

 

[Craig4]

Barr: "If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents, and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel."

But that's not the case here. You all hear that from Trump supporters. It would have to come from some untrained by the Trump presumption of dishonesty to have value.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Mueller's entire letter to Barr

I think, given this and Barr's subsequent testimony to Congress that he had no idea what Mueller thought of his characterisation of his summary, that very few people will honestly be able to say that Barr wasn't deliberately misleading the public.

 

[Belz...]

Mueller's entire letter to Barr

I think, given this and Barr's subsequent testimony to Congress that he had no idea what Mueller thought of his characterisation of his summary, that very few people will honestly be able to say that Barr wasn't deliberately misleading the public.

Oh, I think the sunk cost principle will allow quite a few people to do just that. Just not honestly.

 

[Aridas]

Vox had a different POV about Hirono.

Winner: Mazie Hirono
I gotta say, what she said was true.

Edited to add: Colbert replayed both Hirono and Harris in his monologue tonight.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of grandstanding, either. It has its place, but is far too often substituted for meaningful content and use of time. With that said, in this case, I would call it substantive and meaningful, though, so good job to Hirono.

 

[dasmiller]

Honestly, I'm not a fan of grandstanding, either. It has its place, but is far too often substituted for meaningful content and use of time. With that said, in this case, I would call it substantive and meaningful, though, so good job to Hirono.

I must respectfully disagree with you, Vox, and evidently a lot of others. While I generally agree with Hirono about Barr, I cannot support the grandstanding. It may make us feel self-righteous, but I don't think it actually accomplishes anything.

Barr was there so that we could learn more about the goings-on with the DOJ, the White House, and the various investigations. Instead, we heard Hirono's opinions.

Look at it this way: Did we learn more from Hirono's 5 minutes, or from Harris'?

IMO, we can learn a lot more from a non-answer than from a non-question.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Barr: "If the president is being falsely accused, which the evidence now suggests that the accusations against him were false, and he knew they were false, and he felt that this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents, and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel."

I know, right? That’s one for the ages.

Oh wait, you don’t mean you support that prolonged episode of horse flatulence?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I must respectfully disagree with you, Vox, and evidently a lot of others. While I generally agree with Hirono about Barr, I cannot support the grandstanding. It may make us feel self-righteous, but I don't think it actually accomplishes anything.

Barr was there so that we could learn more about the goings-on with the DOJ, the White House, and the various investigations. Instead, we heard Hirono's opinions.

Look at it this way: Did we learn more from Hirono's 5 minutes, or from Harris'?

IMO, we can learn a lot more from a non-answer than from a non-question.

Graham invited Barr to get pro-Trump talking points.
Nothing wrong with the Minority trying to get theirs.