Fact Checked

[Wry Catcher]

Not that you deserve, or I'm obligated to do your homework, in the interests of other readers*, the following two links are provided.

The first is the entire "resume", the second a blown up and readable first page of the Resume. I'm sure there is somewhere on the Internet any easy to read copy, but I'm not inclined to respond to EAB's loaded questions, kindly or otherwise.

Document: William Barr Memo on Obstruction Investigation

https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/97d08tmqbk6p7gea/images/1-e2f41ba881.jpg


*readers seeking the truth.

You've done this several times now.
Why not just post this "resume" you refer to but will not post? The one where Barr says he will be Trump's "wing man", according to you. Or just keep tap dancing around the matter and go on ignore instead.
After all your chances I think it's just easier to place you on ignore. Poof! You are ignored.

LIsten up asshole, I can't help that your are too limited to comprehend an abstraction.

A concrete thinker, which you seem to be,

Concrete thinking is literal thinking that is focused on the physical world. It is the opposite of abstract thinking. People engaged in concrete thinking are focused on facts in the here and now, physical objects, and literal definitions. The term “concrete thinking” is, ironically, a metaphor (and a metaphor is a type of abstract thinking); concrete is a hard, physical substance and concrete thinking is focused on literal–and often physical–facts. A person who thinks only in concrete terms might think that the term “concrete thinking” means thinking literally about concrete.

The development of abstract thinking is a gradual one, with children first understanding abstract concepts such as emotion and then being able to understand more challenging abstract ideas such as theoretical math, metaphors, and philosophical concepts. Recent research indicates that most animals tend to think in highly concrete terms, though some highly intelligent primates can master abstract concepts, object permanence, and may develop a theory of mind.

Is why you are frustrated by nuanced, metaphors and abstractions expressions.

 

[Olde Europe]

LIsten up asshole, I can't help that your are too limited to comprehend an abstraction.

Made me chuckle, that one.

This has nothing to do with "abstraction." Refusing to understand that by sending in an unsolicited paper - claiming in essence that the president, short of killing a witness to his crimes, cannot obstruct justice - Barr promised to be the president's wing man, is not a case of your argument being too abstract. It's too true to handle for your interlocutor.

 

[Crixus]

Okay, here is my take, and kind of my dear old Dads. He is from Scotland, my Na is English. They moved here in the mid seventies and became yuppies. He idolized everything American. I am the only kid out of 8 borne here. So the old man hates Trump. Never liked him. His issue go’s back to the art of the deal. What he didn’t like about Trump was there was never a successful deal with trump where both sides walked away happy, instead it was complete and utter victory. He compared it to that dude Michael Keaton played in that movie about McDonalds. Anyway, as much as the old man hates Trump, he will flat out say that what has happened here is shit that would happen in east Berlin and other parts of Europe in the old days. It sickens him. No, he won’t vote for Trump, nor any of those the DNC put up. It’s sad to because this last election was his first time voting. He is a die hard libtard democrat and even he will say this whole thing stinks, even though he hates it. So if you can admit that this investigation is odd, that there at least appears to be bad behavior then there is no point in discussing it. O don’t want you to like Trump. I think Trump is a snake oil peddler who just took the swamp, repackaged it and stamped TRUMP on it and went on to business as usual. But I will admit right now that this investigation was and is crooked. I will also say it scares the shit out of me. If they can do this to a President, why can’t they do it to you or me? Long as hell sorry.

I can appreciate everything you are saying. I think this investigation went on way too long and has been waaaay too politicized. I was saying months ago that it needed to be wrapped up. But the reality is they found a bunch of crooked shit, not only with trump but with Russians and others in trumps sphere.

Regarding my original point... the Russians did some messed up stuff during the election. Did you really not want or expect the FBI to investigate it?

Why would we? Hell anyone with more then two brain cells knows the US has been meddeling in other countries elections for decades and we knew Putin hated Hillary so who cares?
.

Wow man, that’s just pathetic. Fine though, you don’t think we should have investigated Russian interference because we meddle in other elections. You’re entitled to you’re opinion. I just think that is so weak

My opinion is weak? It's all about fake Russian memes that no one seen or remember, you guys act like you never ever seen fake news before...


It's all about Hillary rigging the DNC nomination getting caught and spinning it around saying it was Trump's fault.

It's All about Hillary meddeling in Russia election and Putin paying her back


No my opinion is strong, yours is the one that is weak

Here's my opinion. As Sect. of State HRC was strong in here dealings with Putin and the Russian efforts to reestablish what was the Soviet Union, Putin is following the ultra conservative strategy used by prior fascist leaders.

The evidence was clear, given the tit for tat closing missions in both nations and sending home the peace makers (diplomats) that the Obama Administration was strong and held Putin accountable.

I doubt anyone whose aware of the reality does not believe Russia impacted the election of 2016, and used agent provocateurs and biddable fools within our borders to further divide our divided nation.

It worked, and the primary source is in the threads and posts on this message board, and the pages of Face Book and other social media sites.

Odd isn't it, the demise of democracy in the United States might be blamed - in the final inquisition - on our First Amendment.

Or political hacks in congress who care more about their free shit and vanity.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I’m not insulting you I’m just asking that you try harder to comprehend because you keep missing the point.

Or perhaps the point you keep trying to make is
absurd and not at all credible.You were, by the way, trying to insult me.

The investigation does not need to be blocked or thwarted for an obstruction charge. There just needs to be credible intent which Mueller laid out several cases of.

I posted the legal definition of obstruction of justice. Give it a read, you don’t need to take my word on it.

Did President Trump Obstruct Justice? That's a Tricky Question
Time magazine, no fan of Trump or the right, cannot stretch incredulity far enough to claim Trump did obstruct justice, though it gives every benefit of the doubt to the wishful people like you.

When James Comey gave Hillary Clinton her get out of jail free card, after listing all the various ways in which she violated federal law and endangered the nation, he said "no credible prosecutor" would indict her because her intent could not be
deduced (even though all her actions were tantamount to proof certain of her intent to violate and ignore the law).

So now that you've admitted there are zero instances of Donald Trump actually impeding or interfering with Robert Mueller's investigation perhaps you should let everyone know how Trump's conduct and words amounted to obstruction.
Your idea of "credible intent" is certainly not something you could prove in an impeachment hearing (though impeachments are not trials per se as much as political theater) or in a court of law. It's horse shit, frankly!

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not insulting you I’m just asking that you try harder to comprehend because you keep missing the point.

Or perhaps the point you keep trying to make is
absurd and not at all credible.You were, by the way, trying to insult me.

The investigation does not need to be blocked or thwarted for an obstruction charge. There just needs to be credible intent which Mueller laid out several cases of.

I posted the legal definition of obstruction of justice. Give it a read, you don’t need to take my word on it.

Did President Trump Obstruct Justice? That's a Tricky Question
Time magazine, no fan of Trump or the right, cannot stretch incredulity far enough to claim Trump did obstruct justice, though it gives every benefit of the doubt to the wishful people like you.

When James Comey gave Hillary Clinton her get out of jail free card, after listing all the various ways in which she violated federal law and endangered the nation, he said "no credible prosecutor" would indict her because her intent could not be
deduced (even though all her actions were tantamount to proof certain of her intent to violate and ignore the law).

So now that you've admitted there are zero instances of Donald Trump actually impeding or interfering with Robert Mueller's investigation perhaps you should let everyone know how Trump's conduct and words amounted to obstruction.
Your idea of "credible intent" is certainly not something you could prove in an impeachment hearing (though impeachments are not trials per se as much as political theater) or in a court of law. It's horse shit, frankly!

My point is absurd? I’m simply citing how the law defines “obstruction of justice” and facts from Muellers report. Go read them both for yourself and tell me anything that I’ve said that’s not backed up

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

My point is absurd? I’m simply citing how the law defines “obstruction of justice” and facts from Muellers report. Go read them both for yourself and tell me anything that I’ve said that’s not backed up

I've read them and am not impressed. The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation. Should Trump leave a man in his position of influence after he blatantly proffered a fraudulent bit of evidence (Steele dossier) to the FISA court, for instance?

 

[Tehon]

Do you believe AG Barr is obstructing justice?

No

Would you if I offered you a banana?

How is Barr obstructing justice?

'First of all I believe and stated so above that Barr used a policy, not a law, not even a regulation, to decide a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime.

An Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in our country has decided that the POTUS is above the law.

Now, consider this, an Investigation is the process to determine if a) a crime was committed; and b) who committed it.

Mueller's one page assignment,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408/Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.pdf

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS"

is detailed in the link above.

I agree, policy is not law. Which begs the question. Why didn't Mueller prosecute? Does he think POTUS is above the law?

Also detailed in the link;

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

He didn't want it to be political, which is why he handed it off to Congress.

That's ridiculous.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Would you if I offered you a banana?

How is Barr obstructing justice?

'First of all I believe and stated so above that Barr used a policy, not a law, not even a regulation, to decide a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime.

An Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in our country has decided that the POTUS is above the law.

Now, consider this, an Investigation is the process to determine if a) a crime was committed; and b) who committed it.

Mueller's one page assignment,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408/Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.pdf

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS"

is detailed in the link above.

I agree, policy is not law. Which begs the question. Why didn't Mueller prosecute? Does he think POTUS is above the law?

Also detailed in the link;

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

He didn't want it to be political, which is why he handed it off to Congress.

That's ridiculous.

In fact his team did indict a number of those members of his inner circle, the political issue is based on Mr. Mueller's unwillingness to indict The President (based on a DOJ policy, not the law).

it 's not that he didn't want it to be political, in fact it is political and Mr. Mueller, IMO, didn't want to be engaged in a political pissing contest, which in on going in the Congress.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My point is absurd? I’m simply citing how the law defines “obstruction of justice” and facts from Muellers report. Go read them both for yourself and tell me anything that I’ve said that’s not backed up

I've read them and am not impressed. The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation. Should Trump leave a man in his position of influence after he blatantly proffered a fraudulent bit of evidence (Steele dossier) to the FISA court, for instance?

You're echoing a meme. If you want to be believed, you need to do a lot of research and stop pretending you have any understanding of the chaos which grips The District.

 

[Tehon]

How is Barr obstructing justice?

'First of all I believe and stated so above that Barr used a policy, not a law, not even a regulation, to decide a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime.

An Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in our country has decided that the POTUS is above the law.

Now, consider this, an Investigation is the process to determine if a) a crime was committed; and b) who committed it.

Mueller's one page assignment,

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408/Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.pdf

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS"

is detailed in the link above.

I agree, policy is not law. Which begs the question. Why didn't Mueller prosecute? Does he think POTUS is above the law?

Also detailed in the link;

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

He didn't want it to be political, which is why he handed it off to Congress.

That's ridiculous.

In fact his team did indict a number of those members of his inner circle, the political issue is based on Mr. Mueller's unwillingness to indict The President (based on a DOJ policy, not the law).

it 's not that he didn't want it to be political, in fact it is political and Mr. Mueller, IMO, didn't want to be engaged in a political pissing contest, which in on going in the Congress.

I think Mueller didn't pursue charges for obstruction of justice because he was not convinced he could win.

 

[Olde Europe]

He [Mueller] didn't want it to be political, which is why he handed it off to Congress.

That's ridiculous.

How about you support that statement with an argument?

For to me, BWK is exactly right.

There is more of the same. I find, Mueller should have prosecuted the participants in the Trump Tower meeting for campaign finance violations (accepting something of value, or the promise thereof, from a foreign power). Mueller had to resort to the tortured argument that Trump jr. et al couldn't have known that was a crime to avoid prosecuting them. Had he done so, he'd have had the mother of all political fights on his hands, and he obviously avoided that. It's painful to watch.

Mueller didn't prosecute the president because DoJ regulations prohibited it. He avoided reaching a prosecutorial decision because he couldn't prosecute. The rest is now in the hands of Congress (Mueller hinted at that), or, post Trump's presidency, for the courts to adjudicate. He collected the evidence, outlined avenues for further investigation and prosecution for that purpose (and hinted at that as well - "when memories are fresh"). That's Bob "By the Book" Mueller as he lives and breathes.

 

[Olde Europe]

You're echoing a meme. If you want to be believed, you need to do a lot of research and stop pretending you have any understanding of the chaos which grips The District.

Heavens:

"The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation."

Of course, Comey's firing sparked the Mueller investigation in the first place, which is why that firing cannot have had a "bearing" on that investigation - it didn't exist at that time. Other than, obviously, sparking it. That's not a meme, that's just bottomless ignorance advertising itself in neon all over the sky.

 

[Tehon]

He [Mueller] didn't want it to be political, which is why he handed it off to Congress.

That's ridiculous.

How about you support that statement with an argument?

For to me, BWK is exactly right.

There is more of the same. I find, Mueller should have prosecuted the participants in the Trump Tower meeting for campaign finance violations (accepting something of value, or the promise thereof, from a foreign power). Mueller had to resort to the tortured argument that Trump jr. et al couldn't have known that was a crime to avoid prosecuting them. Had he done so, he'd have had the mother of all political fights on his hands, and he obviously avoided that. It's painful to watch.

Mueller didn't prosecute the president because DoJ regulations prohibited it. He avoided reaching a prosecutorial decision because he couldn't prosecute. The rest is now in the hands of Congress (Mueller hinted at that), or, post Trump's presidency, for the courts to adjudicate. He collected the evidence, outlined avenues for further investigation and prosecution for that purpose (and hinted at that as well - "when memories are fresh"). That's Bob "By the Book" Mueller as he lives and breathes.

My argument is that it is political and there is no one more political to hand it off to than Congress.

I also think it s ridiculous to give a special counsel the ability to prosecute crimes unearthed during the investigation of the President if he cannot prosecute him.

I don't buy it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're echoing a meme. If you want to be believed, you need to do a lot of research and stop pretending you have any understanding of the chaos which grips The District.

Heavens:

"The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation."

Of course, Comey's firing sparked the Mueller investigation in the first place, which is why that firing cannot have had a "bearing" on that investigation - it didn't exist at that time. Other than, obviously, sparking it. That's not a meme, that's just bottomless ignorance advertising itself in neon all over the sky.

No it didn't, Hillary sparked the investigation's ...

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're echoing a meme. If you want to be believed, you need to do a lot of research and stop pretending you have any understanding of the chaos which grips The District.

Heavens:

"The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation."

Of course, Comey's firing sparked the Mueller investigation in the first place, which is why that firing cannot have had a "bearing" on that investigation - it didn't exist at that time. Other than, obviously, sparking it. That's not a meme, that's just bottomless ignorance advertising itself in neon all over the sky.

In reality you are correct, in the mind of a trump supporter, it is a fact, in MO, it is a conspiracy theory echoed by the trump gang.

 

[Olde Europe]

My argument is that it is political and there is no one more political to hand it off to than Congress.

I also think it s ridiculous to give a special counsel the ability to prosecute crimes unearthed during the investigation of the President if he cannot prosecute him.

I don't buy it.

It is political as soon as it lands in Congress's hands. It's just so that Mueller wanted nothing to do with the political side of that spectacle.

Of course it is slightly ridiculous to prosecute a president without the power to indict. But that's not because of Mueller, that's the imperial presidency in full bloom, and a Congress too spineless and cowardly to reign it in, along with the design defect of prosecutorial powers associated with the Executive (instead of the Third Branch).

 

[Tehon]

My argument is that it is political and there is no one more political to hand it off to than Congress.

I also think it s ridiculous to give a special counsel the ability to prosecute crimes unearthed during the investigation of the President if he cannot prosecute him.

I don't buy it.

It is political as soon as it lands in Congress's hands. It's just so that Mueller wanted nothing to do with the political side of that spectacle.

Of course it is slightly ridiculous to prosecute a president without the power to indict. But that's not because of Mueller, that's the imperial presidency in full bloom, and a Congress to spineless and cowardly to reign it in, along with the design defect of prosecutorial powers associated with the Executive (instead of the Third Branch).

Mueller made it clear in his report that there were a lot of hurdles that had to be reckoned with to bring these types of obstruction charges against Trump.

Had there been more serious charges, I don't think DOJ policy would have been an issue.

 

[Slade3200]

My point is absurd? I’m simply citing how the law defines “obstruction of justice” and facts from Muellers report. Go read them both for yourself and tell me anything that I’ve said that’s not backed up

I've read them and am not impressed. The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation. Should Trump leave a man in his position of influence after he blatantly proffered a fraudulent bit of evidence (Steele dossier) to the FISA court, for instance?

I don’t care if you are impressed. They are what they are and they clearly are not vindicating trump from obstruction like he continues to lie about. You can make the case that they are not serious or criminal violations, that’s fine, but when you deny their existence or do the deep state spin, you just expose yourself as a partisan hack

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're echoing a meme. If you want to be believed, you need to do a lot of research and stop pretending you have any understanding of the chaos which grips The District.

Heavens:

"The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation."

Of course, Comey's firing sparked the Mueller investigation in the first place, which is why that firing cannot have had a "bearing" on that investigation - it didn't exist at that time. Other than, obviously, sparking it. That's not a meme, that's just bottomless ignorance advertising itself in neon all over the sky.

No it didn't, Hillary sparked the investigation's ...

Really, with flint and steel?

Consider, if you will:

The definitive Trump-Russia timeline of events

and,

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-trump-election-timeline.html

and,

Russia, Trump, and the 2016 U.S. Election

Now, what evidence do you have to make the case that, "Hillary sparked the investigation's ..."?

 

[Slade3200]

My point is absurd? I’m simply citing how the law defines “obstruction of justice” and facts from Muellers report. Go read them both for yourself and tell me anything that I’ve said that’s not backed up

I've read them and am not impressed. The firing of a liar and a phony like James Comey has no bearing on the Mueller investigation. Should Trump leave a man in his position of influence after he blatantly proffered a fraudulent bit of evidence (Steele dossier) to the FISA court, for instance?

If trumped fired a guy because he wouldn’t drop an investigation then Trump is abusing his power. Just like a business owner is allowed to fire whomever he wants. But if he fires his secretary for not sleeping with him then he is breaking the law. I know you know this so stop playing dumb. It’s tiresome