Trump told McGhan to do crazy .... about the Mueller investigation

[BWK]

You presented no legal arguments

Isn't that the job of the never ending relentlessly complaining snowflakes?...
my legal argument is the exonerating Mueller report....

If it was an exoneration you would have read and quoted it to me. You didn't. That makes you a Trump cultist and a liar. Which is what we already knew.

 

[BWK]

Mueller can't prosecute. Didn't you know that?

He certainly can show the evidence, he didn't. Because there was none.

Nice counter argument that says absolutely nothing. Try again. Lol! These losers from the Right wish they had an argument to play with.

There is nothing to argue about. You got nothing on Trump.

You're right, I don't . But the law does.

Yes, liberals are like this.
View attachment 259602
Even though I took eight years of your guy. I didn't like it, but I took it. Get over it, Trump is YOUR PRESIDENT!

Trump is a con artist who used a foreign government and payoffs to porn stars to get elected. He's a criminal who runs a RICO operation, who is trying to dismantle this Republic for his own authoritarian means, and his dumb as fuck supporters are his enablers.

 

[Rambunctious]

If it was an exoneration you would have read and quoted it to me. You didn't. That makes you a Trump cultist and a liar. Which is what we already knew.

No one colluded but Hillary and the Obama deep state...very soon you will have to come to except that.....just like you had to except that Trump is not going to be impeached and is innocent....

 

[boedicca]

It can only be an obstruction, if something was actually obstructed. He we have a claim that Trump asked McGhan to remove Mueller, he refused, thus nothing happened. No obstruction occurred, that is the reality you ignore.

There are too many Trump apologists on this board who can no longer carry any kind of defense for this criminal. The gig is up. Trump has been had. No more bs.

Your diaper needs changing. Seriously.

After the Mueller report proved obstruction, have you seen Trump's dumps in his diapers? We know he has.

No, it didn't. The Mueller Report Volume II is an Epic Moonbat Whingefest, fully equipped with Rage and Fury, but in the end...signifying NOTHING. The "does not exonerate" is political pablum for the Dem Base. It's the sugar to go with the medicine, but it has no nutritional value.

"Epic moonbat wingfest" has a nice distractive touch, but it doesn't change the Mueller report nor its contents. Keep trying.

You're correct. It doesn't change the Mueller report nor its contents; it wasn't intended to do either.. Mueller found no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia; nor did he find evidence to charge him with obstruction.

 

[boedicca]

It does not matter how many times you repeat this lie, it remains a lie.

If it were, you would have proven it a lie. You didn't. You lose.

No. If collusion and obstruction were proven, Trump would have been indicted. Your failed wet dream is a failed wet dream. Change your sheets and move on.

Not according to the rules. You are wrong. He can be impeached and indicted, or indicted after leaving office.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

I have some theglobe.com shares for sale - only $50 per share!

Why do I need "good luck?" Cohen is already serving time for a crime Trump orchestrated and carried out. Is Trump above the law? Do you support criminals? Are you complicit with organized crime? Do you support the rule of law and the Constitution? Why do you cover for criminals?

No - Cohen is serving a sentence for things that have nothing to do with Trump.

 

[jknowgood]

He certainly can show the evidence, he didn't. Because there was none.

Nice counter argument that says absolutely nothing. Try again. Lol! These losers from the Right wish they had an argument to play with.

There is nothing to argue about. You got nothing on Trump.

You're right, I don't . But the law does.

Yes, liberals are like this.
View attachment 259602
Even though I took eight years of your guy. I didn't like it, but I took it. Get over it, Trump is YOUR PRESIDENT!

In the mean time, the Democrats fight for the rule of law while Republicans work at disabling it. Lol! We finally find out who the real Americans are in this country. The Republicans secret mission to destroy this country and its founding has been exposed.

Trump didn't break any laws dumbass. Quit your whining.

 

[jknowgood]

He certainly can show the evidence, he didn't. Because there was none.

Nice counter argument that says absolutely nothing. Try again. Lol! These losers from the Right wish they had an argument to play with.

There is nothing to argue about. You got nothing on Trump.

You're right, I don't . But the law does.

Yes, liberals are like this.
View attachment 259602
Even though I took eight years of your guy. I didn't like it, but I took it. Get over it, Trump is YOUR PRESIDENT!

Trump is a con artist who used a foreign government and payoffs to porn stars to get elected. He's a criminal who runs a RICO operation, who is trying to dismantle this Republic for his own authoritarian means, and his dumb as fuck supporters are his enablers.

The pornstar ended up paying him. Lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

It can only be an obstruction, if something was actually obstructed. He we have a claim that Trump asked McGhan to remove Mueller, he refused, thus nothing happened. No obstruction occurred, that is the reality you ignore.

Wrong: "Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521

Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510) Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)

Q. Why don't most defenders of Trump ever research the details before posting

A. Usually they are echoing someone else, usually propaganda, and not caring whether it is accurate or a effort to mislead the reader.

Speaking of ....WRONG....that should be your avi....


The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:

1. 
   
   
   • There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
   • The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
   • The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

Mueller could not do so, and therefore, as much as this disreputable servant of the Left wished, could not indict, and had no expectation of a conviction of obstruction of justice.

Pay special attention to item 3. The word ‘intent’ is key as there is no such intent by Trump.
Now.....Hillary's crime.....the release of classified data does NOT require intent......doing what she did is enough for guilt.



Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemence…..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.

Usually, reading comprehension skills are honed in from middle school on. Where were you in school when all that was going on? There was no proceeding because Mueller never had the authority to convict. His role was to establish facts, which he did. If you aren't able to comprehend that, then no one can help you.

What facts, dunce????


He admitted that Trump was guilty of NOTHING.


"(CNSNews.com) - Attorney General William Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he learned at a March 5 meeting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was not going reach a decision on whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.

"And we were, frankly, surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. And we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this," Barr said in his opening statement, which continued as follows:

....Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion, he would have found obstruction. [The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel has generally ruled that a sitting president cannot be indicted.]

He said that in the future, the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case."
Barr: 'We Were, Frankly, Surprised' That Mueller Would Not Decide the Obstruction Issue




Nothing stopped Mueller from finding obstruction except THAT THERE WAS NONE!!!!!

It can only be an obstruction, if something was actually obstructed. He we have a claim that Trump asked McGhan to remove Mueller, he refused, thus nothing happened. No obstruction occurred, that is the reality you ignore.

Wrong: "Obstruction of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1521

Obstruction of criminal investigations (18 U.S.C. § 1510) Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (18 U.S.C. § 1512)

Q. Why don't most defenders of Trump ever research the details before posting

A. Usually they are echoing someone else, usually propaganda, and not caring whether it is accurate or a effort to mislead the reader.

Speaking of ....WRONG....that should be your avi....


The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge require prosecutors to prove the following elements:

1. 
   
   
   • There was a pending federal judicial proceeding
   • The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
   • The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw

Mueller could not do so, and therefore, as much as this disreputable servant of the Left wished, could not indict, and had no expectation of a conviction of obstruction of justice.

Pay special attention to item 3. The word ‘intent’ is key as there is no such intent by Trump.
Now.....Hillary's crime.....the release of classified data does NOT require intent......doing what she did is enough for guilt.



Trump railed against the proceedings, and did tweet his vehemence…..just as any innocent man would. There is nothing corrupt about complaining.

Usually, reading comprehension skills are honed in from middle school on. Where were you in school when all that was going on? There was no proceeding because Mueller never had the authority to convict. His role was to establish facts, which he did. If you aren't able to comprehend that, then no one can help you.

What facts, dunce????


He admitted that Trump was guilty of NOTHING.


"(CNSNews.com) - Attorney General William Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he learned at a March 5 meeting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was not going reach a decision on whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.

"And we were, frankly, surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. And we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this," Barr said in his opening statement, which continued as follows:

....Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion, he would have found obstruction. [The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel has generally ruled that a sitting president cannot be indicted.]

He said that in the future, the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case."
Barr: 'We Were, Frankly, Surprised' That Mueller Would Not Decide the Obstruction Issue




Nothing stopped Mueller from finding obstruction except THAT THERE WAS NONE!!!!!

This is from Mueller himself; “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”


World Press Freedom Day
See why an independent press is vital to democracy That is the letter from Mueller. This letter was from Mueller himself. If that is Mueller admitting Trump did nothing, you might want to consider grade school all over again. And why did Barr block it out? Easy, to cover for this criminal. And now Barr is one himself.

"There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation."

Clearly Mueller is referring to you.....and any other hangers-ons who still hope that there is any.....ANY....basis for the original investigation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

After 30 million bucks...money that could have gone to other areas...two years...30 lawyers and investigators and they found nothing...but libtards still say they need answers and want to drag Mueller in front of congress....boy they are going to lose so bad in 2020....I can't wait.....

They found nothing? I always knew you were out of touch with reality.

I'm out of touch?....wasn't it you that said Trump would never win and then he would be found guilty and impeached....ponder that for a while....I've been right and you have been wrong but you claim its me that's out of touch....time to do some gut checking Wry......

Trump didn't win. Cheating isn't winning. It's committing an illegal act to become elected, and now it's been proven. Cohen helped us prove that.

Please don't stop wishing and hoping and praying.......'cause then your crushing will be MONUMENTAL.

I don't need to wish or pray when comprehension is not my problem. It's yours.

Comprehension????


Well....point out any evidence of guilt of anything....ANYTHING......that Mueller has found Trump guilty of.
(Sorry to end a sentence with a preposition.)



Keep hope alive.......you dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You presented no legal arguments

Isn't that the job of the never ending relentlessly complaining snowflakes?...
my legal argument is the exonerating Mueller report....

If it was an exoneration you would have read and quoted it to me. You didn't. That makes you a Trump cultist and a liar. Which is what we already knew.

If it were guilt you would be able to quote it to all.

Gads, you're a dunce.


This will not be concluded until all of your heroes are in orange jumpsuits.


Wanna come to the party?

 

[PoliticalChic]

He certainly can show the evidence, he didn't. Because there was none.

Nice counter argument that says absolutely nothing. Try again. Lol! These losers from the Right wish they had an argument to play with.

There is nothing to argue about. You got nothing on Trump.

You're right, I don't . But the law does.

Yes, liberals are like this.
View attachment 259602
Even though I took eight years of your guy. I didn't like it, but I took it. Get over it, Trump is YOUR PRESIDENT!

Trump is a con artist who used a foreign government and payoffs to porn stars to get elected. He's a criminal who runs a RICO operation, who is trying to dismantle this Republic for his own authoritarian means, and his dumb as fuck supporters are his enablers.

"Trump is a con artist ..."

Hard to believe you can say that without giggling, after the incompetent ingrate you saddled us with for eight years.

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm laughing.....still with all the soaring rhetoric....the philosopher progressives that have been wrong a billion times over the past two years!

The told us on Flynn, "We got Trump!". Nope. Clapper! Fail. Kushner! Sorry. Comey. Oooops. Then on Manifort! Oh well. Cohen! "Trump going down!" BahBahBooey. I'm missing about 10 others! Now Barr......

Are we seeing a pattern here?

I am....a pattern of LOSE!!

 

[toomuchtime_]

We know there was no obstruction of justice because Barr and Rosenstein reviewed Mueller's report and both found there were no grounds for obstruction of justice and Mueller has not disagreed with them on this point. You have to try harder to distinguish between wanting to see evidence of a crime and actually seeing evidence of a crime.

Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.

And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.

Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.

We know there was no obstruction of justice because Barr and Rosenstein reviewed Mueller's report and both found there were no grounds for obstruction of justice and Mueller has not disagreed with them on this point. You have to try harder to distinguish between wanting to see evidence of a crime and actually seeing evidence of a crime.

Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.

And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.

Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."

So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.

The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.

So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.

It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.

As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.

You trump cultists are in for a rude awakening when all this is over. You all live in an alternate reality;

We know there was no obstruction of justice because Barr and Rosenstein reviewed Mueller's report and both found there were no grounds for obstruction of justice and Mueller has not disagreed with them on this point. You have to try harder to distinguish between wanting to see evidence of a crime and actually seeing evidence of a crime.

Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.

And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.

Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.

We know there was no obstruction of justice because Barr and Rosenstein reviewed Mueller's report and both found there were no grounds for obstruction of justice and Mueller has not disagreed with them on this point. You have to try harder to distinguish between wanting to see evidence of a crime and actually seeing evidence of a crime.

Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.

And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.

Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."

So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.

The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.

So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.

It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.

As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.

You Trump cultists live in an alternate reality. There was an opinion on obstruction that was blocked out by Barr;
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”


World Press Freedom Day
See why an independent press is vital to democracy That is the letter from Mueller.


Later in April, just before he released the redacted version of the report, Barr held a news conference where he spun its conclusions even further, echoing the president’s cries of “no collusion” and bizarrely praising Trump for his cooperation with investigators.

Barr has done nothing but run interference for Trump, indifferent to his established pattern of lawbreaking and criminality. And it has left his former colleagues bewildered and searching for answers. “How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like ‘no collusion’ and F.B.I. ‘spying’?” James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked in a Times Op-Ed. Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, echoed this dismay on Twitter: “I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people.” Even Mueller’s even-keeled letter can’t help betraying his expectation that Barr would behave very differently.

But the better question is why anyone expected otherwise. You don’t have to dive deep into Barr’s history to see that he is an apparatchik, less committed to the rule of law than he is to his political party and its leadership.

Opinion | Bill Barr’s Perverse Theory of Justice

Kyle Griffin on Twitter This testimony by Barr is stupidity in overdrive. Barr is telling the committee that he can terminate an investigation because he's done nothing wrong. HOW THE FUCK DOES HE KNOW? Barr himself is corrupting the process by drawing a conclusion about something he knows nothing about. It's absolutely insane what Barr and Republicans are trying to do.

Bottom line is that you were wrong in stating Barr had said no sitting president could obstruct justice and all the propaganda you base your opinions on is wrong. You should notice that all the opinion pieces you seem to treasure avoid dealing directly with the legal argument Barr set forth in his memo, and that should tell these "experts" couldn't find a flaw in his reasoning. Barr is sticking strictly to the law and his critics are all making political arguments and not legal arguments.

 

[BWK]

Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.

And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.

Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.

Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.

And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.

Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."

So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.

The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.

So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.

It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.

As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.

You trump cultists are in for a rude awakening when all this is over. You all live in an alternate reality;

Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.

And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.

Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.

Barr wrote a seventeen page report before the Mueller investigation was complete that a sitting president could not obstruct. That is an opinion that the president is above the law. No one under the Constitution is above the law. And anyone with basic knowledge of the law knows this, proving that Bill Barr is not qualified and should have been recused.

And by the way, why did you ignore my question by not answering it? Is it because you can't? By definition of obstruction of justice Trump repeatedly obstructed. You failed to counter my argument.

Oh, and Rosentein! Rosenstein dropped the ball when he wrote the false letter of termination of Comey, when he included the reason for firing, was over the Clinton email false scandal, then Trump admitted that it was over Russia. Rosenstein is a material witness to a crime Trump committed. For Rosenstein to give us an opinion on obstruction is laughable on its face. And for you to give Barr and Rosenstein credibility on these fronts just shows how dishonest and ignorant of the law you are.

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."

So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.

The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.

So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.

It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.

As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.

You Trump cultists live in an alternate reality. There was an opinion on obstruction that was blocked out by Barr;
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”


World Press Freedom Day
See why an independent press is vital to democracy That is the letter from Mueller.


Later in April, just before he released the redacted version of the report, Barr held a news conference where he spun its conclusions even further, echoing the president’s cries of “no collusion” and bizarrely praising Trump for his cooperation with investigators.

Barr has done nothing but run interference for Trump, indifferent to his established pattern of lawbreaking and criminality. And it has left his former colleagues bewildered and searching for answers. “How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like ‘no collusion’ and F.B.I. ‘spying’?” James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked in a Times Op-Ed. Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, echoed this dismay on Twitter: “I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people.” Even Mueller’s even-keeled letter can’t help betraying his expectation that Barr would behave very differently.

But the better question is why anyone expected otherwise. You don’t have to dive deep into Barr’s history to see that he is an apparatchik, less committed to the rule of law than he is to his political party and its leadership.

Opinion | Bill Barr’s Perverse Theory of Justice

Kyle Griffin on Twitter This testimony by Barr is stupidity in overdrive. Barr is telling the committee that he can terminate an investigation because he's done nothing wrong. HOW THE FUCK DOES HE KNOW? Barr himself is corrupting the process by drawing a conclusion about something he knows nothing about. It's absolutely insane what Barr and Republicans are trying to do.

Bottom line is that you were wrong in stating Barr had said no sitting president could obstruct justice and all the propaganda you base your opinions on is wrong. You should notice that all the opinion pieces you seem to treasure avoid dealing directly with the legal argument Barr set forth in his memo, and that should tell these "experts" couldn't find a flaw in his reasoning. Barr is sticking strictly to the law and his critics are all making political arguments and not legal arguments.

I was not wrong. Barr's video testimony tells exactly that. If Trump doesn't like the investigation looking into him, he can fire the investigators. That's telling the world that Trump is above the law. There is no other way to interpret that.

 

[BWK]

I'm laughing.....still with all the soaring rhetoric....the philosopher progressives that have been wrong a billion times over the past two years!

The told us on Flynn, "We got Trump!". Nope. Clapper! Fail. Kushner! Sorry. Comey. Oooops. Then on Manifort! Oh well. Cohen! "Trump going down!" BahBahBooey. I'm missing about 10 others! Now Barr......

Are we seeing a pattern here?

I am....a pattern of LOSE!!

Manafort is in jail. Are your rabbits laughing about that, or has cultism got you by the balls still? Has Trump been cleared of obstruction? Mo! Has Trump been cleared of campaign finance violations? No! Has Trump been cleared of Emoluments and charitable contribution crimes? Nope!"lose" is a word that Trump has to deal with right now, not the Democrats.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."

So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.

The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.

So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.

It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.

As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.

You trump cultists are in for a rude awakening when all this is over. You all live in an alternate reality;

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.

Barr wrote a very logical legal argument about why a President can't be accused of obstructing justice by closing an investigation if that investigation had no legitimate basis, which is certainly true of Comey's investigation and Mueller's also. If there is no legitimate basis for believing a crime has been committed then that investigation constitutes harassment, not a search for justice. These are not cases where the President believed he was above the law but where the investigators believed they were above the law.

I know you don't want to believe Barr or Rosenstein, but apparently you don't trust Mueller either since he has not disagreed with the conclusion Barr and Rosenstein reached that the President did not obstruct justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."

So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.

The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.

So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.

It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.

As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.

You Trump cultists live in an alternate reality. There was an opinion on obstruction that was blocked out by Barr;
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”


World Press Freedom Day
See why an independent press is vital to democracy That is the letter from Mueller.


Later in April, just before he released the redacted version of the report, Barr held a news conference where he spun its conclusions even further, echoing the president’s cries of “no collusion” and bizarrely praising Trump for his cooperation with investigators.

Barr has done nothing but run interference for Trump, indifferent to his established pattern of lawbreaking and criminality. And it has left his former colleagues bewildered and searching for answers. “How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like ‘no collusion’ and F.B.I. ‘spying’?” James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked in a Times Op-Ed. Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, echoed this dismay on Twitter: “I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people.” Even Mueller’s even-keeled letter can’t help betraying his expectation that Barr would behave very differently.

But the better question is why anyone expected otherwise. You don’t have to dive deep into Barr’s history to see that he is an apparatchik, less committed to the rule of law than he is to his political party and its leadership.

Opinion | Bill Barr’s Perverse Theory of Justice

Kyle Griffin on Twitter This testimony by Barr is stupidity in overdrive. Barr is telling the committee that he can terminate an investigation because he's done nothing wrong. HOW THE FUCK DOES HE KNOW? Barr himself is corrupting the process by drawing a conclusion about something he knows nothing about. It's absolutely insane what Barr and Republicans are trying to do.

Bottom line is that you were wrong in stating Barr had said no sitting president could obstruct justice and all the propaganda you base your opinions on is wrong. You should notice that all the opinion pieces you seem to treasure avoid dealing directly with the legal argument Barr set forth in his memo, and that should tell these "experts" couldn't find a flaw in his reasoning. Barr is sticking strictly to the law and his critics are all making political arguments and not legal arguments.

I was not wrong. Barr's video testimony tells exactly that. If Trump doesn't like the investigation looking into him, he can fire the investigators. That's telling the world that Trump is above the law. There is no other way to interpret that.

Still more bullshit. Try reading the memo and then you won't have base all your posts on ignorance.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

 

[BWK]

Nice counter argument that says absolutely nothing. Try again. Lol! These losers from the Right wish they had an argument to play with.

There is nothing to argue about. You got nothing on Trump.

You're right, I don't . But the law does.

Yes, liberals are like this.
View attachment 259602
Even though I took eight years of your guy. I didn't like it, but I took it. Get over it, Trump is YOUR PRESIDENT!

Trump is a con artist who used a foreign government and payoffs to porn stars to get elected. He's a criminal who runs a RICO operation, who is trying to dismantle this Republic for his own authoritarian means, and his dumb as fuck supporters are his enablers.

"Trump is a con artist ..."

Hard to believe you can say that without giggling, after the incompetent ingrate you saddled us with for eight years.

All the way through this post laughing at the fact that Obama has no legal liability. Trump does.

 

[BWK]

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."

So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.

The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.

So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.

It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.

As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.

You trump cultists are in for a rude awakening when all this is over. You all live in an alternate reality;

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.

No, that isn't what Barr wrote. Barr wrote an opinion of his own that a president could not obstruct, "period." There exists no "legal argument" in law that a president cannot obstruct. If that were true, he and you would have dictated that legal documentation from a written law text. Neither of you have done so. Which makes you and Barr FOS.

And the fact that you totally got it wrong about Mueller agreeing with Rosenstein and Barr isn't going to help you either. Why do you people lie all the time? Do you not see how obvious you are? Mueller never agreed with Rosenstein and Barr, nor did Mueller leave the decision making upm to Barr or Rosenstein. There is nothing in the report telling us that. You show up to this forum to lie. Why?

As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."

So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.

The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.

So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.

It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.

As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.

You Trump cultists live in an alternate reality. There was an opinion on obstruction that was blocked out by Barr;
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”


World Press Freedom Day
See why an independent press is vital to democracy That is the letter from Mueller.


Later in April, just before he released the redacted version of the report, Barr held a news conference where he spun its conclusions even further, echoing the president’s cries of “no collusion” and bizarrely praising Trump for his cooperation with investigators.

Barr has done nothing but run interference for Trump, indifferent to his established pattern of lawbreaking and criminality. And it has left his former colleagues bewildered and searching for answers. “How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like ‘no collusion’ and F.B.I. ‘spying’?” James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked in a Times Op-Ed. Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, echoed this dismay on Twitter: “I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people.” Even Mueller’s even-keeled letter can’t help betraying his expectation that Barr would behave very differently.

But the better question is why anyone expected otherwise. You don’t have to dive deep into Barr’s history to see that he is an apparatchik, less committed to the rule of law than he is to his political party and its leadership.

Opinion | Bill Barr’s Perverse Theory of Justice

Kyle Griffin on Twitter This testimony by Barr is stupidity in overdrive. Barr is telling the committee that he can terminate an investigation because he's done nothing wrong. HOW THE FUCK DOES HE KNOW? Barr himself is corrupting the process by drawing a conclusion about something he knows nothing about. It's absolutely insane what Barr and Republicans are trying to do.

Bottom line is that you were wrong in stating Barr had said no sitting president could obstruct justice and all the propaganda you base your opinions on is wrong. You should notice that all the opinion pieces you seem to treasure avoid dealing directly with the legal argument Barr set forth in his memo, and that should tell these "experts" couldn't find a flaw in his reasoning. Barr is sticking strictly to the law and his critics are all making political arguments and not legal arguments.

I was not wrong. Barr's video testimony tells exactly that. If Trump doesn't like the investigation looking into him, he can fire the investigators. That's telling the world that Trump is above the law. There is no other way to interpret that.

Still more bullshit. Try reading the memo and then you won't have base all your posts on ignorance.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

"In my view" in 2018, according to Barr has no meaning as it relates to the rule of law and obstruction of justice. The laws on the books on obstruction are clear. Barr's opinion in 2018 is partisan and has no valid meaning as it relates to the written law itself. His testimony the other day reinforces a flawed notion that is not found anywhere in the written context of the law that clears Trump. Buggered semantics and weird interpretations of laws are laughable to the committee at best. It's a cover up, and the world knows it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.
As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."

So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.

The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.

So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.

It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.

As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.

You trump cultists are in for a rude awakening when all this is over. You all live in an alternate reality;

I sometimes wonder if you are so demented that you don't understand just how obviously you accuse others of doing exactly what you are doing.

While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about Barr's memo, you are obviously unfamiliar with it, so here is a link to the memo.

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/BarrMueller.pdf

Contrary to your claims that Barr said a sitting president can't be guilty of obstruction, Barr states clearly that he can be, and points out how both Nixon and Clinton clearly were guilty of obstruction of justice.
As always, you demonstrate a high level of ignorance and a complete indifference to the truth in this post. While you continue to post an endless stream of bullshit about the Barr memo, you clearly have not read it, so here is a link to the memo:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

"Thus, obstruction laws prohibit a range of “bad acts” — such as tampering with a witness or juror; or destroying,altering, or falsifying evidence — all of which are inherently wrongful because, by their very nature, they are directed at depriving the proceeding of honest decision-makers or access to full and accurate evidence. In general, then, the actus reus of an obstruction offense is the inherently subversive “bad act” of impairing the integrity of a decision-maker or evidence. The requisite mens rea is simply intending the wrongful impairment that inexorably flows from the act.

Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example,if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury,or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he,like any one else, commits the crime of obstruction. Indeed,the acts of obstruction alleged against Presidents Nixon and Clinton in their respective impeachments were all such “bad acts” involving the impairment of evidence. Enforcing these laws against the President in no way infringes on the President’s plenary power over law enforcement because exercising this discretion — such as his complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding -- does not involve commission of any of these inherently wrongful, subversive acts."

So contrary to your false claim that Barr said a sitting president cannot be guilty of obstruction, Barr begins his argument by explaining how a sitting president can be guilty of obstruction just like any other citizen.

The rest of the report, contrary to your assertions is a detailed analysis of the relevant laws, federal court decisions and Justice Department policies that support a president exercising his powers of prosecutorial supervision even in cases in which he might have a conflict of interests. Barr then argues that the only time we can infer a president obstructed justice while exercising his legitimate powers is if he is accused of a crime and tries to suppress the evidence.

So Barr's point is that since there was no underlying crime with respect to the claim of collusion - and in his report Mueller agrees there was none - the President couldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice.

It is worth noting that none of the articles that attack Barr's memo deals with his detailed arguments, so it is fair to assume the "experts" who attacked the memo could find no flaw in Barr's analysis.

As for your second lie, I said Mueller never disagreed with Barr's conclusion on obstruction, not that Mueller agreed with it. Having expressed no opinion on obstruction in his report, Mueller would look like a fool now if he did claim there was obstruction.

You Trump cultists live in an alternate reality. There was an opinion on obstruction that was blocked out by Barr;
“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”


World Press Freedom Day
See why an independent press is vital to democracy That is the letter from Mueller.


Later in April, just before he released the redacted version of the report, Barr held a news conference where he spun its conclusions even further, echoing the president’s cries of “no collusion” and bizarrely praising Trump for his cooperation with investigators.

Barr has done nothing but run interference for Trump, indifferent to his established pattern of lawbreaking and criminality. And it has left his former colleagues bewildered and searching for answers. “How could Mr. Barr, a bright and accomplished lawyer, start channeling the president in using words like ‘no collusion’ and F.B.I. ‘spying’?” James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked in a Times Op-Ed. Eric Holder, who served as attorney general under President Barack Obama, echoed this dismay on Twitter: “I thought he was an institutionalist, committed to both the rule of law and his role as the lawyer for the American people.” Even Mueller’s even-keeled letter can’t help betraying his expectation that Barr would behave very differently.

But the better question is why anyone expected otherwise. You don’t have to dive deep into Barr’s history to see that he is an apparatchik, less committed to the rule of law than he is to his political party and its leadership.

Opinion | Bill Barr’s Perverse Theory of Justice

Kyle Griffin on Twitter This testimony by Barr is stupidity in overdrive. Barr is telling the committee that he can terminate an investigation because he's done nothing wrong. HOW THE FUCK DOES HE KNOW? Barr himself is corrupting the process by drawing a conclusion about something he knows nothing about. It's absolutely insane what Barr and Republicans are trying to do.

Bottom line is that you were wrong in stating Barr had said no sitting president could obstruct justice and all the propaganda you base your opinions on is wrong. You should notice that all the opinion pieces you seem to treasure avoid dealing directly with the legal argument Barr set forth in his memo, and that should tell these "experts" couldn't find a flaw in his reasoning. Barr is sticking strictly to the law and his critics are all making political arguments and not legal arguments.

I was not wrong. Barr's video testimony tells exactly that. If Trump doesn't like the investigation looking into him, he can fire the investigators. That's telling the world that Trump is above the law. There is no other way to interpret that.

Still more bullshit. Try reading the memo and then you won't have base all your posts on ignorance.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...j-mue/b4c05e39318dd2d136b3/optimized/full.pdf

I already read it. I don't need to read something two to three times in order to understand plain english and the fact that Mueller contested Barr with his own letter to him telling Barr that he took the report out of context.

If you had read it you would know that the President cannot fire someone who is investigating a crime he, the President may be involved in, but since neither Mueller nor Comey was involved in such an investigation, firing either of them would not constitute obstruction. Furthermore, there is no written or case law to support Mueller's expanded definition of obstruction. Mueller clearly read and agreed with Barr's analysis and that's why he declined to offer an opinion on obstruction.

 

[BWK]

I'm laughing.....still with all the soaring rhetoric....the philosopher progressives that have been wrong a billion times over the past two years!

The told us on Flynn, "We got Trump!". Nope. Clapper! Fail. Kushner! Sorry. Comey. Oooops. Then on Manifort! Oh well. Cohen! "Trump going down!" BahBahBooey. I'm missing about 10 others! Now Barr......

Are we seeing a pattern here?

I am....a pattern of LOSE!!

Manafort is in jail. Are your rabbits laughing about that, or has cultism got you by the balls still? Has Trump been cleared of obstruction? Mo! Has Trump been cleared of campaign finance violations? No! Has Trump been cleared of Emoluments and charitable contribution crimes? Nope!"lose" is a word that Trump has to deal with right now, not the Democrats.

No, they are sad that so many Trump cultists support criminals like Flynn, Manafort, and Trump.