BARR

[a fan]

SO it's a crime (obstruction) to fire the person you hired? So confused......this law thing Surer is harrddD

Nope. It's all good.

But it's also not a crime to appoint a Special Counsel. Whoops.

You see, this "that's not illegal" stupidity works in all directions.

[old salt]

There's your answer. We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon AFTER they go after the Deep State.

Did Barr call for a SC or any extraordinary investigation ? No. He's just referencing existing IG & US Atty investigations already underway, & doing an internal review of what was already done by his Dept.

How many extra millions in funding for his investigations has Barr requested ? How many lawyers & FBI agents has he hired or detailed for this investigation, which you fear so much ?

So now you're saying that both Barr and you are okay with all the Russian investigations right up until Mueller was appointed? When the "extraordinary investigation" started?

That's a total 180 for you. Do I have this right?

I can say with total confidence that that's not what Barr meant....but if that's your interpretation, ok.

I've said, multiple times, I was OK with Crossfire Hurricane, so long as it didn't get leaked & used as a political weapon.

No there, there (per Strzok text) ? Case closed. Dead file. No harm. No foul. Due diligence accomplished.

Based on the results of the Mueller investigation, we now know a SC investigation was not necessary.

[RedFromMI]

The Catastrophic Performance of Bill Barr
The attorney general misled the public in seven key ways.

Article by Benjamin Wittes
Editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ic/588574/

Details exactly how Barr is misrepresenting the Mueller report - convincingly. (both he is doing a convincingly good job for some of the populace, and that Wittes is convincing about the misrepresentations.

1. Not finding enough evidence (but definitely finding some) to prosecute for conspiracy gets conflated to Mueller did not find anything.

2. Absence of conspiracy charge becomes no collusion.

Together these two lead to picture of Trump is just an innocent man falsely accused.

3. "Spying" narrative transformation of "FBI's scrutiny of campaign figures who had bizarre contacts with Russian-government officials or intermediaries."

4. President fully cooperated with the investigation (ignoring the obstruction attempts, the refusal to answer some questions, the refusal for an interview, etc.)

5. Pushing the idea that since the President was an innocent man falsely accused and spied upon you can understand his "anger" at the investigation - so therefore there can be no obstruction of justice motive.

6. Unlike Mueller who actually viewed the 10 potential acts of obstruction listed in the whole, Barr looks at each in isolation rather than as a whole and is able to diminish each one...

Look at any one in isolation, and—particularly if you have Barr’s hard-line views of presidential power—you might see a facially legitimate exercise of that power for which there is a plausible noncorrupt motive to which Mueller has indeed scrupulously nodded. If you miss the forest for the trees, you will miss the deforestation as well.

7. Mueller decides he does not have "jurisdiction" to charge the President with obstruction - so won't - not because there is no evidence (which Mueller does list) but cannot due to the jurisdiction issue (lacks the authority to charge). Barr says that since I (Barr) think the President is innocent and wrongly charged, Mueller must think like me, and therefore the lack of finding means the President is in the clear.

Really good article - if you think Barr is not wildly spinning the Mueller report, you really need to read this.

[a fan]

I've said, multiple times, I was OK with Crossfire Hurricane, so long as it didn't get leaked & used as a political weapon.

That's counter to your many complaints about the Deep State, but okay.

I'm in full agreement here.

No there, there (per Strzok text) ? Case closed. Dead file. No harm. No foul. Due diligence accomplished.

Based on the results of the Mueller investigation, we now know a SC investigation was not necessary.

Agree again.

Which brings us to Trump firing Comey. He put America through all this nonsense because of that stupid move.

Comey would have finished the file, found nothing, and then Trump could fire him...no problem.

[old salt]

I've said, multiple times, I was OK with Crossfire Hurricane, so long as it didn't get leaked & used as a political weapon.

That's counter to your many complaints about the Deep State, but okay.
They're not the Deep State until they abuse their power by conducting investigations or surveillance without adequate predicate (there are guidelines) or they facilitate leaks for political purposes.

I'm in full agreement here.

No there, there (per Strzok text) ? Case closed. Dead file. No harm. No foul. Due diligence accomplished.

Based on the results of the Mueller investigation, we now know a SC investigation was not necessary.

Agree again.

Which brings us to Trump firing Comey. He put America through all this nonsense because of that stupid move.
Except Trump was within his powers to fire Comey, anytime, without cause.
Comey was foolish to threaten Trump by waving the x-rated appendix to the dossier under Trump's nose, which gave Buzzfeed the hook they needed to publish the entire dossier,

Comey would have finished the file, found nothing, and then Trump could fire him...no problem.

You're naive if you believe that. Comey deserved to be fired just for the way he entrapped Flynn. Comey was the head leaker in a FBI that leaked like a sieve -- which the DoJ IG revealed. I predict we'll be learning more about Comey's tenure in the near future.

[a fan]

You're naive if you believe that. Comey deserved to be fired just for the way he entrapped Flynn. Comey was the head leaker in a FBI that leaked like a sieve -- which the DoJ IG revealed. I predict we'll be learning more about Comey's tenure in the near future.

So then you're left with: Rosenstein was insane for appointing Mueller, and Trump is a Boy Scout.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You're naive if you believe that. Comey deserved to be fired just for the way he entrapped Flynn. Comey was the head leaker in a FBI that leaked like a sieve -- which the DoJ IG revealed. I predict we'll be learning more about Comey's tenure in the near future.

So then you're left with: Rosenstein was insane for appointing Mueller, and Trump is a Boy Scout.

He was duly elected.

[old salt]

You're naive if you believe that. Comey deserved to be fired just for the way he entrapped Flynn. Comey was the head leaker in a FBI that leaked like a sieve -- which the DoJ IG revealed. I predict we'll be learning more about Comey's tenure in the near future.

So then you're left with: Rosenstein was insane for appointing Mueller, and Trump is a Boy Scout.

Trump's no boy scout, but Mueller didn't bring forward enough to justify his investigation & putting the country through this for 2 years.

That's not a knock on Mueller. He couldn't know what he'd find. Rosenstein panicked & buckled under political pressure.

Remember -- this was supposedly started as a counter intel investigation & not a criminal investigation for obstruction.

The problem is -- the SC law is for criminal investigations & there was already a counter intel investigation underway (in Crossfire Hurricane).
https://www.lawfareblog.com/counterinte ... ate-part-i

[a fan]

You're naive if you believe that. Comey deserved to be fired just for the way he entrapped Flynn. Comey was the head leaker in a FBI that leaked like a sieve -- which the DoJ IG revealed. I predict we'll be learning more about Comey's tenure in the near future.

So then you're left with: Rosenstein was insane for appointing Mueller, and Trump is a Boy Scout.

Trump's no boy scout, but Mueller didn't bring forward enough to justify his investigation & putting the country through this for 2 years.

That's not a knock on Mueller. He couldn't know what he'd find. Rosenstein panicked & buckled under political pressure.

Rosenstein did what any red blooded American would do. Sorry mate, but you don't get to fire the guy who is investigating you. It's that simple. Spin all you want about leaks, but it's that simple.

Add in that we have the Executive Branch investigating the head of the Executive Branch-----and voila. The whole this is a mess. Our system isn't designed for this. Mueller was the best tool in the drawer at the time.

Remember -- this was supposedly started as a counter intel investigation & not a criminal investigation for obstruction.

And I give you the same response I gave regarding Hillary, with her emails "supposedly starting with a Benghazi investigation": so what? We're here.

[old salt]

You're naive if you believe that. Comey deserved to be fired just for the way he entrapped Flynn. Comey was the head leaker in a FBI that leaked like a sieve -- which the DoJ IG revealed. I predict we'll be learning more about Comey's tenure in the near future.

So then you're left with: Rosenstein was insane for appointing Mueller, and Trump is a Boy Scout.

Trump's no boy scout, but Mueller didn't bring forward enough to justify his investigation & putting the country through this for 2 years.

That's not a knock on Mueller. He couldn't know what he'd find. Rosenstein panicked & buckled under political pressure.

Rosenstein did what any red blooded American would do. Sorry mate, but you don't get to fire the guy who is investigating you. It's that simple. Spin all you want about leaks, but it's that simple.
Comey wasn't investigating Trump. Comey kept telling Trump that, but he wouldn't say it before Congress or when asked by the media.

Crossfire Hurricane was (supposedly) predicated as a counter intel investigation into Russian interference in the election. Trump & his campaign were swept up in that investigation, but they (supposedly) were not the target or the genesis of the investigation (tdb, based on the findings of Barr's review}

Add in that we have the Executive Branch investigating the head of the Executive Branch-----and voila. The whole this is a mess. Our system isn't designed for this. Mueller was the best tool in the drawer at the time.
Again, CH was a counter intel investigation into Russian interference. Trump was (supposedly) not a target.

Remember -- this was supposedly started as a counter intel investigation & not a criminal investigation for obstruction.

And I give you the same response I gave regarding Hillary, with her emails "supposedly starting with a Benghazi investigation": so what? We're here.
HRC's use of a private server for classified traffic inadvertently became public knowledge, was obviously illegal & could not be ignored. It had to be addressed. After investigation (with great deference to HRC), Comey concluded it wasn't even a Petraeus level misdemeanor plea, because he (arguably) couldn't prove intent.

POTUS firing the FBI Director is not illegal. There were not grounds for a criminal investigation, so Rosenstein masked it as a counter intel investigation, as an expansion & continuation of CH.

I wouldn't get too worked up about a Barr purging of the Deep State.
In his Senate testimony, Barr hinted that the bad actors may already be out of govt service.

[a fan]

Again, CH was a counter intel investigation into Russian interference. Trump was (supposedly) not a target.

His direct reports were. Same thing.

HRC's use of a private server for classified traffic inadvertently became public knowledge, was obviously illegal & could not be ignored. It had to be addressed. After investigation (with great deference to HRC), Comey concluded it wasn't even a Petraeus level misdemeanor plea, because he (arguably) couldn't prove intent.

I understand. My point was, it started with one thing, and you can't ignore illegal stuff. All the lying from Trump's people made the whole thing a mess, and is the reason all the tin foil hats came out. And also prodded Rosenstein.

POTUS firing the FBI Director is not illegal.

No. It's not. But there's a reason Nixon's "Friday Night Massacre", while fully legal, was a pivotal event in American history.

There is more to American leadership that keepin' it legal. See: Benghazi.

In the end, your ire stops at Republican Rosenstein. And yet If Trump gets re-elected, you can thank Rosenstein for that.

Surely you understand why.

[a fan]

I wouldn't get too worked up about a Barr purging of the Deep State.
In his Senate testimony, Barr hinted that the bad actors may already be out of govt service.

I'm not worked up. I'm making fun of his claim of not politicizing our investigative forces....right before he uses our investigative forces to go after people who were mean to Trump.

I have to ask: does this mean your Deep State is gone?

[Chips O'Toole]

POTUS firing the FBI Director is not illegal.

No. It's not. But there's a reason Nixon's "Friday Night Massacre", while fully legal, was a pivotal event in American history.

POTUS firing Comey was not illegal and the Friday Night Massacre was "fully legal." Okie dokie. Fanlax Law School in session up in here.

[a fan]

I'm all ears: what was illegal about what Nixon did?

No, I'm not a lawyer. I feel like that's a point in my favor, no?

[Chips O'Toole]

I'm all ears: what was illegal about what Nixon did?

No, I'm not a lawyer. I feel like that's a point in my favor, no?

Both the Saturday Night Massacre and the Comey firing were very strong cases for criminal obstruction. While there may be some colorable defenses in both cases, I don't think they are persuasive. "Fully legal"? No, not exactly. Mueller did not think firing Comey was "fully legal" either. You may not think much of the legal profession, which is fine. We all do what we do -- award yourself points wherever you like.

Thanks to hacks like Barr, there's a lot of confusion about obstruction. You do not, in fact, need to have a finding of an underlying crime to find obstruction. See, that's the whole point: Why would someone obstruct an investigation into a crime they didn't commit? And why would the system reward successful obstructive actions? Everyone would commit obstruction if it could help achieve an acquittal. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but I guess that's where we are.

If you're like Barr and think the POTUS can fire anyone he wants, for any reason -- including for being black, disabled, or a hot intern refusing to stroke his unit -- then we don't have much common ground to work with.

[a fan]

Both the Saturday Night Massacre and the Comey firing were very strong cases for criminal obstruction. While there may be some colorable defenses in both cases, I don't think they are persuasive. "Fully legal"? No, not exactly. Mueller did not think firing Comey was "fully legal" either.

Well, I'm looking at zero indictments for both Nixon and Trump's firings. Pointing at the scoreboard seems like a solid way to go, don't you think.

You may not think much of the legal profession, which is fine. We all do what we do -- award yourself points wherever you like.

My family is filled with lawyers. It was a joke. Note the emoticon. Best business partners I've ever had are honest lawyers. Accept no substitutes.

Thanks to hacks like Barr, there's a lot of confusion about obstruction. You do not, in fact, need to have a finding of an underlying crime to find obstruction. See, that's the whole point: Why would someone obstruct an investigation into a crime they didn't commit? And why would the system reward successful obstructive actions? Everyone would commit obstruction if it could help achieve an acquittal. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but I guess that's where we are.

You're talking to the wrong guy, again. I'm behind every one of your points here. I'm just telling you what I'm seeing. The entire point the Constitution was to make sure the common man could understand the law and how it was applied. That idea left the building quite a while ago....and I promise you I'm not happy about that.

If you're like Barr and think the POTUS can fire anyone he wants, for any reason -- including for being black, disabled, or a hot intern refusing to stroke his unit -- then we don't have much common ground to work with.

This is the second time you've said stuff like this. Clearly you're reading one out of every ten posts I'm making, and are drawing weird conclusions.

The glaring problem, obviously, is that the Constitution fails citizens when it lets the head of the Executive Branch (Trump) be judged for indictment by the guy who works for him (Barr).

If you lawyers---who wrote these laws in the first place---- want to get together and fix this obviously ridiculous problem, I can assure you that us civilians would be forever grateful.

[Chips O'Toole]

Clearly you're reading one out of every ten posts I'm making, and are drawing weird conclusions.

Totally fair point. Sorry, I tend to grab onto things I find objectionable but don't give kudos for good points. You are one of the best posters on here, no doubt. That's probably why I overreact when you write something I don't agree with -- because you are very credible and your comments might do more harm than some other folks on here.

[OCanada]

For the benefit of those who want to pretend Barr hasn’t been lying his butt off: Vol ll. Page 76

“But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns,” the report continues.

[runrussellrun]

Has Barr been held in contempt yet? Or was the bar set low when the only AG evah to be held in contempt was Obama's Holder

[Typical Lax Dad]

Has Barr been held in contempt yet? Or was the bar set low when the only AG evah to be held in contempt was Obama's Holder

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/ ... ess-077988