So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It will all die down soon...no worries.

Who's worried?
MAD-Magazine-Alfred-for-President-Brink.jpg
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You're entitled to believe anything you want...I've read the entire report

Feel free to quote anything from the report which you think supports your claims. I know they don't.

For example, it specifically says it doesn't address the question of collusion :

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

The facts behind my other claim make up the bulk of Volume II. It includes this bit :

...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

So yeah, I guess I do believe differently from you. But ignoring the reasons why won't make them go away.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'd contend that in that case, the correct course of action would be for the AG to terminate the investigation. It is improper - corrupt - for the subject of an investigation to terminate that investigation. It's not necessarily unlawful, but that's not the point of contention here.

ETA: it would also be highly improper to show the subject of an investigation any evidence relating to that investigation. That's why the AG has oversight, not the President.


That's a pretty razor-thin mincing of words there - it maybe follows the letter of the definition, but certainly not the spirit. Not to mention, as others have pointed out, Barr also stated that he believed that the letter was not actually written by Mueller, but by members of his team. He can't have things both ways. If he believed the letter was written by Mueller's team, then he lied when he said that he didn't know of any concerns from Mueller's team. If he thinks Mueller wrote the letter, then he lied when he said that he thought members of Mueller's team wrote it.

I'd contend that in that case, the correct course of action would be for the AG to terminate the investigation. It is improper - corrupt - for the subject of an investigation to terminate that investigation. It's not necessarily unlawful, but that's not the point of contention here.

There may be more than one “correct course of action” applicable to my hypo. The AG terminating the investigation may one. The other would be the President terminating the investigation. Your reasoning loses its efficacy in a scenario when the President is made known of the fact the investigators have uncovered exculpatory evidence.

It’s not reasonable to conclude, as you do, that it’s “improper” and/or “corrupt” for a President, who is subject of an investigation, to terminate an investigation when he is aware the investigators discover exculpatory evidence.

That's a pretty razor-thin mincing of words there - it maybe follows the letter of the definition, but certainly not the spirit.

Words do not have “spirits,” they have meanings. Typically, when someone isn’t satisfied with where the meaning of the words lead them, they’ll invoke the metaphysical “spirit” of the words approach, which isn’t a very good methodology. I can just as easily say my understanding of the phrase is “certainly” consistent with the “spirit” of the phrase. It’s better to adhere to something more objective, the meaning of the words themselves, as opposed to the metaphysical world of “spirits.”

My understanding is not “razor thin mincing of words.” Read the phrase again. The phrase is referencing something belonging to Mueller, and the subject of the phrase is the thing belonging to Mueller, Mueller is not the subject. That’s not a “razor thin mincing of words” but a rational reading of the English language!

Barr also stated that he believed that the letter was not actually written by Mueller, but by members of his team.

Cite please? A link please?
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Not to mention, as others have pointed out, Barr also stated that he believed that the letter was not actually written by Mueller, but by members of his team. He can't have things both ways. If he believed the letter was written by Mueller's team, then he lied when he said that he didn't know of any concerns from Mueller's team. If he thinks Mueller wrote the letter, then he lied when he said that he thought members of Mueller's team wrote it.

Dead right...

“The letter’s a bit snitty, and I think it was written by one of his staff people,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Barr dismisses 'snitty' Mueller complaint letter

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ce673e-6ba4-11e9-be3a-33217240a539_story.html
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
It's looking pretty bad for a number of people involved, but no matter what evidence is provided or facts laid out...the democrats won't accept anything that doesn't go along with their narrative. It's happened so often it's predictable.

I'm not a Democrat. The facts put forth in the Muller Report demonstrate a clear case of obstruction. While I agree that politicians in both parties, as well as respectively biased media outlets, spin the facts to align with their own narrative, in this instance, the Democrat "narrative" aligns with the facts.

Trump did benefit from the Russian interference, he welcomed that interference, he has repeatedly taken Putin's word over our intelligence agencies to claim that it wasn't Russia who meddled (which is providing comfort to an adversary), and has tried to stop or hinder the investigation in various ways by his powers as President.

That Trump's supporters continue to bury their heads in the sand is entirely predictable. Trump was correct when he said "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose a single vote."
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Dead right...

“The letter’s a bit snitty, and I think it was written by one of his staff people,” Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Barr dismisses 'snitty' Mueller complaint letter

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ce673e-6ba4-11e9-be3a-33217240a539_story.html

You very mistaken if you believe Barr’s remark,”I think it was written by one of his staff people,” supports Rock’s point of,”Barr also stated that he believed that the letter was not actually written by Mueller, but by members of his team. He can't have things both ways. If he believed the letter was written by Mueller's team, then he lied when he said that he didn't know of any concerns from Mueller's team. If he thinks Mueller wrote the letter, then he lied when he said that he thought members of Mueller's team wrote it.

First, the obvious. Barr said he “thinks” he knows who wrote it, he isn’t stating or asserting such a thought as a fact. Neither is he expressing that he believes what he is “thinking” is factual. Hence, his remark about the letter is entirely consistent with his prior commentary, since he isn’t claiming to “know” or claiming as a fact that members of Mueller’s team wrote the letter.

Second, the letter is signed by Mueller. The letter is not signed by a staff person. Hence, Barr carefully phrased his remark as to what he “thinks,” since, after all, Mueller signed the letter and since the letter bares his (Mueller’s) signature, Mueller may have in fact composed the letter.

Or maybe Mueller made a draft of points he wanted made in a letter and provided his draft to a staff person to compose a letter incorporating the points Mueller wanted. Mueller then reviewed the letter for approval and signed it.

Either way, you’ve cited to nothing that demonstrates Barr lied in the manner Rocks and I have discussed.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not a Democrat. The facts put forth in the Muller Report demonstrate a clear case of obstruction.

Which facts “demonstrate a clear case of obstruction”? Which phase of obstruction do those facts appear?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
It’s not reasonable to conclude, as you do, that it’s “improper” and/or “corrupt” for a President, who is subject of an investigation, to terminate an investigation when he is aware the investigators discover exculpatory evidence.
Why not? Would you condone a police chief doing the same? Or an Attorney General? Conflict of interest is a thing. The subject of an investigation should never have any control over that investigation. Being the President doesn't change that.

Words do not have “spirits,” they have meanings. Typically, when someone isn’t satisfied with where the meaning of the words lead them, they’ll invoke the metaphysical “spirit” of the words approach, which isn’t a very good methodology. I can just as easily say my understanding of the phrase is “certainly” consistent with the “spirit” of the phrase. It’s better to adhere to something more objective, the meaning of the words themselves, as opposed to the metaphysical world of “spirits.”

My understanding is not “razor thin mincing of words.” Read the phrase again. The phrase is referencing something belonging to Mueller, and the subject of the phrase is the thing belonging to Mueller, Mueller is not the subject. That’s not a “razor thin mincing of words” but a rational reading of the English language!
You're technically correct - it is a way of reading the language. However, most people don't consult a dictionary and thesaurus every time they speak. I contend that MOST people would not derive the same meaning that you're ascribing to Barr's words (or the words of his questioner). Perhaps Crist did truly mean his question in the precise, narrow manner in which you (and Barr?) have interpreted it. But somehow I doubt that.

ETA: When I was a kid, my parents would ask me "Rocks, did you brush your teeth?" before I went to bed. My inner lawyer eventually decided that it was technically not lying to say yes, provided I had brushed my teeth some time in the past. However, I still got in trouble for lying when my dad checked my toothbrush and found it dry.

Using semantics and narrow definitions of words and phrases so as to technically tell the truth is at best unethical, and at worst, still a lie (depending on who you ask). It should not be applauded, nor should it be seen as an admirable quality in our government officials.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Which facts “demonstrate a clear case of obstruction”? Which phase of obstruction do those facts appear?

Trump's attempted removal of Mueller via McGahn (Section E, Volume 2), and subsequently attempting to have McGahn deny that action (Section I, Volume 2) and his attempts to Curtail the investigation (Section F, Volume 2). Additionally, his witness tampering with Cohen and Manafort (Sections J & K, Volume 2).

I'd go into more detail, but you may be aware that a slew of previous federal prosecutors have already detailed themselves. STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

You, yourself linked a summary (from Richard Hoeg) which you felt was accurate, which described the actions pertaining to those efforts as evidence of obstruction. Yet, you somehow believe, that because some of the other potentially obstructive acts were less clear cut, that it mitigates the aforementioned actions - it doesn't.
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Why not? Would you condone a police chief doing the same? Or an Attorney General? Conflict of interest is a thing. The subject of an investigation should never have any control over that investigation. Being the President doesn't change that.

You're technically correct - it is a way of reading the language. However, most people don't consult a dictionary and thesaurus every time they speak. I contend that MOST people would not derive the same meaning that you're ascribing to Barr's words (or the words of his questioner). Perhaps Crist did truly mean his question in the precise, narrow manner in which you (and Barr?) have interpreted it. But somehow I doubt that.

ETA: When I was a kid, my parents would ask me "Rocks, did you brush your teeth?" before I went to bed. My inner lawyer eventually decided that it was technically not lying to say yes, provided I had brushed my teeth some time in the past. However, I still got in trouble for lying when my dad checked my toothbrush and found it dry.

Using semantics and narrow definitions of words and phrases so as to technically tell the truth is at best unethical, and at worst, still a lie (depending on who you ask). It should not be applauded, nor should it be seen as an admirable quality in our government officials.

The oath he was under was not simply "do not lie", it was "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". He did no such thing.

Moreover, Barr tried to hide under the precision of language in his flimsy excuses for his lies in his first testimony, yet was extremely careless with language when he released his summary of principle conclusions of the Mueller report, as he claimed the report showed "no collusion", whereas the report specifically said that it didn't address collusion, as collusion was not a legal term.
 
Upvote 0

Zanting

not so new
Mar 15, 2012
2,366
464
✟47,296.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Feel free to quote anything from the report which you think supports your claims. I know they don't.

For example, it specifically says it doesn't address the question of collusion :

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

The facts behind my other claim make up the bulk of Volume II. It includes this bit :

...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

So yeah, I guess I do believe differently from you. But ignoring the reasons why won't make them go away.

Not just my belief at all, nor just my claim at all...although I know that often people like to make it personal...nor am I ignoring anything.


 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You're entitled to believe anything you want...I've read the entire report, and actually posted it, and I listened to William Barr's entire testimony and what I hear him say is very different from the spin that the democrats have put on the Mueller letter that Barr received. Furthermore, they had no right, reason or cause to treat William Barr as they did. They are so angry and it's truly very sad.

He lied. When someone lies under oath, I think you have justification to be “angry” with them...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What is truly very sad is how far Trump supporters are willing to subvert their ethics and morality to justify a President who has clearly lied to the people regarding his relationship with Russia,


Where are getting your information?

What “relationship” with Russia are referring to?



JLB
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Trump's attempted removal of Mueller via McGahn (Section E, Volume 2), and subsequently attempting to have McGahn deny that action (Section I, Volume 2) and his attempts to Curtail the investigation (Section F, Volume 2). Additionally, his witness tampering with Cohen and Manafort (Sections J & K, Volume 2).

I'd go into more detail, but you may be aware that a slew of previous federal prosecutors have already detailed themselves. STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

You, yourself linked a summary (from Richard Hoeg) which you felt was accurate, which described the actions pertaining to those efforts as evidence of obstruction. Yet, you somehow believe, that because some of the other potentially obstructive acts were less clear cut, that it mitigates the aforementioned actions - it doesn't.

Where is the proof of such accusations?


The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;

· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and

· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
 
Upvote 0