So is Barr the Attorney General or Trumps personal lawyer?

[Zanting]

I misunderstood nothing. I saw him stand next to Putin in Helsinki and unequivocally deny that Russia interfered. He has never retracted that statement.

Since the Mueller report has revealed attempted meddling by the Russians, this is what I hear...

 

[KCfromNC]

Perhaps you misunderstood...the only thing Trump has denied all along is that he had nothing to do with Russian interference, nor did he collude with Putin, or any other Russian, nor did he obstruct the investigation...nor did anyone in his campaign...and which initially Mueller, then Rosenstein and the AG William Barr all determined in their conclusion of the Mueller report.

This is simply false. Mueller didn't comment on collusion, and he certainly didn't clear Trump of obstruction by listing all the ways Trump attempted to interfere in the investigation. And implying that Mueller's and Barr's conclusions based on Mueller's report goes against what Mueller himself wrote.

Not to mention Trump lying about there being zero contact between his campaign and Russia.

 

[Tom 1]

If there was, substantial evidence, The Dems would have started to impeach the very next day.

Do you genuinely believe it's that simple? What are you basing that idea on?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except as the report made clear Mueller believes that it is impossible to criminally indict a sitting president, so he never set out to indict him.

What Mueller believes is irrelevant. He was told by the DOJ that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and he chose not to fight that decision.

What he did was provide evidence for Congress/senate to impeach, and on obstruction there is most definitely a case, just like Nixon.

Unfortunately, Congress is far too craven to do the right thing, so they're going to punt it... which will be interpreted by Donald's followers (as they are ideologically required to) as an exoneration.

 

[USincognito]

Perspective is everything...and I'm of an opposing perspective to yours for example ... my perspective is this...Polls have no statistical validity...they fluctuate based on the population polled and/or who participates in said polls. In other words...they can easily be manipulated or can be very misleading and have no real tangible value, meaning, or ability to represent facts.

That's not a perspective. That's wishful thinking. Push polls can manipulate somewhat, but most other polls cannot be manipulated, especially when they come from reliable sources like Pew, Gallup, Ipsos and Quinnipiac.

 

[bhsmte]

William Barr: is his defence of Trump paving the road to tyranny?
“The president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course,” Barr told senators. “The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused.

Seriously?!!

This really comes down to an opinion on legal theory, which barr does share with alan dershowitz.

It appears though, most legal opinions differ from barr though.

It appears to me, barr is working from what he honestly feels the law to mean, and not some blind loyalty to the president. I am anxious to hear from mueller, but barr moved pretty quickly, to release the report to the public, which by law, he did not have to do.

 

[Belk]

This really comes down to an opinion on legal theory, which barr does share with alan dershowitz.

It appears though, most legal opinions differ from barr though.

It appears to me, barr is working from what he honestly feels the law to mean, and not some blind loyalty to the president. I am anxious to hear from mueller, but barr moved pretty quickly, to release the report to the public, which by law, he did not have to do.

What do you make of his speech prior to the release?

 

[bhsmte]

It certainly appeared to be partisan in favor of trump.

With that said, here is my take on barr and it is my opinion:

I dont see him as some shill for trump, but i do see him having very strong opinions on the law and also, how the whole investigation started and was handled.

You have to remember, barr now has access to information as AG, that clues him in on the actions leading up to and after the investigation by the fbi and justice department. He has referenced the inspector generals report about to come out (and you know barr has been briefed on findings so far) and the fact the justice department is also looking into the actions of the fbi and justice department. I have always said, it is likely those folks crossed the line and may have broken laws in doing so and this is something that doesnt sit well with barr.

We dont know the whole story yet, which is why i am anxious to hear from mueller and also see the results, of the investigations into the actions of both the fbi, justice department and possibly, other intelligence agencies.

 

[NotreDame]

Are you hinging your analysis on the word "intent"? Because I disagree with that analysis too. Unilaterally ending an investigation that you are the subject of, even if you have been falsely accused, is corrupt and of corrupt intent. The claim that Trump is being falsely accused comes from Trump himself. How do we verify that claim? By completing the investigation. If the President can simply say "I'm being falsely accused!" and terminate an investigation into himself unilaterally, that is a defining characteristic of tyranny.


Is Mueller himself not a member of his own team?

Are you hinging your analysis on the word "intent"? Because I disagree with that analysis too. Unilaterally ending an investigation that you are the subject of, even if you have been falsely accused, is corrupt and of corrupt intent.

Well, that’s the issue right? I do not think your analysis is correct. You assume a corrupt intent exists where the President is the subject of the investigation and terminates the investigation, which is to also say you assume he can’t have an intent that is not correct. Your view certainly has merit but doesn’t comport with the law regarding obstruction.

Let’s suppose Trump is told by the FBI Director and AG that they have information not only exculpating the President of the crime for which he is being investigated, but the evidence also demonstrates the allegations against him, which were the basis of the investigation, are false. Under these circumstances, the President’s intent to terminate the investigation isn’t “corrupt intent” and his motives are not unlawful.

Of course, that hypothetical has not been shown to be applicable to the investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice.

His remark seems to be a generalized comment about constitutional executive power and obstruction. His generalized remark may be correct, likely is, in certain contexts. I’m not sure it’s particularly applicable to Trump.

Is Mueller himself not a member of his own team?

The phrase “members of the special counsel’s team” reasonably refers to the subordinates, and not the leader of the team. The phrase is referencing something belonging to the special counsel and not to special counsel himself.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Let’s suppose Trump is told by the FBI Director and AG that they have information not only exculpating the President of the crime for which he is being investigated, but the evidence also demonstrates the allegations against him, which were the basis of the investigation, are false. Under these circumstances, the President’s intent to terminate the investigation isn’t “corrupt intent” and his motives are not unlawful.

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.

The phrase “members of the special counsel’s team” reasonably refers to the subordinates, and not the leader of the team. The phrase is referencing something belonging to the special counsel and not to special counsel himself.

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.

 

[Pommer]

Let’s suppose Trump is told by the FBI Director and AG that they have information not only exculpating the President of the crime for which he is being investigated, but the evidence also demonstrates the allegations against him, which were the basis of the investigation, are false.

In “normal” Administrations, both the Director and the AG would go through normal DOJ channels, maybe giving a quick call over to the Oval Office to “take the pressure off”.
Only in the micro-management “style” of Trump would the AG and FBI Director brief the President directly, before taking the actions that the evidence demanded.

 

[Zanting]

This is simply false. Mueller didn't comment on collusion, and he certainly didn't clear Trump of obstruction by listing all the ways Trump attempted to interfere in the investigation. And implying that Mueller's and Barr's conclusions based on Mueller's report goes against what Mueller himself wrote.

Not to mention Trump lying about there being zero contact between his campaign and Russia.

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.

 

[whatbogsends]

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.

If you've read the report and found Barr's summary accurate, then I think you may not have comprehended the report.

Barr's summary included things like the report found "no collusion", whereas the actual report made it quite clear that, as collusion is not a term which has a definition pursuant to a crime, "collusion" was not something the report even looked for.

Barr makes some pretty fine distinctions between words in the questions he was asked "fired" vs. "removed", "Mueller's team" vs. "Mueller" (Barr's false claim here is more detailed, but since it's been posted numerous times by myself and others, i'm not going to rehash it here), yet is sloppy enough with language to say the report contained "no collusion" (which is exactly what Trump says, and is not a legal conclusion) despite the report saying no such thing.

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, and then abused his power to attempt to limit an investigation into Russian interference in our elections, because he thought it cast a negative light on himself (which, it did, primarily due to his lies about his contacts and connections with Russia).

 

[Zanting]

If you've read the report and found Barr's summary accurate, then I think you may not have comprehended the report.

Barr's summary included things like the report found "no collusion", whereas the actual report made it quite clear that, as collusion is not a term which has a definition pursuant to a crime, "collusion" was not something the report even looked for.

Barr makes some pretty fine distinctions between words in the questions he was asked "fired" vs. "removed", "Mueller's team" vs. "Mueller" (Barr's false claim here is more detailed, but since it's been posted numerous times by myself and others, i'm not going to rehash it here), yet is sloppy enough with language to say the report contained "no collusion" (which is exactly what Trump says, and is not a legal conclusion) despite the report saying no such thing.

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, and then abused his power to attempt to limit an investigation into Russian interference in our elections, because he thought it cast a negative light on himself (which, it did, primarily due to his lies about his contacts and connections with Russia).

Well...like I said before...perspective is everything.

 

[DaisyDay]

Numbers don't mean anything, facts and truth do...and actions speak louder than words...especially with all the noise the democrats make. Noise, noise, noise...no action...just speculation, disinformation, false accusations, treasonous behavior etc...angry, angry, angry that the Mueller report didn't support their narrative...it sucks when you're caught in a lie.

More facts are yet to be revealed such as this...

Opinion | The Truth About ‘Spying’ on the Trump Campaign

Did you even read that article past the headline? It concludes:

The “spying” rhetoric casts a cloud of illegitimacy over the Russia probe and the F.B.I. and undermines the special counsel’s findings. This is useful misdirection: Mr. Mueller’s conclusion that the Trump “campaign anticipated receiving derogatory documents and information from official Russian sources that could assist candidate Trump’s electoral prospects” challenges Mr. Barr’s declaration that the evidence showed “no collusion.” In that light, it’s not hard to see who’s serving the truth and who’s serving the president.

 

[Zanting]

Did you even read that article past the headline? It concludes:

yes...and we shall see what comes out of the investigation into spying on the Trump campaign.

 

[USincognito]

yes...and we shall see what comes out of the investigation into spying on the Trump campaign.

I'm sure it will blame President Obama as much as the Mueller report exonerates Trump.

 

[Zanting]

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.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Sounds just like Trump supporters and the Mueller report. There's literally hundreds of lawyers signing their name to a letter saying Trump was guilty of obstruction, but all we hear from them is that Trump is totally innocent, it was a hoax, and that the real criminals™ like Obama, Clinton, the FBI, the CIA, George Soros, Rachel Maddow, David Hogg and time travel Hitler are really going to get it!

 

[Zanting]

Sounds just like Trump supporters and the Mueller report. There's literally hundreds of lawyers signing their name to a letter saying Trump was guilty of obstruction, but all we hear from them is that Trump is totally innocent, it was a hoax, and that the real criminals™ like Obama, Clinton, the FBI, the CIA, George Soros, Rachel Maddow, David Hogg and time travel Hitler are really going to get it!

It will all die down soon...no worries.