You're entitled to believe anything you want...I've read the entire report
The democrats...
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.
That's a pretty razor-thin mincing of words there - it maybe follows the letter of the definition, but certainly not the spirit.
Barr also stated that he believed that the letter was not actually written by Mueller, but by members of his team.
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.
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.
It's looking pretty bad for a number of people involved
but no matter what evidence is provided or facts laid out
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
I'm not a Democrat. The facts put forth in the Muller Report demonstrate a clear case of obstruction.
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.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.
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.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!
Which facts “demonstrate a clear case of obstruction”? Which phase of obstruction do those facts appear?
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?