dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 35,201
- 28,216
- 136
Honestly this is what I am most afraid of.
Honestly this is what I am most afraid of.
As soon as Barr is held to account, the full report is presented to Congress and Mueller testifies.
Honestly this is what I am most afraid of.
Methinks Pelosi realizes this and also understands that the GOP is a cornered wounded beast that will do anything, say anything no matter the long term consequences it may suffer. She needs to get this shot at Trump clear of any obstacles that the Repubs have planned to throw up around Trump because she has only a single shot to ding Trump bad enough for him and the party to give it all up.
Play the long game for a sure shot or spray and pray. I lean toward the 'ol "find'um, fix'um and finish'um" strategy rather than the banzai charge into the fray.
I'm not feeling good about it. Fucking lawfareblog is now running manure for this admin.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-barr-and-mueller-report
I think Mueller made a mistake, one that diminishes the perception of his independence and the credibility of his report, in failing to make a prosecutorial judgment one way or the other on obstruction, and especially in his extra-prosecutorial insistence that he was not “exonerating” the president. (Mueller opened himself up to this powerful rebuttal from the president’s special counsel, Emmet Flood.) Mueller’s action seems inconsistent with what the regulations tried to accomplish, which was to prevent extra-prosecutorial editorializing. In effect Mueller made an impeachment referral that the regulations do not contemplate, though he followed the regulations in leaving it to Barr to make the report public, which he knew Barr had pledged to do.
Seriously. lmao. Flood's "rebuttal" was damning against Barr, not Mueller.
And THIS was Goldsmith's previous opinion (edit: right side of the tweet), which is totally contradictory with the article:
But that's not even the worst part about it. There's more!
"The enormous criticism of Barr’s March 24 letter seems greatly exaggerated to me. The letter purported to state the Mueller report’s “principal conclusions.” It did that, and it specifically noted Mueller’s damning conclusion, which the public later learned Barr thought was inappropriate, that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
In this light, and especially in light of subsequent events, I fail to see how Barr warrants the super-harsh personal criticism he has received over the letter. Those subsequent events include (i) publicly clarifying that he, Barr, did not purport to capture or summarize everything in Mueller’s report; (ii) working around the clock to get the relatively lightly redacted report made public—something Barr had no legal duty to do; (iii) testifying twice before Congress to explain his reasoning; and (iv) allowing Mueller to testify before Congress if he wants. These are not the actions of a man trying to mischaracterize the report or hide the ball. And they cured any objections that might have properly been lodged against the quickly written original letter."
I'm not optimisitc AT ALL about Mueller being harsh on Barr, especially if Barr's reporting of the interaction with Mueller is accurate. if it is, Mueller will frame it similarly to this guy and probably will shy away from giving an opinion on obstruction even though Barr claims Mueller should have made a charging decision.
Strongman Trump has surrounded himself with right-wing authoritarians who sign NDAs. He owns the content of their minds.Meh. Given DoJ policy, Mueller came as close as possible to indicting Trump as he could w/o actually doing so. It never was possible for him to do so in the first place. He did give Congress a roadmap to impeachment, however.
How in the fuck anybody accepts the AG acting as Trump's attorney is a disgrace. The right answer for any AG at this juncture would simply be to send Congress whatever they want & let them handle it at the higher Constitutional level of impeachment. That oath he swore to defend the Constitution? Forget that. Defend Trump instead.
I'm not feeling good about it. Fucking lawfareblog is now running manure for this admin.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-barr-and-mueller-report
I think Mueller made a mistake, one that diminishes the perception of his independence and the credibility of his report, in failing to make a prosecutorial judgment one way or the other on obstruction, and especially in his extra-prosecutorial insistence that he was not “exonerating” the president. (Mueller opened himself up to this powerful rebuttal from the president’s special counsel, Emmet Flood.) Mueller’s action seems inconsistent with what the regulations tried to accomplish, which was to prevent extra-prosecutorial editorializing. In effect Mueller made an impeachment referral that the regulations do not contemplate, though he followed the regulations in leaving it to Barr to make the report public, which he knew Barr had pledged to do.
Seriously. lmao. Flood's "rebuttal" was damning against Barr, not Mueller.
And THIS was Goldsmith's previous opinion (edit: right side of the tweet), which is totally contradictory with the article:
But that's not even the worst part about it. There's more!
"The enormous criticism of Barr’s March 24 letter seems greatly exaggerated to me. The letter purported to state the Mueller report’s “principal conclusions.” It did that, and it specifically noted Mueller’s damning conclusion, which the public later learned Barr thought was inappropriate, that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
In this light, and especially in light of subsequent events, I fail to see how Barr warrants the super-harsh personal criticism he has received over the letter. Those subsequent events include (i) publicly clarifying that he, Barr, did not purport to capture or summarize everything in Mueller’s report; (ii) working around the clock to get the relatively lightly redacted report made public—something Barr had no legal duty to do; (iii) testifying twice before Congress to explain his reasoning; and (iv) allowing Mueller to testify before Congress if he wants. These are not the actions of a man trying to mischaracterize the report or hide the ball. And they cured any objections that might have properly been lodged against the quickly written original letter."
I'm not optimisitc AT ALL about Mueller being harsh on Barr, especially if Barr's reporting of the interaction with Mueller is accurate. if it is, Mueller will frame it similarly to this guy and probably will shy away from giving an opinion on obstruction even though Barr claims Mueller should have made a charging decision.
Poop or get off the pot.
Yeah if we were to impeach today, it'd be a partisan issue in the senate and fail. There just isn't enough motivation for the 22 senate GOP members to ditch Trump. And I said 22 because there will be a few dems who will flake out.
Treasury refusing to hand over Trump's taxes.
They've broken the government.
Fuck these assholes.
Poop or get off the pot.
In a clear, unambiguous violation of the plain wording of the statute.
Stop obstructing or get the GOP to give a shit about the obstruction?
McConnell obstructed Obama for 8 years so they're obviously down for more.
Not quite yet. I figure Dems will move ahead once they have all the evidence being withheld by Barr (or a court order to give it up) & some dynamite testimony by the people who wrote the report...
Barr has been way more transparent than the law requires. As I understand it they have a copy of the report that is less redacted that they can go read, but they refuse to do so. The one issues for the general public is from what I read way less than 10% redacted.
Barr has been way more transparent than the law requires. As I understand it they have a copy of the report that is less redacted that they can go read, but they refuse to do so. The one issues for the general public is from what I read way less than 10% redacted.
So do the impeachment then.In a clear, unambiguous violation of the plain wording of the statute.
Bullshit, in fact the law forbids his releasing Grand Jury testimony, but lie away fskihole.No, the Constitution requires him to share the full, unredacted report with congress.
The idea that the executive branch could hide evidence of executive branch misconduct from the only branch of government that can hold the executive branch accountable for misconduct is bafflingly silly.