• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Judge Rules Barr DoJ Memo to be Released

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,124
3,437
126

while i doubt this will spell any new legal issues for trump, it is important to shed light on just how fragile our democracy is. a competent version of trump could have walked all over the country (well, infinitely moreso than he did) with the aid of barr and repubs in his pocket.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,189
4,841
136

while i doubt this will spell any new legal issues for trump, it is important to shed light on just how fragile our democracy is. a competent version of trump could have walked all over the country (well, infinitely moreso than he did) with the aid of barr and repubs in his pocket.
Seeing reporting on this by Maddow. Like nobody with half a brain knew. Seems the Judge got a gander at the memo and says their was no decision about whether or not to prosecute, it was already baked in the cake.

Judge Orders Justice Dept. To Release Trump Obstruction Memo | HuffPost
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,477
2,153
136
Sadly I don't think this will end up moving any needless. The Republican spin doctors will be able to focus attention away from the point of the release (to establish that they were looking for ways to justify a pre-made decision) to the content of the BS justifications.

Despite the legal arguments here being caca for anyone who actually reads the Mueller report, putting any focus on the arguments themselves undermines the central problem: that the justice department predetermined an exoneration of Trump prior to receipt of evidence. Even if the evidence actually justified such an exoneration, that predetermination is nothing short of treason. Especially when Barr stated the exact opposite when delivering the report to Congress.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,881
1,213
126
Judicial finding of misrepresentation to a federal court? Hopefully every jurisdiction in which Barr is licensed is immediately instituting action to disbar him.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,690
12,015
136
How many stooges here as to the Russia investigation claimed "nothing to see"?
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,240
2,856
136
Sadly I don't think this will end up moving any needless. The Republican spin doctors will be able to focus attention away from the point of the release (to establish that they were looking for ways to justify a pre-made decision) to the content of the BS justifications.
They don't even need to spin it, they have already convinced their audience that the Mueller Investigation's conclusion was that Trump was 100% innocent. Our conservative members here at this forum remind us of that regularly. We then correct them and bring out all the evidence, up to and including Mueller saying on TV that the report did not exonerate Trump, and they reluctantly agree that they were wrong. Then a week later have completely forgotten that and tell us again that the Mueller Investigation completely exonerated Trump.

Conclusion: No amount of facts can get past the brainwashing as long as it is a ongoing process. It is now Fox News or America, we can't have both.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,100
3,389
136
How many stooges here as to the Russia investigation claimed "nothing to see"?
In reference to Repubs in general, what Trump did to the Repub party was to shine a glaring light accompanied by screeching blaring sirens at the double standards the party practices when it comes to how they view the behavior of their own leaders and those who oppose them.

The extraordinary lengths of which Trump compelled the party to ignore his many acts of malfeasance and stupidity will be a hallmark, a standard from which all future presidents will be compared against and of which the Repubs in toto will reliably behave as if Trump's numerous indiscretions never happened.

The Repubs spent every ounce of credibility they had behaving that way, yet in their eyes they are the only credible party left standing after Trump got through with them.

Remarkable. Incredible. Stupendously cringe worthy yet there they are.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,477
2,153
136
They don't even need to spin it, they have already convinced their audience that the Mueller Investigation's conclusion was that Trump was 100% innocent. Our conservative members here at this forum remind us of that regularly. We then correct them and bring out all the evidence, up to and including Mueller saying on TV that the report did not exonerate Trump, and they reluctantly agree that they were wrong. Then a week later have completely forgotten that and tell us again that the Mueller Investigation completely exonerated Trump.

Conclusion: No amount of facts can get past the brainwashing as long as it is a ongoing process. It is now Fox News or America, we can't have both.
They don't need to spin it. But my basic premise is they'll report on the arguments made to exonerate Trump in the scandalous document in order to bypass the scandal that Barr put the President above the law by seeking to find justification for a predetermined decision. Whether or not the evidence supports such a decision is completely irrelevant. Such an act coupled with telling Congress explicitly otherwise is a clear violation of our system of government -- made all the more egregious by Trump's appointment of Barr having been made as a clear prelude to the DoJ being delivered the findings of the special counsel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,477
2,153
136
More specifically from the court filings:

What the Court can say without revealing the content of the redacted material is that there were two sections to this memorandum. Section I offers strategic, as opposed to legal advice, about whether the Attorney General should take a particular course of action, and it made recommendations with respect to that determination, a subject that the agency omitted entirely from its description of the document or the justification for its withholding. This is a problem because Section I is what places Section II and the only topic the agency does identify – that is, whether the evidence gathered by the Special Counsel would amount to obstruction of justice – into its proper context. Moreover, the redacted portions of Section I reveal that both the authors and the recipient of the memorandum had a shared understanding concerning whether prosecuting the President was a matter to be considered at all. In other words, the review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given. The omission of any reference to Section I in the agency declarations, coupled with the agency’s redaction of critical caveats from what it did disclose, served to obscure the true purpose of the memorandum.
It also calls into question the accuracy of Attorney General Barr’s March 24 representation to Congress: “The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.” March 24 Letter at 3.12
And of even greater importance to this decision, the affidavits are so inconsistent with evidence in the record, they are not worthy of credence. The review of the unredacted document in camera reveals that the suspicions voiced by the judge in EPIC and the plaintiff here were well-founded, and that not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege. The agency’s redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time.
Here, the declarations state that Attorney General Barr made the determination he communicated to Congress based on the advice contained in the memo. See Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 11. But even with their significant redactions, the contemporaneous emails that were produced to CREW by the government in response to its FOIA request tell a different story, and this assertion in the declarations is inconsistent with the actual chronology.
There's more juicy things in there. I find what the judge wrote quite striking. The judge clearly labeled the DOJ as being intentionally disingenuous in how they redacted the materials and how they argued that they were pre-decisional. My experience is that it would be extremely rare to spell out in a federal judgment that a party was making court filings in complete bad faith.

That said, if it were absolute smoking gun territory I think something more explicit would have been stated. We are in the walk like a duck, quack like a duck, etc. territory here. Possibly enough to collectively meet a beyond reasonable doubt standard based on the total collection of the evidence. Yet everything still appears to be circumstantial. And it's not like there is someone being prosecuted for a crime here. What are the possible outcomes of a court finding such evidence through FOIA review? I suppose there could be some sort of sanction via the court our through the BAR on those who were deceiving the court. Could it constitute obstruction of justice? Whether or not such a case would be pursued is another matter entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and dank69

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,149
3,840
126
Imagine if you were a Republican and had engaged in prosecutable criminal behavior. Would you not do everything in your power to prevent going to jail given your criminal nature. And if you were on the other side, desirous of justice at last, would you be willing to face the hatred, contempt and political storm such justice-seeking would generate. Biden does not want to look back. Republicans have made the price of justice too high to extract. This is how evil wins.

We will see what happens but I personally don’t expect much. Republicans are criminals, but Democrats lack moral spine, in my opinion, unlike, oddly enough, a famous Republican congresswoman from Wyoming. Strange world we live in
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and iRONic

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,013
5,931
136
Everyone with half a brain knew it at the time... Trump was criming and Barr was covering his ass.
Hope justice finds them both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,209
9,414
136
More specifically from the court filings:









There's more juicy things in there. I find what the judge wrote quite striking. The judge clearly labeled the DOJ as being intentionally disingenuous in how they redacted the materials and how they argued that they were pre-decisional. My experience is that it would be extremely rare to spell out in a federal judgment that a party was making court filings in complete bad faith.

That said, if it were absolute smoking gun territory I think something more explicit would have been stated. We are in the walk like a duck, quack like a duck, etc. territory here. Possibly enough to collectively meet a beyond reasonable doubt standard based on the total collection of the evidence. Yet everything still appears to be circumstantial. And it's not like there is someone being prosecuted for a crime here. What are the possible outcomes of a court finding such evidence through FOIA review? I suppose there could be some sort of sanction via the court our through the BAR on those who were deceiving the court. Could it constitute obstruction of justice? Whether or not such a case would be pursued is another matter entirely.
To me this sounds eerily similar to dick Cheney/Rumsfeld technique where they purposefully “leaked” inaccurate info to journalists only to later cite that as part of their justification for invading Iraq.

Apparently, to me, this memo was used in order for Barr to say a president can’t be indicted or no crimes were committed, of course the memo relies on that assumption, in other words it’s using circular logic.

Is that how anyone else interpreted this?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,209
9,414
136
Imagine if you were a Republican and had engaged in prosecutable criminal behavior. Would you not do everything in your power to prevent going to jail given your criminal nature. And if you were on the other side, desirous of justice at last, would you be willing to face the hatred, contempt and political storm such justice-seeking would generate. Biden does not want to look back. Republicans have made the price of justice too high to extract. This is how evil wins.

We will see what happens but I personally don’t expect much. Republicans are criminals, but Democrats lack moral spine, in my opinion, unlike, oddly enough, a famous Republican congresswoman from Wyoming. Strange world we live in
If I were a corrupt Republican then yeah, but that would imply that all the republicans that defended/ignored/dismissed such crimes were involved. Or is it human nature to defend corruption when you are part of the tribe but not involved?
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,090
8,118
136
To me this sounds eerily similar to dick Cheney/Rumsfeld technique where they purposefully “leaked” inaccurate info to journalists only to later cite that as part of their justification for invading Iraq.

Apparently, to me, this memo was used in order for Barr to say a president can’t be indicted or no crimes were committed, of course the memo relies on that assumption, in other words it’s using circular logic.

Is that how anyone else interpreted this?
Based on the judge's wording, I think it's strongly implied that the memo makes it abundantly clear that not prosecuting Trump was a foregone conclusion, and the memo itself is more of a tactical discussion rather than a legal discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,782
784
126
Who cares what the GOP/Trump fans think? The question is, will the Biden DOJ pursue it, and if not, why not? Or is it too late?
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,884
5,217
126
How many stooges here as to the Russia investigation claimed "nothing to see"?
We still don't know if there was or not...not yet, anyway.

While I think this is good...transparency is almost ALWAYS good...I doubt it will change anything...or anyone's mind. The Trumpists will cry "FAKE NOOZ!", or "so what if he did? He was is the President and the laws don't apply to him... Those of us with the ability to think...and both chew gum and walk at the same time...we'll just know we were fucked yet again by a corrupt Republican administration.
 

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Platinum Member
Nov 17, 2019
2,560
1,421
96
Again, I think the 'foregone' conclusion not to prosecute was because it was not the place of the DoJ at the time to prosecute a sitting Executive. It was supposed to be up to Congress. The House did their part ... twice. The Senate failed in their duty to the American people.


Now, as to the question in post 18, CAN this DoJ do so since he is no longer in office, --OR-- has jeopardy been attached as a result of the Impeachment and Senate (non) trial?
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,090
8,118
136
Again, I think the 'foregone' conclusion not to prosecute was because it was not the place of the DoJ at the time to prosecute a sitting Executive. It was supposed to be up to Congress. The House did their part ... twice. The Senate failed in their duty to the American people.


Now, as to the question in post 18, CAN this DoJ do so since he is no longer in office, --OR-- has jeopardy been attached as a result of the Impeachment and Senate (non) trial?
The so-called rule of not prosecuting a sitting POTUS is a DoJ policy from a previous administration. It isn't a law.

But the real issue here is that Barr testified to Congress that he made the decision not to prosecute Trump in consultation with DoJ lawyers, who allegedly advised him that there was nothing actionable to prosecute. This memo evidently proves that was a lie.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,782
784
126
Again, I think the 'foregone' conclusion not to prosecute was because it was not the place of the DoJ at the time to prosecute a sitting Executive. It was supposed to be up to Congress. The House did their part ... twice. The Senate failed in their duty to the American people.


Now, as to the question in post 18, CAN this DoJ do so since he is no longer in office, --OR-- has jeopardy been attached as a result of the Impeachment and Senate (non) trial?
Thats what Im curious about.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,149
3,840
126
If I were a corrupt Republican they yeah, but that would imply that all the republicans that defended/ignored/dismissed such crimes were involved. Or is it human nature to defend corruption when you are part of the tribe but not involved?
I tried to specify my comments to Republicans who commit criminal behavior, not to those who will be the target of misinformation those criminals will try to have the cult members defend by lying to them. The latter are guilty of gullibility and complacency but the fact they are that way is not their fault and nor is it true human mature, in my opinion.

It is the nature of people who have been made to hate themselves, not a disease we were born with. It is a potential of our nature because we use language and can be made to react emotionally to ideas that may have no actual reality. It looks pretty natural because there are so few who have collapsed duality via presence in the now, the ending of thought in the joy of being.
 

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Platinum Member
Nov 17, 2019
2,560
1,421
96
Thats what Im curious about.
If it came to that, I would argue jeopardy was never attached. The Senate had no intention of conducting a legitimate trial. They openly said so up front. There were no witnesses, no cross examination, no presentation of facts, no real testimony. Remember, this was the first time when Mitch was running the circus.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,477
2,153
136
The so-called rule of not prosecuting a sitting POTUS is a DoJ policy from a previous administration. It isn't a law.

But the real issue here is that Barr testified to Congress that he made the decision not to prosecute Trump in consultation with DoJ lawyers, who allegedly advised him that there was nothing actionable to prosecute. This memo evidently proves that was a lie.
I don't see how Barr would not be on the hook for obstruction of justice here should they choose to pursue it. Outright lying to congress about the fundamental role he played in rendering his conclusions would certainly be such a corrupt act. Now, does Garland have the stones to go after him? Even the most solid circumstantial case would be a political powder keg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

ASK THE COMMUNITY