• 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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,474
2,148
136
Thats what Im curious about.
I don't see this as even a question. Neither impeachment trial had any articles pertaining to Mueller's findings. He could certainly be prosecuted at this time. I also don't think that even if his impeachment were related to these findings it would attach any sort of legal jeopardy. The function of criminal prosecution and impeachment are separate especially considering the DOJ policy (? legal ambiguity) of not charging a sitting President. But at least I could see something worth pursuing in court. As it stands, Barr seems to have committed obstruction of justice in order to prevent even impeachment as a consequence for Trump's obstruction findings. No way he is legally in the clear here.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,090
8,108
136
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.
I seriously doubt any prosecutor could ever be prosecuted for obstruction for not prosecuting someone. It's entirely a matter of prosecutorial discretion.

As for lying about it to Congress, it's called perjury. A different crime.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,182
4,835
136
I don't see this as even a question. Neither impeachment trial had any articles pertaining to Mueller's findings. He could certainly be prosecuted at this time.
Wouldn't it be divine justice if it in the long run, it turns out that it would have been better for Trump to have been impeached, than to be convicted out of office (if that event happens of course).
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,474
2,148
136
I seriously doubt any prosecutor could ever be prosecuted for obstruction for not prosecuting someone. It's entirely a matter of prosecutorial discretion.

As for lying about it to Congress, it's called perjury. A different crime.
The issue I'm having is that the judge's words really suggest that he acted corruptly (and further so in their handling of FOIA requests to get to the bottom of things). That's quite a bit different than prosecutorial discretion. But I'm not purporting any particular legal expertise here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,969
14,127
136
There is no practical way for the DoJ to prosecute a sitting President. He can fire anybody who tries. At that point, they have no legal authority. They can only do so once he's out of office, either at the will of the voters or by Congress. Barr presented a false narrative to Congress that he could make that decision, then stonewalled rightful Congressional oversight. He did what Michael Cohen did for years. He lied for Trump & covered for Trump. At this point, I figure Garland will start just by letting Judge Jackson have her way with Barr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,002
5,913
136
I think they have to hammer it? I mean what reason could you possibly have to not go at them? Unity? Healing? Return to normalcy? Look at them ffs .. Look at Trump still going at it... Its hammer time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,969
14,127
136
I think they have to hammer it? I mean what reason could you possibly have to not go at them? Unity? Healing? Return to normalcy? Look at them ffs .. Look at Trump still going at it... Its hammer time.
Judge Berman threatens the release of material extremely damaging to Barr if the DoJ doesn't act to protect him. They obviously won't. Once Congress has the stuff, they can ask the DoJ to prosecute, being the aggrieved party. They likely will, thus providing the DoJ with full justification to pursue Barr. We're only 4 months into a 4 year term & these things take time. Just the way it is.
 

Meghan54

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2009
9,983
2,935
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.
The real truth is that they haven’t forgotten a damned thing that week later. Instead, they are just lying toadies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
5,610
639
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?
While Garland won't care that Biden rather have a nation heal that pursuing the orange baby. But he sees the political conflict to pursue the prior AG
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,881
1,213
126
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.
Lying to Congress is a crime-a felony under 11 USC section 1001.. That's one of the things Roger Stone got convicted of.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,564
1,520
126
We all knew that Barr was lying his ass off from the very beginning. And republicans knew that Barr was lying his ass off only to protect Trump. However, I still believe that it was Mueller that dropped the ball. It was Mueller who now must live with himself for what he did, or more so what he did not do. Mueller knew exactly how corrupt Trump was, and exactly what Trump had done and was guilty of doing, yes Mueller knew. It was his job to find and report the truth, but instead Mueller chose to act unpatriotic and pretend "nothing to see here". Too bad Mueller was not a German citizen back during WWII, he'd had made Hitler a fine little soldier.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,632
3,125
126
well we already knew Barr was covering up shit or running interference for Trump! I personally have never thought very highly of Barr anyways!
 

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
5,610
639
126
We all knew that Barr was lying his ass off from the very beginning. And republicans knew that Barr was lying his ass off only to protect Trump. However, I still believe that it was Mueller that dropped the ball. It was Mueller who now must live with himself for what he did, or more so what he did not do. Mueller knew exactly how corrupt Trump was, and exactly what Trump had done and was guilty of doing, yes Mueller knew. It was his job to find and report the truth, but instead Mueller chose to act unpatriotic and pretend "nothing to see here". Too bad Mueller was not a German citizen back during WWII, he'd had made Hitler a fine little soldier.
Lolwut????? He gift wrapped articles of impeachment. Like sure he could have seen the low chances of conviction by the Senate. But he was never going to step out of his lane with the DOJ opinion they can't convict a sitting president
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY