• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News Mueller Day - Thursday 4.18.19

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Barr: "No one outside DOJ proposed or inserted any redactions; no one outside has seen the unredacted report...WH has seen the redacted report..no material was hence redacted for exec privilege." Giuliani saw the report earlier this week.
 
fskimospy said:
Seems likely but the only thing that really matters is what is in the report.

Assuming it isn’t just 399 pages of black lines it will be interesting to see all the idiots jumping to conclusions about what it says way before they could have possibly read it.
Click to expand...

The president was mad so that means no obstruction? Well Barr did what he was hired to do. Now to the courts.
 
Barr had to carefully parse his words with regards to the trump campaign and the use of information acquired illegally from hacking. He said, essentially, the trump wasn't involved in the hacking, yeah no shit. What he did say was that using that information wasn't illegal, yeah no shit.
 
K1052 said:
Jesus Christ. Why not just have Hannity give this press conference.


There was no obstruction except for the obstruction there was which was totally understandable because Trump was mad.
Click to expand...

'has to be viewed in context', lol.

'honey, I know this looks bad...'
 
K1052 said:
Jesus Christ. Why not just have Hannity give this press conference.


There was no obstruction except for the obstruction there was which was totally understandable because Trump was mad.
Click to expand...

Or...Trump was too stupid to know that what he was doing was obstruction. If he isn't obstructing on purpose...no corrupt intent?!! Is that how it works?? Trump just thought he was an autocrat who could act with impugnity!
 
UNCjigga said:
Or...Trump was too stupid to know that what he was doing was obstruction. If he isn't obstructing on purpose...no corrupt intent?!! Is that how it works?? Trump just thought he was an autocrat who could act with impugnity!
Click to expand...
Yeah i'm really not sure where this whole idea that an illegal act isn't illegal if the intent to commit an illegal act didn't exist came from. Not like that flies if you're caught speeding.
 
Barr responding to reporter: "No other President has faced these circumstances [created by his own campaign and actions] hence this was "unprecedented"!!"

LOL
 
Barr also said he would be giving Congress the public version of the report, so Congress is also not getting the unredacted report now?
 
ivwshane said:
Barr also said he would be giving Congress the public version of the report, so Congress is also not getting the unredacted report now?
Click to expand...

They will eventually as it would be unconstitutional to withhold it from them.

To be clear - it would be unconstitutional to prevent Congress (at least some members of it) from seeing a single comma or period.
 
Mueller wrote the report for Barr? No you fucking lackey he wrote the report for Congress, as in for the representatives of the American people.
 
fskimospy said:
They will eventually as it would be unconstitutional to withhold it from them.

To be clear - it would be unconstitutional to prevent Congress (at least some members of it) from seeing a single comma or period.
Click to expand...

Yes, I imagine they will eventually get it but according to this press conference that's not what I heard he was going to give them today.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Yeah i'm really not sure where this whole idea that an illegal act isn't illegal if the intent to commit an illegal act didn't exist came from. Not like that flies if you're caught speeding.
Click to expand...

Intent matters a lot in basically all crimes. If you drop an anvil off a building because you're clumsy and it kills someone that's a lot different than dropping an anvil off a building for the purpose of killing someone.

What I think is incredible is that Barr is arguing that if Trump sincerely believed the investigation was meritless then it wouldn't be illegal for him to obstruct it. That's comically, laughably wrong.
 
There was also a sleight of hand when in came to conspiring with Russia to release information. He said there is no crime unless you're involved in the illegal hacking. So there was no illegal conspiracy. Hmm...
 
Last edited:
ivwshane said:
Barr also said he would be giving Congress the public version of the report, so Congress is also not getting the unredacted report now?
Click to expand...

A federal judge seems to be preparing to make the unredacted report available to Congress, and another judge is set to rule on whether the underlying 6E grand jury testimony can be provided to judiciary chairman. May take some time, but I'd say weeks vs. months/years.
 
fskimospy said:
Intent matters a lot in basically all crimes. If you drop an anvil off a building because you're clumsy and it kills someone that's a lot different than dropping an anvil off a building for the purpose of killing someone.

What I think is incredible is that Barr is arguing that if Trump sincerely believed the investigation was meritless then it wouldn't be illegal for him to obstruct it. That's comically, laughably wrong.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you still get charged with a crime. A lot of crimes have nuance in terms of intent -> variable punishment, but where the fuck did the notion that if a person didn't *intend* to obstruct justice, they just 'accidentally' or 'because they were hangry' obstructed justice multiple times, there's no crime involved?
 
woolfe9998 said:
Screw Barr and his press conference. Enough "framing" and filtering the report. Let's just see the goddamn thing. We'll be the judge of what it says and what it means. Whatever they haven't blacked out that is. That will be the next fight.
Click to expand...

I was unaware of the legal principal that says being mad makes obstruction not a crime.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Yeah but you still get charged with a crime. A lot of crimes have nuance in terms of intent -> variable punishment, but where the fuck did the notion that if a person didn't *intend* to obstruct justice, they just 'accidentally' or 'because they were hangry' obstructed justice multiple times, there's no crime involved?
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, Mueller never got to interview Person 1 re: obstruction, so neener neener neener!
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Yeah but you still get charged with a crime. A lot of crimes have nuance in terms of intent -> variable punishment, but where the fuck did the notion that if a person didn't *intend* to obstruct justice, they just 'accidentally' or 'because they were hangry' obstructed justice multiple times, there's no crime involved?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't get charged with a crime a lot of the time. What I don't get is why Barr would think that being angry about the investigation wouldn't mean you were obstructing it. That's pretty clearly false.
 
Barr pretty much used trump's talking points for this press conference:

No collusion (that's not a legal term so why is he using it).
Harassing the president (being angry doesn't absolve the president from obstructing).
No crime committed because using illegally obtained information isn't a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top