Mueller talking to congress

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
fskimospy said:
No, the president is not immune from indictment, as we've mentioned before that means he can choose to slaughter the entirety of the federal government and seize power at will and have that be 100% legal. The only thing that makes this argument are DOJ opinions from two presidents explicitly worried about being indicted.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that precludes Mueller from stating he would have chosen to indict Trump absent DOJ guidelines.
Click to expand...

Do you have these paranoid fantasies often?
 
O

ondma

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2018
3,319
1,708
136
Hayabusa Rider said:
One thing to think about. Mueller was following existing regulations but then Barr came out and said that Mueller could have weighed in with conclusions of criminality. Since the AG is the ultimate authority in the DOJ, Barr has sanctioned Mueller doing just that before the House. If the members are smart enough to understand this act accordingly, Mr. Mueller may have more to say after all.
Click to expand...

Well, I definitely think the house should subpoena him, and require him to testify under oath. Grill him up one side and down the other. Press him relentlessly for a definite conclusion, especially since Barr has opened the door by saying Mueller would have been justified to state it. I am sure he will still find a way to avoid saying anything definitive, but at least they could make him sweat a little instead of just dismissing 2 years of work with a bunch of legalese, saying "dont bother me anymore", and riding off into the sunset. Of course, Barr is a weasel and Trump toady of the first order, but in this I almost agree with him. He basically told Mueller to put up or shut up. Say something definite or stop with the innuendo and double talk. It really makes me angry that after two years of investigation, he cant (or wont) say whether Trump is a criminal or not. All he really is willing to say is that the Russians interfered, which all the intelligence agencies had unanimously concluded before the investigation even began.
 
Last edited:
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Hayabusa Rider said:
One thing to think about. Mueller was following existing regulations but then Barr came out and said that Mueller could have weighed in with conclusions of criminality. Since the AG is the ultimate authority in the DOJ, Barr has sanctioned Mueller doing just that before the House. If the members are smart enough to understand this act accordingly, Mr. Mueller may have more to say after all.
Click to expand...

Don't fall for Barr's bullshit. One of Mueller's main considerations was the principle that he must allow anybody accused the right to defend themselves in court. He can't afford Trump that opportunity because he can't indict him. That's a moral judgement about fairness to which I have seen no reasonable counter. He won't budge off of that, rightfully so. He did his job, followed the chain of command & put it right in the lap of Congress, where it belongs.

You'll notice that Barr didn't say Trump could be indicted. Until he does, it's just Barr stalling, diverting from Trump's malfeasance, shifting the focus to Mueller & trashing his own department.
 
M

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,549
761
146
Jhhnn said:
Don't fall for Barr's bullshit. One of Mueller's main considerations was the principle that he must allow anybody accused the right to defend themselves in court. He can't afford Trump that opportunity because he can't indict him. That's a moral judgement about fairness to which I have seen no reasonable counter. He won't budge off of that, rightfully so. He did his job, followed the chain of command & put it right in the lap of Congress, where it belongs.

You'll notice that Barr didn't say Trump could be indicted. Until he does, it's just Barr stalling, diverting from Trump's malfeasance, shifting the focus to Mueller & trashing his own department.
Click to expand...

Oh please. if the AG says it, Mueller should straight up tell what he would have done. No one could fault Mueller for what his boss says should have happened. Trump put himself in the position by putting in an absolutely corrupt toady, so it would be richly deserved.

P.S. Not only Mueller but SDNY as well.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1134526985546412032
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie, soundforbjt and cytg111
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Maxima1 said:
Oh please. if the AG says it, Mueller should straight up tell what he would have done. No one could fault Mueller for what his boss says should have happened. Trump put himself in the position by putting in an absolutely corrupt toady, so it would be richly deserved.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand the idea of principles at all, huh? Just because Barr demonstrates that he has none doesn't mean Mueller should abandon his own.
 
V

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,028
10,628
136
I think maybe we gave Barr too much credit and maybe the evidence was there all along that Barr had a rather, ahem, unique view of presidential power. Barr has a history of withholding information and creating legal doctrine out of thin air, which is what he did in 1989 when he crafted Bush's legal authority to abduct Manuel Noriega.

https://www.justsecurity.org/63635/...-omitting-parts-of-justice-dept-memo-in-1989/

I guess you gotta give the Trump hacks some credit: as with their judges, they did their homework and found ideological alignment.
 
I

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,031
2,886
136
cytg111 said:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/willia...nt-sparred-over-russia-report-legal-analysis/

"Asked about the fundamental difference between his and Mueller's views on what the evidence gathered during the Russia probe means, Barr said, "I think Bob said he was not going to engage in the analysis. He was not going to make a determination one way or the other. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction."

"As a matter of law?" Crawford asked.
Click to expand...

Whoa. Crawford focused on the wrong detail there. He said "many" would not amount to obstruction. He didn't say all. That's a huge slip IMO.
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,338
10,644
136
Bitek said:
Mueller needs to be called to testify, even if it's just to read the report out loud. That's the only way many millions will ever hear it.
Click to expand...

Unless Mueller cuts the crap and speak plainly, it will not be enough to break the partisan barrier.
 
O

ondma

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2018
3,319
1,708
136
Well, Bill Maher said it best in his monologue. The Mueller report was like getting married, and when the minister ask if you will take this woman for you wife, you say, "Well I don't not take her."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bird222, soundforbjt and pcgeek11
V

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,028
10,628
136
Roger Stone's lawyers tried to argue that there couldn't be obstruction without an underlying crime just the other day.

The Stone legal team also tried to say Mueller couldn’t prosecute him for obstruction if they hadn’t found collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in 2016.

Buschel pointed to a memo William Barr had written to the Justice Department before he became attorney general under Trump, where he made that argument.

“I would like to know what case law supports that,” Jackson said. “What case law?”

Buschel only had the Barr memo to cite.
Click to expand...

Turns out that some shit Bill Barr just made up was not a cheat code to make obstruction of justice disappear. Hopefully
 
V

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,028
10,628
136
There have been calls for some of the thousand-plus former federal prosecutors who signed the letter saying the evidence supports indictment, to testify before the House. In the statement, they went into detail on the fallacious 'can't be obstruction without an underlying crime' claim, of course, and could presumably make that information more accessible to the millions of Americans who (regrettably) don't do much reading. Former prosecutors taking that oath and testifying might get through to those not paying much attention.

... All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.

... As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report. ...
Click to expand...

https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1

Over a thousand of them (1,005 as of three days ago). There must be some setting that would dramatize those numbers. Something that would get through to the independents, mealy-mouthed middle and fence-sitters.

Plus.. I never understood the "underlying crimes" argument. The investigation yielded 34 indictments. Those are crimes. Trump wasn't the only one being investigated.

It's interesting that the phrase "underlying crimes" is trotted out only with respect to Trump himself - as in 'you can't charge him with obstruction of justice, no matter how clearly he was obstructing justice, unless you can indict him for __________!' With the blank filled in by 'collusion' or 'conspiracy' or 'signing a blood oath to be Putin's lackey forever' or whatever the speaker sees as 'stuff they'll never get Trump on.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17 and DarthKyrie
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,225
55,768
136
This interview was such a great example of why hiring your son in law to work in the White House is a bad idea.

I knew Kushner was dumb by looking at his catastrophic business record but holy shit, I didn’t know he was THIS dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54, UNCjigga and cytg111
kage69

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,712
48,518
136
Wow. Not trying very hard to change the narrative of him being a dumbass, is he?

I didn't think my opinion of the Trump disaster could slip any lower. I almost feel bad for this crook. With such a small and feeble brain, the other rats fleeing the ship are going to use him to effect their escape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111
DarthKyrie

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,617
1,395
146
fskimospy said:
This interview was such a great example of why hiring your son in law to work in the White House is a bad idea.

I knew Kushner was dumb by looking at his catastrophic business record but holy shit, I didn’t know he was THIS dumb.
Click to expand...

The apple didn't fall far from the tree, his parents are pretty dumb and are criminals as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and cytg111
cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,735
16,019
136
fskimospy said:
The part where Swann asks if Trump is a racist is priceless.

Q:‘Is he a racist?’

A:‘Absolutely not’.

Q:’What about birtherism?’

A:’Well I wasn’t involved in that’
Click to expand...

Absolutely golden.
Translation for anyone not on the autistic alt right spectrum : Yea, the birtherism crap was pretty racist, though it was before my time, but Donald certainly isnt racist in front of me, to me, personally, maybe, sortof, plzzzz believe me sir'!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom