So Mueller was not satisfied with the way Barr summarized his report

[zeke4ahs]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...port-shows-classic-obstruction-of-justice.amp
It’s sad when even Fox News admits it but some of our resident Trumpsters are still making excuses.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

The midterms showed the Dems what they need to campaign on, and I'm confident they will. It won't be necessary to make it all about Barr's corruption or Trump's depravity. They're doing a fine job of that on their own.

I hope so, but as I warned months ago that with the economy where it is, they are going to have to have a message well beyond hating Trump because this process isn't going anywhere.

We have a country to run once Trump is gone and I personally want to know who best to vote for. Anxious to see something besides "Trump is a bad guy" because as we learned with Clinton, no one cares.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I hope so, but as I warned months ago that with the economy where it is, they are going to have to have a message well beyond hating Trump because this process isn't going anywhere.

We have a country to run once Trump is gone and I personally want to know who best to vote for. Anxious to see something besides "Trump is a bad guy" because as we learned with Clinton, no one cares.

Really, that worked perfectly on H Clinton.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Really, that worked perfectly on H Clinton.

Hillary did in Hillary all by herself. She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory through political incompetence. I was dead wrong thinking that Trump would be trounced, it was easy pickings and she fumbled badly.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Hillary did in Hillary all by herself. She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory through political incompetence. I was dead wrong thinking that Trump would be trounced, it was easy pickings and she fumbled badly.

Part of why she failed was that her negatives were always high. There were large swaths that hated both. If a Dam comes in with "normal" negatives, there will not be that problem.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...port-shows-classic-obstruction-of-justice.amp
It’s sad when even Fox News admits it but some of our resident Trumpsters are still making excuses.

Napolitano is wrong:

Here’s what he said;

“The statute prohibits all attempts to interfere with the government," Napolitano said. "So if you think you are interfering with the government. If your purpose is to interfere with the government in order to save yourself — not to help the government — then you have committed the crime of obstruction.
​

The crime if obstruction of justice requires the existence of a judicial proceeding, like a grand jury investigation in this case of S.C. If I recall the chronology of events correctly, Mueller had not even been appointed let alone impaneled a grand jury when this occurred.

Oh, here I go “supporting” Trump once again.

 

[UncleMark]

The crime if obstruction of justice requires the existence of a judicial proceeding, like a grand jury investigation in this case of S.C. If I recall the chronology of events correctly, Mueller had not even been appointed let alone impaneled a grand jury when this occurred.

You really should explore taking Barr's place once he's done. You guys are scarily similar.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Part of why she failed was that her negatives were always high. There were large swaths that hated both. If a Dam comes in with "normal" negatives, there will not be that problem.

Something is wrong with the electoral process when “failing” is winning by 3 million votes. Considering the fact that majority rule is a central tenant to the idea of democracy, our system is still set up to allow minority rule.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Napolitano is wrong:

Here’s what he said;

“The statute prohibits all attempts to interfere with the government," Napolitano said. "So if you think you are interfering with the government. If your purpose is to interfere with the government in order to save yourself — not to help the government — then you have committed the crime of obstruction.
​

The crime if obstruction of justice requires the existence of a judicial proceeding, like a grand jury investigation in this case of S.C. If I recall the chronology of events correctly, Mueller had not even been appointed let alone impaneled a grand jury when this occurred.

Oh, here I go “supporting” Trump once again.

I think you have worked for bodies like municipalities. Let's say you were working for Fort Collins and learned the mayor was had discovered a detective was about to open an investigation against the mayor. And say the mayor was about to call the chief of police and demand the detective be fired if the investigation is started. What would you advise the mayor?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You really should explore taking Barr's place once he's done. You guys are scarily similar.

Maybe because we both actually apply the law? What’s scary about that?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think you have worked for bodies like municipalities. Let's say you were working for Fort Collins and learned the mayor was had discovered a detective was about to open an investigation against the mayor. And say the mayor was about to call the chief of police and demand the detective be fired if the investigation is started. What would you advise the mayor?

The mayor likely wouldn’t seek legal advice. In analogous situations I have advised that certain conduct could result in the official losing their statutory immunity and statutory indemnity and that they might be exposing themselves to significant personal liability. That usually gets their attention.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Something is wrong with the electoral process when “failing” is winning by 3 million votes. Considering the fact that majority rule is a central tenant to the idea of democracy, our system is still set up to allow minority rule.

Lol. No matter how you slice it or dice it, Trump won more of the 50 popular elections than Clinton won—both in absolute and population weighted numbers.. You don’t get to take the California vote margin for Clinton and apply it to Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Something is wrong with the electoral process when “failing” is winning by 3 million votes. Considering the fact that majority rule is a central tenant to the idea of democracy, our system is still set up to allow minority rule.

Simple, Californians suck so they only get one electoral vote per 680,000 people. We love people in Wyoming so they get one electoral vote for every 190,000 people. We just value the opinions of people from places like Wyoming so much more.

One thing our EC loving friends do not mention is that until 1912 the House grew with every census. There is nothing magical about the number in the House, but it was capped in 1912. Since every state has to have at least 1 House member, that cap now greatly impacts states like California. California "should" have another 10 or so House seats (I don't remember the number). NY and Texas should also be larger. Not only does the EC punish big states slightly because of the formulation, but that slight punishment is greatly magnified by the capping of representatives. So the problem is not necessarily the EC, but the capping.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The mayor likely wouldn’t seek legal advice. In analogous situations I have advised that certain conduct could result in the official losing their statutory immunity and statutory indemnity and that they might be exposing themselves to significant personal liability. That usually gets their attention.

Thanks for the answer. So how does my scenario different than Trump's other than the rank of persons involved?

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

QED

That’s what I thought.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Thanks for the answer. So how does my scenario different than Trump's other than the rank of persons involved?

Lots of ways.

I think your scenario is more suited for firing Comey. But that has other complicating factors.

 

[UncleMark]

I think your scenario is more suited for firing Comey. But that has other complicating factors.

All of which make it okay for Trump, of course.

 

[UncleMark]

Maybe because we both actually apply the law? What’s scary about that?

How about twisting the law like a pretzel to justify ones position, regardless of merit or facts.

 

[Cortez88]

How about twisting the law like a pretzel to justify ones position, regardless of merit or facts.

Therein lies the issue. A lawyer should zealously represent a client. Barr is zealously representing the President, but the President is not his client.

 

[UncleMark]

Therein lies the issue. A lawyer should zealously represent a client. Barr is zealously representing the President, but the President is not his client.

Barr is doing exactly what he said he'd do when he submitted his unsolicited job application a year ago. And unlike Sessions (and McGahn), he has no compunction about turning the DoJ into Trump's personal defense team rather than defending the rule of law. And with its blatantly partisan position on the most recent absurd challenge to the ACA, the Department has also abdicated its responsibility to defend Federal law for political purposes.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Simple, Californians suck so they only get one electoral vote per 680,000 people. We love people in Wyoming so they get one electoral vote for every 190,000 people. We just value the opinions of people from places like Wyoming so much more.

One thing our EC loving friends do not mention is that until 1912 the House grew with every census. There is nothing magical about the number in the House, but it was capped in 1912. Since every state has to have at least 1 House member, that cap now greatly impacts states like California. California "should" have another 10 or so House seats (I don't remember the number). NY and Texas should also be larger. Not only does the EC punish big states slightly because of the formulation, but that slight punishment is greatly magnified by the capping of representatives. So the problem is not necessarily the EC, but the capping.

Yeah, that’s what need, a bigger congress.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yeah, that’s what need, a bigger congress.

I am glad you agree. I guess we can also eliminate the 1 House member per state minimum. That would shrink congress.

It is crazy to think that a voter's power in Wyoming is 3 times that of a voter in California. Not just in the EC, but in the House. Not just in the House, but in all the House does. Just writing a letter to the Wyoming congressman because of a problem with the VA is almost certain to have more of a chance of being acted upon than one written to a California congressman.

For the record, it wouldn't have made a difference in 2016's EC.

 

[Digressions]

Help me understand what all the outrage is about. If Barr didn't lie or produce anything inaccurate, what's the issue? Mueller didn't like the press coverage? That's not Barr's fault.

Do you think this is a preemptive attempt to discredit Barr knowing they're investigating the origins of the Russian investigation?

If Barr didn't lie, or produce anything inaccurate, why did Mueller deem it necessary to ask Barr- in writing- to release the introductions and summaries? If Barr's summary accurately portrays Mueller's findings, what's the need? And if Mueller wrote introductions and summaries, why is Barr writing summaries? Why don't we just get it from the horses mouth? Sometimes the other end talks funny.

 

[MonroeCity]

The Democrats seized upon Mueller's letter as being evidence of some kind of nefarious plot to hide the true conclusions of the report. The whole thing was stupid in the extreme. Not only do we have the report to read ourselves, rendering Barr's memo and Mueller's letter superfluous, but the summaries that Mueller was so hot-and-bothered about not being released were included in the report. In short, if you want to read what Mueller's team wrote, it is readily available. If you want to ignore what Barr wrote, the report is there.

 

[Standard Issue]

So they've released the unredacted report?

 

[UncleMark]

If Barr didn't lie, or produce anything inaccurate, why did Mueller deem it necessary to ask Barr- in writing- to release the introductions and summaries? If Barr's summary accurately portrays Mueller's findings, what's the need? And if Mueller wrote introductions and summaries, why is Barr writing summaries? Why don't we just get it from the horses mouth? Sometimes the other end talks funny.

Because Mueller is a conflicted Angry Democrat. Duh.

 

[UncleMark]

The Democrats seized upon Mueller's letter as being evidence of some kind of nefarious plot to hide the true conclusions of the report. The whole thing was stupid in the extreme. Not only do we have the report to read ourselves, rendering Barr's memo and Mueller's letter superfluous, but the summaries that Mueller was so hot-and-bothered about not being released were included in the report. In short, if you want to read what Mueller's team wrote, it is readily available. If you want to ignore what Barr wrote, the report is there.

Barr's actions were all about messaging, PR, and campaign talking points. He may not have baldfaced lied, but he was unquestionably dishonest.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Part of why she failed was that her negatives were always high. There were large swaths that hated both. If a Dam comes in with "normal" negatives, there will not be that problem.

What made her negatives so high? Peel that onion and you will get to a description of the perfect candidate.... I don’t see them yet on the Dem side

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Barr is doing exactly what he said he'd do when he submitted his unsolicited job application a year ago. And unlike Sessions (and McGahn), he has no compunction about turning the DoJ into Trump's personal defense team rather than defending the rule of law. And with its blatantly partisan position on the most recent absurd challenge to the ACA, the Department has also abdicated its responsibility to defend Federal law for political purposes.

I’ll wait for him to proclaim he has Trumps back and is his wingman...... I bet if he said that you would have an aneurism

 

[stollcpa]

Except you know that summary was done to make sure to move the barr of public opinion (pun intended) before the full report. Is the AG an honest broker, or the personal attorney to the president. He can be one or the other, but not both.

Maybe Barr will announce he’s Trump’s wingman and the President is his “boy” like Holder did? Congress can hold Barr in contempt just like they did Holder.

Instead of all this screwing around, Pelosi and the House leadership should grow bigger balls and impeach.

 

[stollcpa]

I’ll wait for him to proclaim he has Trumps back and is his wingman...... I bet if he said that you would have an aneurism

That was Mark’s “boy” saying that and ignoring document requests. That was fine. And how dare you bring up the past!

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

That was Mark’s “boy” saying that and ignoring document requests. That was fine. And how dare you bring up the past!

This stuff is so over...... I hope they drag this crap out right into the election cycle. Can’t wait to get a look at the investigations into the process....

 

[UncleMark]

I’ll wait for him to proclaim he has Trumps back and is his wingman...... I bet if he said that you would have an aneurism

Maybe Barr will announce he’s Trump’s wingman and the President is his “boy” like Holder did?

What charges was Obama facing when Holder made those comments?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Lol. No matter how you slice it or dice it, Trump won more of the 50 popular elections than Clinton won—both in absolute and population weighted numbers.. You don’t get to take the California vote margin for Clinton and apply it to Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Blah blah blah California. Wait, what did you say?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Simple, Californians suck so they only get one electoral vote per 680,000 people. We love people in Wyoming so they get one electoral vote for every 190,000 people. We just value the opinions of people from places like Wyoming so much more.

One thing our EC loving friends do not mention is that until 1912 the House grew with every census. There is nothing magical about the number in the House, but it was capped in 1912. Since every state has to have at least 1 House member, that cap now greatly impacts states like California. California "should" have another 10 or so House seats (I don't remember the number). NY and Texas should also be larger. Not only does the EC punish big states slightly because of the formulation, but that slight punishment is greatly magnified by the capping of representatives. So the problem is not necessarily the EC, but the capping.

Like I said, republicans will be on here (and on tv...and on radio) pissing and moaning about the EC as soon as 2000 or 2016 happens to a republican. Republicans love our current electoral system because they are the minority and our system is set up for minority rule.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Simple, Californians suck so they only get one electoral vote per 680,000 people. We love people in Wyoming so they get one electoral vote for every 190,000 people. We just value the opinions of people from places like Wyoming so much more.

One thing our EC loving friends do not mention is that until 1912 the House grew with every census. There is nothing magical about the number in the House, but it was capped in 1912. Since every state has to have at least 1 House member, that cap now greatly impacts states like California. California "should" have another 10 or so House seats (I don't remember the number). NY and Texas should also be larger. Not only does the EC punish big states slightly because of the formulation, but that slight punishment is greatly magnified by the capping of representatives. So the problem is not necessarily the EC, but the capping.

Also, I was confusing Californians with Americans. My fault.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Blah blah blah California. Wait, what did you say?

It’s blah, blah, yawn. Nuance was never your strong point.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

It’s blah, blah, yawn. Nuance was never your strong point.

Yes!!! I thought you stopped with your little “nuance” posts. I missed those.

 

[stollcpa]

What charges was Obama facing when Holder made those comments?

I guess nothing since he was ignoring document requests from congress.

 

[UncleMark]

I guess nothing since he was ignoring document requests from congress.

Obama was?