William Barr appoints U.S. attorney to investigate Russia probe origins

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts

His delay is due to presidential orders.
This wont fly for very long. The day that he no longer works for trumps admin is right around the corner.

Attorney General Barr has not ordered Mueller to not testify. He actually has stated Mueller can testify any time he chooses. President Trump has NOT extended any executive privilege to stop Mueller from testifying either.

So your lies, media lies, and dem lies will not fly for very long.

Focus now Turns to FBI/DoJ coup d’e’tat

At this point it might be well to review 18 U.S. Code 2385, Chapter 115, pp. 2-6 on what constitutes Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities in Advocating an attempted overthrow of government. This list includes activities respecting: “prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays.” In the coming weeks and months we may wish to review this law.

Times are going to get really interesting really quick now. We have a number of politicians and unelected officials who have given testimony in closed door hearings that just isn't on the same page as their minions, and in some cases directly contradicts other statements made by said swamp creatures . Taking longer than I wish but the process needs to play out.

Weeks ago, it seemed all but certain that the special counsel would head to Capitol Hill in May to answer questions about his eponymous 448-page report on Russia's election interference and potential obstruction of justice by President Trump.

Now, some frustrated Democrats say his testimony could slip into June, while others are beginning to doubt he’ll ever show, saying Mueller has no desire to become a political pawn in an ugly, partisan fight that’s become a proxy battle for the 2020 presidential race.

“He doesn’t want to be trashed by the Republicans,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who serves on the House Intelligence Committee and is close to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a fellow California Democrat.
...
Just three months into his second go-round as attorney general, Barr has repeatedly said he has no problem with Mueller testifying, telling The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, “It’s Bob’s call whether he wants to testify.” 

And Trump has left it up to Barr to make the ultimate call. 

thehill.com...



There's my citation. Where is yours saying that Mueller wants to testify but cannot because the bad orange man won't let him? I know Nadler knows what the word subpoena means. Why hasn't he issued a subpoena for Mueller's testimony if he wants this cleared up?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
But the walls are still closing in on him.

Awww, she's so cuuuuuute!

originally posted by: chr0naut
"Barr's summary was untrue, at least on those grounds."

LMAO, no it wasn't.

Actually, as has been explained numerous times, Barr's letter was not nor was it intended to be a summary of the Mueller Report.

It was only a statement of the Conclusions - and since Mueller refused to do his job and make a decision on obstruction, Barr did his job and made the call (and the right one).

Nothing in his letter was factually incorrect, and Mueller said so himself to Barr in the phone conversation they had when Barr called him after receiving his letter whining about how the MSM was construing the Report.

Whole paragraphs please, not truncated bits that misrepresent what was actually said (from page 1, last paragraph, & page 2, continuation of that paragraph):

"As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Changes the slant of the paragraph when you chop out so much content, doesn't it.

Not at all...

Anyone who believes that less than a hundred thousand dollars worth of facebook ads could sway any election, let alone an american election - well, it sucks to be you...

Also - there is zero proof that the Russians hacked the DNC, and in fact there is plenty of evidence that it was an inside job.

But even if they did - so what? Did they release anything that was untrue? Or was it the content of the emails that were released that damaged Clintons campaign?

It was this sort of 'creative editing' that Barr stands accused of.

He is being falsely accused of 'failure to capture all of the hard work poor Mueller put into his melody of misrepresenttaions.

Barr has been held in contempt of Congress. The vote occurred on Wednesday 8 May, 2019. It's a done deal.

So, you don't understand the difference between a vote of a committee, and a vote of Congress?

The vote to be held in contempt of Congress hasn't been held yet, and it is far from certain it will pass.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts
His delay is due to presidential orders.

Ummm... you are confused, as usual.

Trump in no way forbade Mueller from testifying, and Barr has repeatedly said he has no problem with it.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Mueller just said he is willing to testify for a few hours in private, but he will not do the circus atmosphere of an all-day public testimony.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
"Barr's summary was untrue, at least on those grounds."

LMAO, no it wasn't.

Actually, as has been explained numerous times, Barr's letter was not nor was it intended to be a summary of the Mueller Report.

It was to simply be a statement of the Conclusions.

And nothing in his letter was factually incorrect, and Mueller said so himself to Barr in the phone conversation they had when Barr called him after receiving his letter whining about how the MSM was construing the Report.

Whole paragraphs please, not truncated bits that misrepresent what was actually said (from page 1, last paragraph, & page 2, continuation of that paragraph):

"As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Changes the slant of the paragraph when you chop out so much content, doesn't it.

Not at all...

Anyone who believes that less than a hundred thousand dollars worth of facebook ads could sway any election, let alone an american election - well, it sucks to be you...

Also - there is zero proof that the Russians hacked the DNC, and in fact there is plenty of evidence that it was an inside job.

No, an opinion piece in the press is not evidence. (There were also several technical inaccuracies and faulty reasoning's in the piece, as well. Primarily that they assumed that a government initiative used a residential consumer grade internet connection and the article gave no consideration to the caching provided by a VPN, which we know the hackers used. In fact what revealed the home IP address of the hackers is the one brief time they forgot to go through the VPN).

The Mueller report (which has extensive details on the hack) and the FBI investigations were the actual evidence and even Barr has not contested those facts.

But even if they did - so what? Did they release anything that was untrue? Or was it the content of the emails that were released that damaged Clintons campaign?

What content, specifically? Quote it. Link to it.

It was the accusation that Hillary had been lax with national security that was the biggest damage to the DNC's campaign.

It was this sort of 'creative editing' that Barr stands accused of.

He is being falsely accused of 'failure to capture all of the hard work poor Mueller put into his melody of misrepresentations.

He is being accused of misrepresenting, by omission, what was clearly stated in the Mueller report. Of suggesting that reasonable doubts did not exist and that insufficient evidence to prosecute indicated that there was no evidence at all.

Also, he is withholding evidence from a Congress Select committee, things that are vital to the reasonable operation of Congress. He is preventing Congress from doing its job when they believe that, at least the select committee, should have that information before them, unredacted.

The Constitution is framed around separation of powers and checks and balances in government. Barr favors supreme authority in the Presidency. What he is trying to implement, his statement of beliefs, is "Unitary Executive Authority" - a dictatorship, which fits perfectly into Trump's apparent plans. Look it up, and perhaps, re-read the Constitution.

Barr has been held in contempt of Congress. The vote occurred on Wednesday 8 May, 2019. It's a done deal.

So, you don't understand the difference between a vote of a committee, and a vote of Congress?

The vote to be held in contempt of Congress hasn't been held yet, and it is far from certain it will pass.

Yes, I do understand the difference.

You do understand that the judge rules in contempt cases, not the jury?

None of which changes the fact that muller recommended no charges
The AG recommended no charges.

Trump won

The crapbags lost

originally posted by: shooterbrody
None of which changes the fact that muller recommended no charges
The AG recommended no charges.

Trump won

The crapbags lost

Where did Mueller recommend no changes to Barr's summary?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
None of which changes the fact that muller recommended no charges
The AG recommended no charges.

Trump won

The crapbags lost

Where did Mueller recommend no changes to Barr's summary?

Maybe by omission by not recommending changes ? 😆

a reply to: chr0naut

No it doesn't change the slant of it. You've highlighted common sense and pretended it implies something insidious. It does nothing of the sort. You are simply unable to overcome your own biases to see that.

And no, Barr has not been held in contempt. He very well may be, eventually, but as of now he has not. The vote you're referring to is a vote by a single committee of 40 members of the house. That vote only moves the contempt charge to the floor. Just like any piece of legislation coming out of committee.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
None of which changes the fact that muller recommended no charges
The AG recommended no charges.

Trump won

The crapbags lost

Mueller listed ten incidents they looked at regarding obstruction of justice, but he conspicuously did not say Trump should be indicted. This indicates that he realizes the case for obstruction is weak.

As for collusion with Russia, there is no possible ambiguity. He outright stated that there was no evidence that any American conspired with Russia to influence the election.

a reply to: chr0naut

You do understand that the judge rules in contempt cases, not the jury? 

According to your (fantasy) legal theory earlier, a judge would need to recuse himself from a contempt of court case because the court is the victim...


Also, either chamber of Congress maintains the power to rule in an inherent contempt case against congressional orders/subpoenas. It does not have to go before a judge.

originally posted by: chr0naut
No, an opinion piece in the press is not evidence. (There were also several technical inaccuracies and faulty reasoning's in the piece, as well. Primarily that they assumed that a government initiative used a residential consumer grade internet connection and the article gave no consideration to the caching provided by a VPN, which we know the hackers used. In fact what revealed the home IP address of the hackers is the one brief time they forgot to go through the VPN).

The Mueller report (which has extensive details on the hack) and the FBI investigations were the actual evidence and even Barr has not contested those facts.

Not sure what 'opinion piece' you are referring to, I didn't say anything about one.

That said, the 'evidence' provided in the Mueller report is worthless, since it is all based on hearsay - information they were provided by a 3rd party (Crowdstrike) whose credibility is essentially worthless, for more than one reason.

"But even if they did - so what? Did they release anything that was untrue? Or was it the content of the emails that were released that damaged Clintons campaign?"

What content, specifically? Quote it. Link to it.

Sure...

Hillary's emails...

DNC emails...

Have fun...

It was the accusation that Hillary had been lax with national security that was the biggest damage to the DNC's campaign.

No, it was the overwhelming evidence that Hillary had violated the espionage act many - dozens? hundreds? - of times, as clearly spelled out by one James Comey.

He (Barr) is being accused of misrepresenting, by omission, what was clearly stated in the Mueller report.

Misrepresenting what, exactly? Quote it. Link to it.

Of suggesting that reasonable doubts did not exist

Reasonable doubts of what, exactly? Quote it. Link to it.

and that insufficient evidence to prosecute

Sufficient evidence to prosecute what, exactly? Quote it. Link to it.

Also, he is withholding evidence from a Congress Select committee, things that are vital to the reasonable operation of Congress.

Getting tired of losing yet? must I continue?

Withholding evidence of what, exactly? Quote it. Link to it.

He is preventing Congress from doing its job when they believe that, at least the select committee, should have that information before them, unredacted.

So, you are suggesting that the Attorney General of the United States should violate the law based on the lawless requests of a small group of congresspeople?

The Constitution is framed around separation of powers and checks and balances in government.

Thank goodness.

Barr favors supreme authority in the Presidency.

Barr is following the law.

What he is trying to implement, his statement of beliefs,

No idea what you are talking about here. Has Barr issued a 'statement of beliefs' somewhere? Link to it, please, I'd like to read it.

is "Unitary Executive Authority" - a dictatorship, which fits perfectly into Trump's apparent plans. Look it up,

I looked it up, and it is simply "... a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President possesses the power to control the entire executive branch."

Well... the President is the Chief Executive, is he not?

But you claim this is somehow a theory of 'dictatorship', which it clearly is not. For that to be true, it would have to be '... a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President possesses the power to control all three branches of government - the Executive, the Congress, and the Judiciary.'

and perhaps, re-read the Constitution.

Why? I doubt its changed much since the 193rd time I read it last month.

" "Barr has been held in contempt of Congress. The vote occurred on Wednesday 8 May, 2019. It's a done deal." "

"So, you don't understand the difference between a vote of a committee, and a vote of Congress?

The vote to be held in contempt of Congress hasn't been held yet, and it is far from certain it will pass."

Yes, I do understand the difference.

Well, actually, no, you don't, because...

You do understand that the judge rules in contempt cases, not the jury?

You also apparently don't understand that Congress is not a court of law, and the process for being held in contempt of Congress is very different from that of being held in contempt of court.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
None of which changes the fact that muller recommended no charges
The AG recommended no charges.

Trump won

The crapbags lost

Where did Mueller recommend no changes to Barr's summary?

Maybe by omission by not recommending changes ? 😆

Mueller's March 27 letter to Barr

Mueller, in paragraph 2 of his letter, spoke of attached documentation for public release, which would clear up the confusion that Barr's summary had caused.

The public, nor the Congress Select Committee have seen neither the summary attached to the letter, nor the unredacted Mueller report.

Barr denied before the Congress Select Committee that there had even been any such documentation or communications summarizing the report, which the Mueller letter proves was a lie.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: chr0naut

You do understand that the judge rules in contempt cases, not the jury? 

According to your (fantasy) legal theory earlier, a judge would need to recuse himself from a contempt of court case because the court is the victim...

You know that is an exception. Contempt is used to prevent interruption to the normal legal process.

Also, either chamber of Congress maintains the power to rule in an inherent contempt case against congressional orders/subpoenas. It does not have to go before a judge.

... and do you think that there is a 'snowball's chance in hell' that the house will vote against the contempt charge?

a reply to: chr0naut

Old meaningless news.

Barr released the report anyway right?

And he offered a "less redacted" report for certain Congress Members.

Trump's strategy is working brilliantly 😎

a reply to: chr0naut

It's not an "exception". Go punch a cop, and then tell him he has to let you go because he's the victim and has a conflict of interest. Lol

So first you say Congress can't hold anyone in contempt without a judge, and now they are guaranteed to vote for contempt? Do you ever stop making # up on the fly?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut

Not sure what 'opinion piece' you are referring to, I didn't say anything about one.

That said, the 'evidence' provided in the Mueller report is worthless, since it is all based on hearsay - information they were provided by a 3rd party (Crowdstrike) whose credibility is essentially worthless, for more than one reason.

Crowdstrike made a mistake in an unrelated issue (because an 'out of country' advisor misled them).

Should we discredit everything Trump says because Mexico isn't ever going to pay for the wall?

What content, specifically? Quote it. Link to it.

Sure...

Hillary's emails...

DNC emails...

Have fun...

Are you suggesting that the voting public has read through 30,000 e-mails to form their opinions?

I assure you, almost no-one has read all the e-mails but everyone, even without reading the content, is aware that they represent that 'proper security procedures' were not followed, and that was the biggest 'negative' in the voter's mind.

I requested that you point me to the specific e-mail messages (not tens of thousands of mostly irrelevant ones) that drove voter opinion.

It was the accusation that Hillary had been lax with national security that was the biggest damage to the DNC's campaign.

No, it was the overwhelming evidence that Hillary had violated the espionage act many - dozens? hundreds? - of times, as clearly spelled out by one James Comey.

Isn't that saying exactly the same as "Hillary had been lax with national security"?

He (Barr) is being accused of misrepresenting, by omission, what was clearly stated in the Mueller report.

Misrepresenting what, exactly? Quote it. Link to it.

Paragraph 3 of Mueller's March 27 letter to Barr says that Barr's summary misrepresented the Mueller report to Congress and to the public.

Paragraph 2 of Mueller's March 27 letter says that Mueller had attached documents for release to Congress and the public, which would sort out the confusion.

Neither Congress, nor the public, have seen the content of these attached documents and, when questioned by the Congressional select committee, Barr denied that there had been any disagreement with Mueller about the content of Barr's summary of the report.

Mueller's March 27 letter shows that to have been a lie and, additionally, that Barr was withholding information that was properly prepared for public release.

Of suggesting that reasonable doubts did not exist

Reasonable doubts of what, exactly? Quote it. Link to it.

Mueller report Page 2, paragraph 3, Page 10, paragraphs 3-5.

and that insufficient evidence to prosecute

Sufficient evidence to prosecute what, exactly? Quote it. Link to it.

How quick they forget...

Also, he is withholding evidence from a Congress Select committee, things that are vital to the reasonable operation of Congress.

Getting tired of losing yet? must I continue?

Withholding evidence of what, exactly? Quote it. Link to it.

The summary (of the Mueller report) documents written by Mueller, for public release (mentioned in paragraph 2 of Mueller's March 27 letter to Barr) that were attached to that letter and that no-one has seen, and that Barr denied the existence of, before the Congressional Select Committee.

He is preventing Congress from doing its job when they believe that, at least the select committee, should have that information before them, unredacted.

So, you are suggesting that the Attorney General of the United States should violate the law based on the lawless requests of a small group of congresspeople?

They aren't lawless.

Their requests are legal and justifiable.

The President's orders to Barr place him in a situation where he must break one law, or another, due to the contrary requirements.

Barr is in a bind, but it is of his own making. You can't blame the select committee any more than you could blame the President.

The Constitution is framed around separation of powers and checks and balances in government.

Thank goodness.

Barr favors supreme authority in the Presidency.

Barr is following the law.

What he is trying to implement, his statement of beliefs,

No idea what you are talking about here. Has Barr issued a 'statement of beliefs' somewhere? Link to it, please, I'd like to read it.

Common Legislative Encroachments On Executive Branch Authority - William P. Barr

is "Unitary Executive Authority" - a dictatorship, which fits perfectly into Trump's apparent plans. Look it up,

I looked it up, and it is simply "... a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President possesses the power to control the entire executive branch."

Well... the President is the Chief Executive, is he not?

But you claim this is somehow a theory of 'dictatorship', which it clearly is not. For that to be true, it would have to be '... a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President possesses the power to control all three branches of government - the Executive, the Congress, and the Judiciary.'

William Barr's Unitary Executive - Law Professor Blogs Network

William Barr’s Ahistorical View of the Constitution Would Give Donald Trump All the Power - Slate

William Barr’s Dangerous Affection for the Imperial Presidency - The Bulwark

and perhaps, re-read the Constitution.

Why? I doubt its changed much since the 193rd time I read it last month.

".

Well, actually, no, you don't, because...

You do understand that the judge rules in contempt cases, not the jury?

You also apparently don't understand that Congress is not a court of law, and the process for being held in contempt of Congress is very different from that of being held in contempt of court.

Yes, Congress is significantly different than the judiciary or the executive. Only the legislative can amend the Constitution. Only the judiciary can challenge it. The executive must abide by, and protect it.

I starred your post because you have taken the time to provide links to support your side of the debate and your responses are intelligent and considered.

Cheers for that (I actually enjoy valid debate).