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

originally posted by: chr0naut

But judges and special prosecutors and attorney generals must recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest in a case. Trump tried to fire Mueller. Mueller is victim, accuser, prosecutor with authority to raise indictments in the case of Trump trying to obstruct the course of justice by firing him. Clear conflict of interest.

Obstruction and other process criminal indictments related to ("against") Mueller investigation:

Papadopalous: 1 False Statements
Gates: 2 False Statements
Manafort: 1 Conspiracy to commit Obstruction of Justice
Flynn: 1 False Statements
van der Zwaan: 1 False Statements
Kikiminik: 1 Obstruction of Justice, 1 Conspiracy to commit Obstruction of Justive
Cohen: 1 False Statements
Stone: 1 Obstruction of Proceedings, 5 False Statements, 1 Witness Tampering

That's 16 process crimes where Mueller and his investigation are the "victim" (not correct, but we're going with your novel legal theory). Yet, he didn't recuse himself. He was able to charge and prosecute all those cases for some reason, but according to you could not exercise prosecutorial power for Obstruction when it involved Trump. That "obstruction" was a conflict of interest where he had to recuse himself. And that's how Trump "got away with it"...

Even though Mueller concedes he cannot conclude the President committed a crime in his report, ^that is what you're going with... Even though neither "recusal" nor " conflict of interest " apppear in the Mueller report in this context...

Amazing.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
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

The police aren't the judiciary.

The police maintain order, protect the public and investigate crimes and criminal activity.

The courts are finders of fact and determine guilt or innocence of individuals accused of crimes. They also serve as a forum where civil cases can be brought, providing a method of resolving conflicts and disagreements between citizens of the country, state or county where they are.

So first you say Congress can't hold anyone in contempt without a judge

I never said that. You inferred it by my pointing out that contempt of court is determined by the judge, not the jury. I was hoping that you would get the correlation between a Congressional select committee and the whole of Congress. Obviously not.

, and now they are guaranteed to vote for contempt? Do you ever stop making # up on the fly?

I never said that, either.

I asked if you thought it was likely that they would vote against a contempt charge.

There is a difference between a question and a statement. No wonder you are confused.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: chr0naut

But judges and special prosecutors and attorney generals must recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest in a case. Trump tried to fire Mueller. Mueller is victim, accuser, prosecutor with authority to raise indictments in the case of Trump trying to obstruct the course of justice by firing him. Clear conflict of interest.

Obstruction and other process criminal indictments related to ("against") Mueller investigation:

Papadopalous: 1 False Statements
Gates: 2 False Statements
Manafort: 1 Conspiracy to commit Obstruction of Justice
Flynn: 1 False Statements
van der Zwaan: 1 False Statements
Kikiminik: 1 Obstruction of Justice, 1 Conspiracy to commit Obstruction of Justive
Cohen: 1 False Statements
Stone: 1 Obstruction of Proceedings, 5 False Statements, 1 Witness Tampering

That's 16 process crimes where Mueller and his investigation are the "victim" (not correct, but we're going with your novel legal theory). Yet, he didn't recuse himself. He was able to charge and prosecute all those cases for some reason, but according to you could not exercise prosecutorial power for Obstruction when it involved Trump. That "obstruction" was a conflict of interest where he had to recuse himself. And that's how Trump "got away with it"...

Even though Mueller concedes he cannot conclude the President committed a crime in his report, ^that is what you're going with... Even though neither "recusal" nor " conflict of interest " apppear in the Mueller report in this context...

Amazing.

None of those people employ Mueller.

Mueller works for the DOJ, whose ultimate leader is the President.

That is part of why it is DOJ policy to not indict a sitting President.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Mueller Inquest has failed no matter what anybody says or thinks at this point 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The Mueller Inquest has failed no matter what anybody says or thinks at this point 😎

Failed to what?

It got some bad guys and prevented ongoing rip-offs of money (from banks and tax).

It also identified some foreign agents who had attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 elections, and clarified as to how they did this.

a reply to: chr0naut

Schurrrrr it did
Schurrrrr it did
Schurrrrr it did

🤣

a reply to: chr0naut

The courts are finders of fact and determine guilt or innocence of individuals accused of crimes.

No, we've already covered that. Courts merely determine whether the government has met it's burden of evidence to allow it to infringe on your rights. Noone is ever declared "innocent" by the court system in this country. Guilty people are found not-guilty or have their charges dismissed because the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet its burden or through misconduct. Similarly, innocent people are occasionally convicted of crimes they have not committed because the government was able to show overwhelming evidence of guilt despite their innocence.

None of those people employ Mueller. 

Mueller works for the DOJ, whose ultimate leader is the President. 

Man, you will talk yourself into a pretzel. Mere moments ago, Mueller could not indict because he was a "victim" (your words) which made it a "conflict of interest" despite finding a crime (which he also could not conclude happened for some reason. Now Trump is his boss, so Mueller could not be impartial? Really?

How fortunate that we have made a law to create an ad hoc office of the Special Counsel which removes the investigative and prosecutorial functions from the chain of command at Justice to prevent even the appearance of conflict of interest. If only we had appointed one of those instead of -- Wait, wait, it's all coming back to me now-- Mueller WAS/is a Special Counsel who gets to exercise sole discretion regarding subjects he is authorized to pursue... And he did in fact indict people for obstructing his investigation and other process crimes (despite being a "victim")!

So why did his report not conclude a crime was committed by the President when Mueller "really" concluded a crime was committed by the President again? Laying aside whether one can indict a sitting President for a moment, wouldn't the first step be concluding a crime was, in fact, committed?

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?

Now your just acting like a crazy person.
No charges were recommended.
Not by mueller
Not by the AG
Its over
No one here is even discussing this crap anymore

What is being discussd is the justification of the investigation
Sory news takes so long to get to you way out there.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Crowdstrike made a mistake in an unrelated issue (because an 'out of country' advisor misled them).

What 'mistake'? Quote it. Link it.

They have made multiple false claims (not 'mistakes'), and back-tracked when they were called out on them - but of course that doesn't fit your 'orange man bad' narrative so you pretend otherwise.

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

What does this have to do with the fake 'Russia' narrative and the biggest political scandal in American History - except maybe for the assassination of Kennedy?

Oh, and incidentally, Mexico is paying for the wall in many ways, just not in a way that you will likely ever recognize (ie, they won't be writing a check for it).

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

No, you are, when you claim that Russia publishing this information somehow amounts to election interference.

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

Again - I'm not the one claiming that they made one scintilla of a difference - you are.

You claimed that Russia hacked the DNC server. I challenged that, but then, assumed something was true that I do not believe is true (that Russia hacked the DNC server), and merely asked the question, if Russia hacked the DNC server, was anything they released from it untrue?

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

Lets not mix scandals, please.

We were discussing the DNC server 'hack' scandal.

Now you bring up the Hillary Email scandal.

What hurt Hillary the most, aside from the obvious serious health problems and just her general demeanor as a really crappy person, was definitely 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"?

Yes, but again, we were talking about the DNC server 'hack', not the Hillary Email scandal.

" "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.

No, it said that Barrs letter (it was not a summary of the report, it was only a summary of the conclusions) 'did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions'. Nowhere do you the word 'misrepresented', and since Barrs letter was not a summary of the entire report, it was never intended to 'fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions', so Muellers letter was just a whiny irrelevant complaint, intended only to try to give the Dems some pretext to go after Barr.

Also, Mueller himself said there was nothing inaccurate in Barrs letter.

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.

Once he (Mueller) handed in his homework to his teacher (boss, the AG, William Barr), it was no longer Muellers report, it was the AGs report, to do with what he would - and he did.

Neither Congress, nor the public, have seen the content of these attached documents

Yes... they have. Muellers Executive Summaries were included in the full report Barr released (with the redactions of course).

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.

No, he knew Mueller wasn't happy, Barr was specifically asked about some unnamed members of Mueller Team. Since Barr wasn't aware of any specific complains from members of his team, he answered truthfully.

and, additionally, that Barr was withholding information that was properly prepared for public release.

You couldn't be more wrong.

The law respecting Special Counsels - pushed and passed by Democrats - specifically forbids the release of these reports to the Public or Congress, but leaves a door open to the AG to make exceptions if he deems it worthy.

Barr, by law, didn't have to release one single word to Congress or the public.

GET OVER IT.

" "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.

Nothing there that I can see, so you'll have to quote exactly what you think constitutes 'reasonable doubts', and doubts about 'what'.

"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,

Ummm... again, yes they have, they were included in the full Mueller Report that Barr released as soon as his and Mueller's teams were finished with the redactions.

and that Barr denied the existence of, before the Congressional Select Committee.

Barr never denied the existence of the Mueller Executive Summaries. If you claim he did - quote it. Link to it.

Otherwise - STOP LYING about it.

Mueller wanted Barr to release his (Muellers) Executive Summaries. Barr chose not to, which he was totally within his rights to do as the AG, and Mueller whined about it.

In fact, Barr would have been following the law if he had not released one freaking word of the report, but he decided that the situation warranted it, so he released virtually everything, redacting - with the help of Mueller and/or members of muellers team - only what was required by law

They aren't lawless.

Insisting that the AG break the law is a lawless act.

Their requests are legal and justifiable.

Only in the mindset of 'orange man bad'.

Show me in the Constitution where Congress is granted the power to go on random fishing expeditions against someone they don't like.

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

What orders? Quote it. Link to it. What laws? Quote it. Link to it.

As to your strange comment about Barrs 'statement of beliefs' - it sounds like you believe that Article II Section I of the Constitution is a danger to our Republic?

Continuation, since the last one was too long...

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes, Congress is significantly different than the judiciary or the executive. Only the legislative can amend the Constitution.

Ummm... no. Yes, Congress can propose amendments, but it is up to the States to ratify said proposed amendments.

So, only The States can amend the Constitution.

Only the judiciary can challenge it.

Ummm... no. The Judiciary cannot 'challenge' the Constitutionj in any way, shape or form.

All they are supposed to ever do is determine if any given law is Constitutional or not. The Judiciary upholds the Constitution, it doesn't challenge it.

The executive must abide by, and protect it.

Man, do you ever get tired of being wrong?

The purpose of the Executive is to faithfully execute the laws as passed by Congress. That is why the AG and the DOJ are part of the Executive branch.

Yes, they must do so within the bounds of the Constitution, but that is not their sole purpose.

As to your kind words, thanks - but I would be dishonest if I tried to return the compliment. You appear to be entirely disingenuous in your arguments, posting links to things that do not support your claims, and your arguments are either weak or irrational.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut

What 'mistake'? Quote it. Link it.

They have made multiple false claims (not 'mistakes'), and back-tracked when they were called out on them - but of course that doesn't fit your 'orange man bad' narrative so you pretend otherwise.

Quote them. Link them.

CrowdStrike made assumptions about an app used in the Ukraine for targeting guns, based upon bad intel. They were re-appraised of the situation by other Ukrainian sources and amended their report a week later.

What has Trump got to do with it? Are you saying Trump had something to do with the DNC e-mail hack?

Oh, and incidentally, Mexico is paying for the wall in many ways, just not in a way that you will likely ever recognize (ie, they won't be writing a check for it).

Quote them. Link them.

No, you are, when you claim that Russia publishing this information somehow amounts to election interference.

Does it discredit the DNC in the voters minds?

Again - I'm not the one claiming that they made one scintilla of a difference - you are.

You claimed that Russia hacked the DNC server. I challenged that, but then, assumed something was true that I do not believe is true (that Russia hacked the DNC server), and merely asked the question, if Russia hacked the DNC server, was anything they released from it untrue?

There was a hack, the released e-mails were evidence of it. Details, and some e-mails, were posted by Guccifer 2.0, who has been traced as a Russian source, this was before Wikileaks got the full 30,000 e-mails.

Lets not mix scandals, please. We were discussing the DNC server 'hack' scandal. Now you bring up the Hillary Email scandal.

What hurt Hillary the most, was definitely the overwhelming evidence that Hillary had violated the espionage act many - dozens? hundreds? - of times, as clearly spelled out by one James Comey.

The hack retrieved the e-mails. The DNC did not publicly release the confidential information. Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks would have violated the espionage act, not the DNC, except it didn't apply in the situation.

Yes, but again, we were talking about the DNC server 'hack', not the Hillary Email scandal.

Directly related.

No, it said that Barrs letter (it was not a summary of the report, it was only a summary of the conclusions) 'did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions'. Nowhere do you the word 'misrepresented', and since Barrs letter was not a summary of the entire report, it was never intended to 'fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions', so Muellers letter was just a whiny irrelevant complaint, intended only to try to give the Dems some pretext to go after Barr.

Also, Mueller himself said there was nothing inaccurate in Barrs letter.

It omitted specific important information. It did not accurately summarize the conclusions, which was misleading.

Once he (Mueller) handed in his homework to his teacher (boss, the AG, William Barr), it was no longer Muellers report, it was the AGs report, to do with what he would - and he did.

Mislead Congress & the public.

Yes... they have. Muellers Executive Summaries were included in the full report Barr released (with the redactions of course).

No, that was before Muellers letter to Barr, which had the attached douments, which have not been released as suggested.

No, he knew Mueller wasn't happy, Barr was specifically asked about some unnamed members of Mueller Team. Since Barr wasn't aware of any specific complains from members of his team, he answered truthfully.

April 10 Select Committee hearing;

Van Hollen: "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?"

Barr: "I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."

The law respecting Special Counsels - pushed and passed by Democrats - specifically forbids the release of these reports to the Public or Congress, but leaves a door open to the AG to make exceptions if he deems it worthy.

Barr, by law, didn't have to release one single word to Congress or the public.

GET OVER IT.

Sorry, got to go and do other stuff. Truncated response, will answer the rest later.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Well they said the same thing about Clinton so why isnt that ever over?

Goose--- gander.... pot....kettle...quid pro quo...tit...tat

nope.....

a reply to: Sillyolme

Because that investigation ended with "yes she did illegal things, but no we are not going to charge her".

There are little lies, and there are Whoppers. This is one of several Whoppers from our last president.

mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
There are little lies, and there are Whoppers. This is one of several Whoppers from our last president.

mobile.twitter.com...

🤣🤣💫🤣🤣

”Obama's Biggest Lie: "I am Scrupulous about Keeping Politics Out of the FBI"

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Well they said the same thing about Clinton so why isnt that ever over?

Goose--- gander.... pot....kettle...quid pro quo...tit...tat

nope.....

They tell you alot dont they?
It is plain from your wrongheaded contributions over the last 3 years.
You post incorrect incomplete misinformation disguised as truth.

Trump won toots.
Get over it.
He will win in 20 as well because of blockheads like you.

originally posted by: chr0naut

"They have made multiple false claims (not 'mistakes'), and back-tracked when they were called out on them - but of course that doesn't fit your 'orange man bad' narrative so you pretend otherwise."

Quote them. Link them.

I already did, and you just ignore anything that doesn't fit your 'orange man bad' syndrome....

But just for giggles, I'll repeat them here and here, and how about this, this, this, and last, try this.

CrowdStrike made assumptions about an app used in the Ukraine for targeting guns, based upon bad intel. They were re-appraised of the situation by other Ukrainian sources and amended their report a week later.

You could say that... or you could say they are full of crap, and make crap up, then back-pedal if/when they get caught.

What has Trump got to do with it? Are you saying Trump had something to do with the DNC e-mail hack?

Sorry, I guess the pressure is getting to you, now you're just throwing crap against a wall to see if anything sticks.

"Oh, and incidentally, Mexico is paying for the wall in many ways, just not in a way that you will likely ever recognize (ie, they won't be writing a check for it)."

Quote them. Link them.

Nothing to quote/link, because nothing substantial has happened yet. Patience, grasshopper.

"No, you are, when you claim that Russia publishing this information somehow amounts to election interference."

Does it discredit the DNC in the voters minds?

Anyone who reads the emails and/or follows this on news sites other than CNN/MSNBC/etc, I should hope so. And rightly so. The DNC colluded with Hillary Clinton to steal the democratic nomination from Bernie. If I had been a Democrat and/or a Bernie supporter, I'd have been livid.

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't have discredited both the DNC and Hillary?

"Again - I'm not the one claiming that they made one scintilla of a difference - you are.

You claimed that Russia hacked the DNC server. I challenged that, but then, assumed something was true that I do not believe is true (that Russia hacked the DNC server), and merely asked the question, if Russia hacked the DNC server, was anything they released from it untrue?"

There was a hack, the released e-mails were evidence of it.

Which could have been from a hack, or from data stolen by an insider who had access.

Details, and some e-mails, were posted by Guccifer 2.0, who has been traced as a Russian source, this was before Wikileaks got the full 30,000 e-mails.

You could say that, sure.

Or, you could say that data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.

Occams Razor and all.

Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks would have violated the espionage act, not the DNC, except it didn't apply in the situation.

Rotflmao! That is like saying "Trump would have been guilty of murder, except that he didn't murder anyone.'

"Yes, but again, we were talking about the DNC server 'hack', not the Hillary Email scandal."

Directly related.

Ummm. No. Two completely different scenarios. Hillary's crimes were actually extremely serious violations of the espionage Act.

The DNC situation was just extremely embarrassing for the DNC.

"Mueller himself said there was nothing inaccurate in Barrs letter."

It omitted specific important information.

What specific information was omitted. Be specific, and use your own words, not a link to the words of some MSM hack opining about it.

It did not accurately summarize the conclusions, which was misleading.

There were only two conclusions.

No collusion.

Nolle prosequi on obstruction, thereby punting that decision to his boss, the AG, aka William Barr.

Mislead Congress & the public.

Still waiting on someone to provide a simple statement of fact as to what Barr said that was misleading. Seeing as Mueller himself said Barrs letter was accurate, I wont hold my breath.

Van Hollen: "Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?"

Barr: "I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion."

So, now all you have to do is provide a link to a quote where Mueller says he does or does not support Barrs conclusion about obstruction.

Tick-tock.

a reply to: tanstaafl

The DNC colluded with Hillary Clinton to steal the democratic nomination from Bernie.

Another lie... Never happened and not only that but there were no e mails that even sounded remotely like this happened.

I think most folks never read a single e mail.. they just went by what they heard or read others say about them.
So depending on your source those e mails said different things.
but none showed that they colluded with Hillary to steal the nomination from Bernie.
Bernie never had it. He was just too stubborn to lay down.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Re: August, 2015 Fundraising agreement between Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC
According to Donna Brazile (from her book, excerpted in Politico):

"The agreement - signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and [Clinton campaign manager] Robbie Mook with a copy to [Clinton campaign council] Marc Elias--specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all of the money raised"

Inside Hillary's Secret Takeover of the DNC
- Politico

How is giving ONE Primary candidate complete financial, strategy and hiring control within the DNC, NOT rigging the Primary for that ONE candidate over the other?

a reply to: Sillyolme

It's from Alt-right Politico, so you probably won't read it, and I know Donna Brazille is an alt-right stooge, so she has no idea what was happening on the inside like you obviously do, but here you go...

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie...
So I followed the money...

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart...
“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

...
Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary...
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings...
This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination... If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.

Politico


Feel free to ignore it like you do the rest of reality.