400+ prosecutors sign a letter noting POTUS absent DOJ policy not to indict POTUS

[guacamole]

There is no contradiction between these statements.

What it really sounds like is that the dirty cop and his goon squad were not happy with Barr's "just the facts" summary that didn't try to imply that Trump was guilty despite lacking the evidence to charge him.

[Bill the Cat]

Something being stated over and over that statement being true are two different things. Where exactly does Mueller say that he was concerned that, specifically, the press was misrepresenting his findings?

Where has he contradicted Barr's claim that he said it?

[guacamole]

Where has he contradicted Barr's claim that he said it?

. So it’s literally just Barr’s testimony?

[Bill the Cat]

. So it’s literally just Barr’s testimony?

No. If Barr's testimony were not true, do you honestly think Mueller would be silent?

[oxmixmudd]

No. If Barr's testimony were not true, do you honestly think Mueller would be silent?

Yes. Mueller appears very good at staying out of view. If he were in any way inclined to speaking up, he has had ample reason to do so given the debate raging over what he meant by this or that.

Jim

[Bill the Cat]

Yes. Mueller appears very good at staying out of view. If he were in any way inclined to speaking up, he has had ample reason to do so given the debate raging over what he meant by this or that.

Jim

You are delusional...

[oxmixmudd]

You are delusional...

Nah, just observant.

BTW, the document that is the subject of this thread has passed 800 signers. Over 800 current or former federal prosecutors saying had these facts come to light on any normal person, they would have been indicted on obstruction. Comey has also weighed in and said that is also what he sees, especially in the case of McGahn.

Jim

[Tassman]

No. If Barr's testimony were not true, do you honestly think Mueller would be silent?

This is just speculation on your part. We just don't know whether Mueller "would be silent" or not, he's notoriously discreet. But we do know that he's already had occasion to intervene regarding Barr's Summary. So he clearly has had some reservations.

[Mountain Man]

Nah, just observant.

BTW, the document that is the subject of this thread has passed 800 signers. Over 800 current or former federal prosecutors saying had these facts come to light on any normal person, they would have been indicted on obstruction. Comey has also weighed in and said that is also what he sees, especially in the case of McGahn.

Comey... you mean the same guy who laid out an open-and-shut case against Hillary for her illegal email server and then declared that no reasonable prosecutor would press charges? Yeah, that's a reputable source.

And to circle back to something you said earlier:

...it's possible you could be right - if it can be shown that in each case where he acted in a way that would have interfered with the investigation it could be shown his intent was not to interfere with the investigation.

You have this completely backwards, and this is a big problem with trying to discuss this matter with virulent anti-Trumpers who enter every conversation with the presumption that Trump is guilty. The burden is not on Trump to prove that he wasn't acting with corrupt intent, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was, something the dirty cop conspicuously failed to do.

Attorney General William Barr's letter to Congress:

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Now contrast this with the case in the editorial you used to kick off this thread where the suspect was found to have committed a number of crimes, and witness tampering was just the icing on the cake. Here's the thing: we know for a fact, beyond any doubt, that Trump was and is innocent of any of the crimes being investigated by Mueller; therefore, we must necessarily view the President's actions as those of an innocent man. Now tell me, how easy do you think it would be to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an innocent man was acting with corrupt intent? That is the mile-high hurdle any prosecutor would have to clear in order to get a conviction against Trump.

Source: Newsweek

Ultimately the Trump haters will get everything they asked for, everything, that is, except his removal from office. They wanted a special counsel. They got one. They wanted a grand jury empaneled. They got one. They wanted to see the counsel’s report – which the attorney general is by law not required to make public – they got it. And, according to what Attorney General Barr had to say at his press conference, a select, bi-partisan group of lawmakers will be given the opportunity to read a version of the report unredacted except for grand jury information which, by law, cannot be disclosed.

That won’t be enough to satisfy everyone, of course. There are those who still cannot accept the American electorate, using the standards in place at the time of the election, chose Donald Trump to be president over Hillary Rodham Clinton. These people will probably go to their graves convinced Trump got away with something. No amount of evidence, or lack thereof to the contrary, will ever persuade them otherwise.

https://www.newsweek.com/barr-muelle...let-go-1400692

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Washington Examiner

Robert Mueller found "no evidence" that either President Trump or any of his associates conspired to collude or cooperated with the Russians in their attempt to interfere in the 2016 election.

This is objectively excellent news. It means that the leader of the free world for the last two years, love him or despise him, didn't commit the single worst crime a president can commit against his nation: treason.

So why are you so angry?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-didnt-collude

© Copyright Original Source

[guacamole]

No. If Barr's testimony were not true, do you honestly think Mueller would be silent?

The argument from silence cuts both ways here: If he were really concerned about the press interpretation, would he be silent? It's all nonsense and tea leaves.

[Bill the Cat]

Nah, just observant.

Trump OCD lenses in your glasses make your "observations" suspect.

BTW, the document that is the subject of this thread has passed 800 signers.

And matters not one hill of beans. Plenty of bandwagon jumpers, never Trumpers, and lefty lawyers with absolutely no skin in the game can say anything they want with no repercussions.

Over 800 current or former federal prosecutors saying had these facts come to light on any normal person, they would have been indicted on obstruction.

And 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed choose trident gum. Big deal.

Comey has also weighed in and said that is also what he sees, especially in the case of McGahn.

Comey is a despicable liar, and has his own scandal to deal with wrt the FISA crap.

[Bill the Cat]

This is just speculation on your part.

Not really. Mueller has already come out and refuted the press wrt Buzzfeed's lie that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress.

We just don't know whether Mueller "would be silent" or not, he's notoriously discreet.

Yet, his office is clearly on record correcting press misinformation wrt Cohen. That sets a pretty strong precedent that he does not like media misrepresentations of his office's work.

But we do know that he's already had occasion to intervene regarding Barr's Summary. So he clearly has had some reservations.

About the tone, not the actual content.

[Bill the Cat]

The argument from silence cuts both ways here: If he were really concerned about the press interpretation, would he be silent? It's all nonsense and tea leaves.

According to Barr, he wasn't silent. He and Barr spoke on the phone and he told Barr that the press had it wrong. So, unless you think Barr lied, and his team went along with it (and seeing the volume of leaks in this day and age, I don't see how that is possible), then you have no reason to doubt Barr's claim. And until Mueller testifies, or Barr is forced to provide the transcript of the conversation, you either have to a priori believe Barr or believe he is lying.

[Mountain Man]

Comey is a despicable liar, and has his own scandal to deal with wrt the FISA crap.

Indeed. We now know beyond any doubt that the FBI was well aware of the suspicious and politically motivated nature of the Steele dossier at least 10-days before they used it as evidence to secure a FISA warrant against members of the Trump campaign.

Source

[guacamole]

According to Barr, he wasn't silent. He and Barr spoke on the phone and he told Barr that the press had it wrong. So, unless you think Barr lied, and his team went along with it (and seeing the volume of leaks in this day and age, I don't see how that is possible), then you have no reason to doubt Barr's claim. And until Mueller testifies, or Barr is forced to provide the transcript of the conversation, you either have to a priori believe Barr or believe he is lying.

According to Barr... is not sufficient evidence for any truth claims from political figures. You don't have to either believe Barr or believe he is lying--you can choose to withhold judgment. Otherwise, the discussion is, as I said, pointlessness because people are just shouting their preconceived notions at each other.