Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 129 of 129

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

  1. #121
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,958
    Amen (Given)
    202
    Amen (Received)
    852
    He specifically stated that “it did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions,” and that as a result, “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.” And that “This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the [Justice] Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations,”
    Which parts of Barr's summary have created confusion and been used to throw doubt on the outcomes of the inquiry? Which parts demonstrate internal (to the summary) ambiguity? According to Mueller's complaint, not capturing full substance etc. resulted in public confusion.
    Last edited by tabibito; 05-11-2019 at 10:21 PM.
    1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

  2. #122
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,214
    Amen (Given)
    2467
    Amen (Received)
    1774
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Does it matter? You're all reading from the same script.
    As opposed to those reading from the Fox/Breitbart script, you mean.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  3. #123
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    571
    Amen (Given)
    52
    Amen (Received)
    489
    I think Mueller and Barr's opinions on the obstruction question are impacted by several factors:

    1) The DOJ opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

    2) The unique position of the President. Normally, when a suspect obstructs an investigation, they are not in a position which creates such plausible deniability. As the chief of the executive branch, President Trump has authority over the people who were investigating him. So he can take action against the investigation and couch the actions in legitimate plausible deniability of any desire to obstruct a criminal investigation. He can claim he took actions for some other legitimate reason, and they wouldn't be illegal because of a lack of criminal intent.

    3) The issue is so polarizing, I'd guess there's a 50/50 chance at conviction. A potential trial would largely hinge on which specific jurors get selected.

    4) Federal prosecutors, in my experience, don't proceed with cases that aren't a slam dunk (consider their conviction rate is like 99%+). 50/50 chance of conviction is NOT a slam dunk. I can't imagine any federal prosecutors that want to be the person who failed to convict a sitting president of a felony. Say good-bye to that cushy, post-government law firm partnership. Their career would be toast.
    "We see unmistakably the sort of universe in which we have all along been living, and must come to terms with it. If we had foolish un-Christian hopes about human culture, they are now shattered. If we thought we were building up a heaven on earth, if we looked for something that would turn the present world from a place of pilgrimage into a permanent city satisfying the soul of man, we are disillusioned, and not a moment too soon." - C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

  4. Amen DesertBerean amen'd this post.
  5. #124
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,404
    Amen (Given)
    5554
    Amen (Received)
    5748
    Quote Originally Posted by myth View Post
    I think Mueller and Barr's opinions on the obstruction question are impacted by several factors:

    1) The DOJ opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
    Nope. Barr explicitly said in his letter to Congress that this played no part in his and Rosenstein's analysis of Mueller's case.

    Quote Originally Posted by myth View Post
    2) The unique position of the President. Normally, when a suspect obstructs an investigation, they are not in a position which creates such plausible deniability. As the chief of the executive branch, President Trump has authority over the people who were investigating him. So he can take action against the investigation and couch the actions in legitimate plausible deniability of any desire to obstruct a criminal investigation. He can claim he took actions for some other legitimate reason, and they wouldn't be illegal because of a lack of criminal intent.

    3) The issue is so polarizing, I'd guess there's a 50/50 chance at conviction. A potential trial would largely hinge on which specific jurors get selected.

    4) Federal prosecutors, in my experience, don't proceed with cases that aren't a slam dunk (consider their conviction rate is like 99%+). 50/50 chance of conviction is NOT a slam dunk. I can't imagine any federal prosecutors that want to be the person who failed to convict a sitting president of a felony. Say good-bye to that cushy, post-government law firm partnership. Their career would be toast.
    Another factor mentioned by Barr during his testimony is that we know for a fact that Trump and his campaign were falsely accused, meaning that every one of Trump's actions were those of an innocent man, and it would be extremely difficult to prove that an innocent man was acting with corrupt intent.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  6. #125
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    571
    Amen (Given)
    52
    Amen (Received)
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Nope. Barr explicitly said in his letter to Congress that this played no part in his and Rosenstein's analysis of Mueller's case.
    Barr has every motivation to be slightly misleading, and it in fact appears that he was less than 100% honest to congress during his testimony. So I don't much care that he specifically said otherwise. Also, I meant these statements to apply to Barr and Mueller. Even if Barr didn't consider it, I believe Mueller did.

    Another factor mentioned by Barr during his testimony is that we know for a fact that Trump and his campaign were falsely accused, meaning that every one of Trump's actions were those of an innocent man, and it would be extremely difficult to prove that an innocent man was acting with corrupt intent.
    Indeed. There are many who would argue against charging someone for obstructing a criminal case when it turns out there was no originally crime to begin with. Even if you can do so (I understand that opinions differ on that), it has the stink of vindictiveness....like, "Well, there's no original crime but let's jam him up on this technicality since we're so dead set on charging him".
    "We see unmistakably the sort of universe in which we have all along been living, and must come to terms with it. If we had foolish un-Christian hopes about human culture, they are now shattered. If we thought we were building up a heaven on earth, if we looked for something that would turn the present world from a place of pilgrimage into a permanent city satisfying the soul of man, we are disillusioned, and not a moment too soon." - C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

  7. #126
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,404
    Amen (Given)
    5554
    Amen (Received)
    5748
    Quote Originally Posted by myth View Post
    Barr has every motivation to be slightly misleading...
    No he doesn't.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  8. #127
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    571
    Amen (Given)
    52
    Amen (Received)
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    No he doesn't.
    Keeping his job isn't motivation? Look what happened to certain people...like a previous AG and FBI director. And...a ton of other administration officials. In Trump's administration, if you don't tow the party line, you get axed.
    "We see unmistakably the sort of universe in which we have all along been living, and must come to terms with it. If we had foolish un-Christian hopes about human culture, they are now shattered. If we thought we were building up a heaven on earth, if we looked for something that would turn the present world from a place of pilgrimage into a permanent city satisfying the soul of man, we are disillusioned, and not a moment too soon." - C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

  9. #128
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,724
    Amen (Given)
    2108
    Amen (Received)
    637
    Apparently none of the heroic 400 are people known to Jonathan Turley.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  10. #129
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,214
    Amen (Given)
    2467
    Amen (Received)
    1774
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Apparently none of the heroic 400 are people known to Jonathan Turley.
    Well Turley is one. Just 399 of the "heroic" prosecutes to go.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •