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

[Bill the Cat]

I think you are proving my point.

But here is a test. If you are being rational and I am not, then it should be possible for at least one of you, using precise and rational language, to point out what i have said on this topic so far in this thread is irrational and why it is irrational.

So far there has only been accusation, drama, and various forms of name calling, which does not bode well for your accusations having any real merit.

Jim

The thread itself is a single drop in the ocean of your irrational Trump OCD. the fact that you are trying to throw the shade in my direction shows yet again your failure to self-reflect about your utter hatred of Trump. Just admit you hate him and we can all go about our business.

[oxmixmudd]

The thread itself is a single drop in the ocean of your irrational Trump OCD. the fact that you are trying to throw the shade in my direction shows yet again your failure to self-reflect about your utter hatred of Trump. Just admit you hate him and we can all go about our business.

That isn't helping your case even a little bit. The fact 650+ qualified professionals can sign their names to a document that claims the evidence discussed in volume 2 of the Mueller report would nornally lead to prosecution for obstruction is not some trivial deal. It means the president in fact should be brought to task over the obstruction issue. It means that we may well be watching our system fail to be able to hold a sitting president accountable for a crime.

There is nothing irrational about wanting to discuss that in this forum.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

The fact 650+ qualified professionals can sign their names to a document that claims the evidence discussed in volume 2 of the Mueller report would nornally lead to prosecution for obstruction is not some trivial deal.

The argument is that they could get an indictment based on the evidence, which is trivially true because the indictment process heavily favors the prosecutor who only has to present his best case without admitting to any exculpatory evidence. It is a wholly one-sided process, hence the saying, "You could indict a ham sandwich." The fact that Mueller lacked the confidence to reach a definitive conclusion is not some trivial deal, either.

[oxmixmudd]

The argument is that they could get an indictment based on the evidence, which is trivially true because the indictment process heavily favors the prosecutor who only has to present his best case without admitting to any exculpatory evidence. It is a wholly one-sided process, hence the saying, "You could indict a ham sandwich." The fact that Mueller lacked the confidence to reach a definitive conclusion is not some trivial deal, either.

I don't think so MM. What they are saying is that under normal circumstances not only could they indict, they could convict. The editorial that begins this thread says precisely that. She begins comparing a case where she not only indicted but convicted a fellow on significantly LESS evidence that what is in the Mueller report:

Source: opening post

When I was a federal prosecutor, I once indicted and tried a man named Roberto Ortiz for trying to convince his ex-girlfriend to leave town for a few weeks so she could not testify against him at an upcoming trial for illegal firearms possession. Despite Ortiz's efforts, the ex-girlfriend did not leave town, and a trial jury convicted Ortiz on various charges including witness tampering.

Ortiz's obstructive conduct pales in comparison to President Donald Trump's prolonged campaign to torpedo the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

© Copyright Original Source

This is her point. She is one of the signer's of this document. Why should I not take her word on this over your own attempt to trivialize it? She actually prosecuted this specific crime successfully on less than what is in the Mueller report.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

You and the gal who wrote the editorial are ignoring two critical points: 1) Trump knew, and now we know, that neither he nor any member of his campaign were guilty of "collusion" and that the investigation was unjust and entirely politically motivated; and 2) For almost the entirety of the investigation, Trump was under the presumption that he was not a target because this is what he had been repeatedly told by members of the FBI and DOJ.

Which is to say there is no similarity whatsoever between a guilty man who knows he is the target of an investigation trying to escape justice by coercing a witness not to testify against him, and the President of the United States exercising his Constitutional authority to prevent what he knows for a fact is a miscarriage of justice.

[Mountain Man]

By the way, that's Barr's reasoning for why an obstruction charge would be unsustainable. I didn't just pluck it out of thin air. And as someone who is privy to all the facts and isn't on the outside looking in, his opinion on the matter carriers considerably more weight than people trying to second guess his legal judgment.

[oxmixmudd]

You and the gal who wrote the editorial are ignoring two critical points: 1) Trump knew, and now we know, that neither he nor any member of his campaign were guilty of "collusion" and that the investigation was unjust and entirely politically motivated; and 2) For almost the entirety of the investigation, Trump was under the presumption that he was not a target because this is what he had been repeatedly told by members of the FBI and DOJ.

Which is to say there is no similarity whatsoever between a guilty man who knows he is the target of an investigation trying to escape justice by coercing a witness not to testify against him, and the President of the United States exercising his Constitutional authority to prevent what he knows for a fact is a miscarriage of justice.

well, I know obstruction can happen whether you are actually guilty or not. So it doesn't matter if there was no collusion, if he just couldn't stop himself and actually tried to interfere with the investigation, then he's still guilty of obstruction.

But obstruction does depend on why he's doing what he's doing. So the rest of it would depend on what he knew when. So 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.

That seems very, very unlikely in this case, but I am not familiar enough with the minutia to rule it out as a possibility.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

By the way, that's Barr's reasoning for why an obstruction charge would be unsustainable. I didn't just pluck it out of thin air. And as someone who is privy to all the facts and isn't on the outside looking in, his opinion on the matter carriers considerably more weight than people trying to second guess his legal judgment.

I do not question Barr's qualifications to assess the data, but Barr is also very biased - he very much tried to hide important information about the report and spin it in Trump's favor. That said, it doesn't mean he's not right on this point, it just means it would take more than his word to convince me that was the case.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Barr is also very biased - he very much tried to hide important information about the report and spin it in Trump's favor.

No he didn't. Mueller himself said that Barr's letter was neither inaccurate nor misleading.

[guacamole]

Per dirty-cop Mueller:

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions... ....There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

[oxmixmudd]

No he didn't. Mueller himself said that Barr's letter was neither inaccurate nor misleading.

That was the public side of it, and perhaps the smoothed out version given barr is his boss. He wrote a letter taking issue with what was in the report. So there were/are issues with the summary that are not captured in that statement.

This situation has too many conflicting elements to be properly assessed with the sort of out of context quoting you are trying to use to define what the situation is.

Jim

[MaxVel]

From an op-ed written by one of the signers:

Source: cnn

When I was a federal prosecutor, I once indicted and tried a man named Roberto Ortiz for trying to convince his ex-girlfriend to leave town for a few weeks so she could not testify against him at an upcoming trial for illegal firearms possession. Despite Ortiz's efforts, the ex-girlfriend did not leave town, and a trial jury convicted Ortiz on various charges including witness tampering.

Ortiz's obstructive conduct pales in comparison to President Donald Trump's prolonged campaign to torpedo the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

© Copyright Original Source

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/opini...nig/index.html

This won't be accepted by the pro-Trump crowd here at TWEB. Nevertheless, the point has been made and needs to be made again.

This is not just somebodies opinion raging away on the internet (like you or me). These are all current or former federal prosecutors, Republican, Democrat, all walks of life. And THEY are PUBLICLY saying - with the credibility that only a former prosecutor can have on this topic - that IF Donald Trump were not POTUS, there is more than enough in the Mueller report to indict.


Jim

1) Since Trump is the President, surely the bolded above is a moot point. Right? Isn't it a bit like saying 'that cop car chasing the fleeing bank robbers is speeding!'... but cops, by virtue of their position and in the discharge of their duties, can 'speed'.

2) The whole 'obstruction' thing to me seems an attempt at making another process charge stick.

The whole Mueller investigation, with it's source in a Clinton-funded political 'research' document, dodgy FISA warrants et al, smells pretty strongly of a political attack / character assassination attempt. Accusing someone of obstruction when defending themselves against an attack based on a smear that was paid for by their political enemies strikes me as unfair and unjust. **I'm surprised any Christian would take it at all seriously, except in so far as it shows how bad the Democrats are, and how corrupt agencies like the FBI and CIA have become.**


Here's a hypothetical for you:

IF (1) the original basis of the investigation was worse than simply flawed, but instead entirely partisan, and an attempt to subvert the results of the election by damaging the President and obstructing his work;

AND (2) the results of the investigation are that none of the charges have been found to be supported (something the President would have known from the start)

THEN (3)surely resistance on the President's part is justified, and in fact required (else he abandon his duty to serve the country that elected him)

AND (4) those charged in the course of the investigation for lying to the investigators etc should be treated leniently, especially where those falsehoods did not concern the actual focus of the investigation (i.e. collusion with Russian influences), since they would not have been charged at all if there had been no investigation (see (1))






**The same point could be made without any reference to the faith or integrity of someone who disagrees, interestingly enough**

[MaxVel]

I think you are proving my point.

But here is a test. If you are being rational and I am not, then it should be possible for at least one of you, using precise and rational language, to point out what i have said on this topic so far in this thread is irrational and why it is irrational.

So far there has only been accusation, drama, and various forms of name calling, which does not bode well for your accusations having any real merit.

Jim

I'll give it a try...

From your OP:

This won't be accepted by the pro-Trump crowd here at TWEB.

That's poisoning the well.

You are setting up the thread discussion from the very outset with the implication that people who disagree with you on this topic are not open to evidence or changing their minds. It's a veiled attack on other's intellectual integrity before they've even said anything.

Further, you're characterizing people who might disagree with you on this topic as 'pro-Trump' when they might simply think you're wrong on this point. The implication again being that they're biased in favour of Trump, and thus intellectually dishonest and incapable of coming to a reasoned opinion on the topic.


The above is irrational behaviour, since you're employing rhetoric to smear people who might honestly disagree as biased and dishonest, BEFORE they've even responded to the topic. It sets up a scenario in your mind where people who might disagree with you for good reason are actually biased and prejudiced, and thus makes it harder for you to reach the truth, since you're not open to input that contradicts what you already have decided. That too is irrational.


As you can see from the responses, your insult did not go unnoticed, and produced negative results. Now, you can claim that others are being irrational and prejudiced against you, and won't look at the evidence honestly, etc but the reason is right there in your opening words. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Doing that to yourself is irrational, too.

[Tassman]

No he didn't. Mueller himself said that Barr's letter was neither inaccurate nor misleading.

This is not the case.

Mueller was sufficiently concerned to write to Barr the day after Barr’s four-page letter: “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” In short it was misleading. He went on: “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

Mueller could not have been clearer in his "snitty" letter to Barr....as Barr described it.

[oxmixmudd]

I'll give it a try...

From your OP:




That's poisoning the well.

You are setting up the thread discussion from the very outset with the implication that people who disagree with you on this topic are not open to evidence or changing their minds. It's a veiled attack on other's intellectual integrity before they've even said anything.

Further, you're characterizing people who might disagree with you on this topic as 'pro-Trump' when they might simply think you're wrong on this point. The implication again being that they're biased in favour of Trump, and thus intellectually dishonest and incapable of coming to a reasoned opinion on the topic.


The above is irrational behaviour, since you're employing rhetoric to smear people who might honestly disagree as biased and dishonest, BEFORE they've even responded to the topic. It sets up a scenario in your mind where people who might disagree with you for good reason are actually biased and prejudiced, and thus makes it harder for you to reach the truth, since you're not open to input that contradicts what you already have decided. That too is irrational.


As you can see from the responses, your insult did not go unnoticed, and produced negative results. Now, you can claim that others are being irrational and prejudiced against you, and won't look at the evidence honestly, etc but the reason is right there in your opening words. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Doing that to yourself is irrational, too.

Seriously?