Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[Dan T.]

So I've been away for awhile.

 

What'd I miss?

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

8 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

So I've been away for awhile.

 

What'd I miss?

Trump - 74

Libs - 3

[DogofWar1]

So I'm just a silly crazy person, but something has been bouncing around in my brain.  I tweeted at Joyce Vance about it but she hasn't responded.

 

I may have gotten a big head after Kasparov wrote a thread in response to a question I asked him.

 

I'll try reaching out to Tribe next or maybe just go down a list of former US Attys.  Or maybe bug Holder.

 

ANYWAYS

 

What I am wondering is if Barr did not dissolve or weaken, on purpose or accidentally, the DOJ's policy re: not indicting a sitting President.

 

See, in Nixon and Clinton, the AG made no prosecutorial decisions as the Special Counsels instead punted to Congress, based on DOJ policy.

 

Here, Barr made a traditional prosecutorial decision.

 

That implies that on the issue of obstruction, the DOJ policy was suspended.

 

If that is the case, doesn't that open the door to other offices following suit and choosing to make traditional prosecutorial decisions re: sitting Presidents?

[Riggo-toni]

21 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

So I've been away for awhile.

 

What'd I miss?

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

He didn't come up with any of the other untrue talking points he regurgitated on his own. 

 

I'm half tempted/half afraid to do a Google search on "McStain", just to see which "independent news sources" he's been programmed by. 

 

(But I don't think I want to know.)

 

I've spent a bit of time on and off at a couple of far right "outlets" and "McStain" is a pretty common pejorative used in the comments section of those places. Given that and a few of the other phrasings he used in his posts I'd put the odds of him being a regular Breitbart reader/commenter at about 95%.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Funny just 10 years ago these idiots were voting for McStain over the Antichrist Muslim sent here to rape and destroy America 

[NoCalMike]

33 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

 

What I am wondering is if Barr did not dissolve or weaken, on purpose or accidentally, the DOJ's policy re: not indicting a sitting President.

 

See, in Nixon and Clinton, the AG made no prosecutorial decisions as the Special Counsels instead punted to Congress, based on DOJ policy.

 

Here, Barr made a traditional prosecutorial decision.

 

That implies that on the issue of obstruction, the DOJ policy was suspended.

 

If that is the case, doesn't that open the door to other offices following suit and choosing to make traditional prosecutorial decisions re: sitting Presidents?

 

Which is why in part it is a big deal for the Congress to see the full report. There is some speculation that Mueller's intention was to punt the obstruction issue to congress to decide, but Barr interjected himself as a buffer which in the past was not how things were done.  Another one of those "not against the law to do" (I think?) but definitely shady.

Edited March 26, 2019 by NoCalMike

[DogofWar1]

24 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Which is why in part it is a big deal for the Congress to see the full report. There is some speculation that Mueller's intention was to punt the obstruction issue to congress to decide, but Barr interjected himself as a buffer which in the past was not how things were done.  Another one of those "not against the law to do" (I think?) but definitely shady.

 

Well here's the rub.

 

Does it matter who Mueller wanted/asked to decide?

 

The whole point of the policy is that DOJ stays out of sitting President prosecutorial decisions.

 

Even if Mueller asked Barr explicitly, under DOJ policy isn't Barr supposed to say "No, sorry, against policy."

 

If anything, that'd make things worse for Trump, since, presumably Mueller has farmed out numerous cases, some of which may implicste the President.

 

"I asked Barr to make a determination and he chose to change/bypass/ignore policy and did so.  I similarly asked X offices to do the same, and similarly assume the policy will not apply."

 

In essence, it's almost a trap for Barr.  He punts to Congress and they get a bunch of bad obstruction evidence or he doesn't punt and protects Trump, but in doing so opens the door to others ignoring DOJ policy.

Edited March 26, 2019 by DogofWar1

[DogofWar1]

The above being said, however, I find it very unlikely Mueller punted to Barr.

 

Barr made clear he felt obstruction investigation was flawed at its base.  Unless Mueller was perfectly fine with his obstruction probe ending immediately in a dismissal, he wouldn't have given it to Barr.

 

Further, to give it to Barr would go against the precedent set in Nixon and Clinton of presenting the evidence to Congress.  Mueller does not strike me as the kind of guy to upset precedent like that.

[NoCalMike]

37 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

The whole point of the policy is that DOJ stays out of sitting President prosecutorial decisions.

 

I very much agree with that, which is why I find it troubling that Barr's interference is not getting more play.  Of course at the time of his confirmation it did seem like a forgone conclusion that he was being installed as AG to do exactly what he did, so I guess we can't say people weren't warned?

 

I also find it odd that it seemed like a pretty big deal that Congress, Senate (some of) and most importantly the American people were demanding the  Mueller report be made public, and within 48 hours the narrative had completely switched to "lets just debate the Barr summary and move on"

[PCS]

Talking out of my you know what here I know,but I wonder if the investigation just didn't have enough and wasn't going to get enough,(or have time to),evidence to charge a sitting President. Ordinary folks need this >.< much evidence against them.  More powerful folks need this [                     .                   ] much against them. A sitting President, however,might need,(and possibly for good reason), this { 

.

 

}  much against him or her for someone to feel comfortable charging them with something. Especially with something like working with foreign government in affecting a U.S. election.  

 

Will admit to an odd fascination with watching this whole process unfold.  

 

 

 

 

[Llevron]

7 minutes ago, PCS said:

Talking out of my you know what here I know,but I wonder if the investigation just didn't have enough and wasn't going to get enough,(or have time to),evidence to charge a sitting President. Ordinary folks need this >.< much evidence against them.  More powerful folks need this [                     .                   ] much against them. A sitting President, however,might need,(and possibly for good reason), this { 

.

 

}  much against him or her for someone to feel comfortable charging them with something. Especially with something like working with foreign government in affecting a U.S. election.  

 

Will admit to an odd fascination with watching this whole process unfold.  

 

I think this was the issue. There is not much (if any??) precedent for inditing a sitting president. Not with something like this. Saying he colluded with Russia would effectively be treason, and even for a "rule of law" man like Muller, you would need some serious evidence to put that on a President. Its not something that has ever happened before. You have to be right without a shadow of doubt and you have to be able to prove it. And I dont think he could without people cooperating, or the president dangling pardons. 

 

Basically Trump obstructed, it worked, and there is nothing we can do about it because Barr said so. Thats what I feel. 

[Mooka]

5 hours ago, crabbypatty said:

 

Some of you are really the "low information" group.. or willful ignorance, either applies to most leftists with regard to their "high education" and "moral superiority".. LOL

 

 

Simple question, who started this Russia business in the first place?

 

Another simple question, Why in the flaming hells of absolute ****ALL has this country done nothing to Russia for ****ing with our elections and flooding our country with their propaganda? 

 

The U.S. is a giant pathetic chumpstyle atm and the MAGA crowd could give a **** after I heard 8 years complaining about Obama's apology your. (Coming soon btw during next Dem presidency)

[Popeman38]

17 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

The above being said, however, I find it very unlikely Mueller punted to Barr.

 

Barr made clear he felt obstruction investigation was flawed at its base.  Unless Mueller was perfectly fine with his obstruction probe ending immediately in a dismissal, he wouldn't have given it to Barr.

 

Further, to give it to Barr would go against the precedent set in Nixon and Clinton of presenting the evidence to Congress.  Mueller does not strike me as the kind of guy to upset precedent like that.

Here is the order authorizing the Special Counsel:

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Quote

Office of the Deputy Attorney General

Washington, D.C. 20530

 

ORDER NO. 3915-2017

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE

2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

 

          By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

 

(a)          Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b)          The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

 

     (i)     any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

     (ii)    any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

     (iii)   any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

 

(c)          If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d)          Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

 

 

______________________________                                                                                                                                                                                                   _________________________

Date                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Rod J. Rosenstein

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Acting Attorney General

Nowhere in the order does it state the SC has an obligation to indict anyone, the order is to facilitate an investigation.

 

Additionally, DoJ regulations issued by then-AG Janet Reno mandate the report be provided to the AG. The AG, and only the AG, can then turn the report over to Congress or simply issue a 4 page summary. There is no regulatory or legislative obligation to produce the full report to either Congress or the public. So anyone saying that Barr usurped the authority of Congress is flat wrong.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/17/barr-is-right-about-releasing-muellers-report/?utm_term=.8a850fb32de3

Quote

During William P. Barr’s confirmation hearings to be attorney general, many questions focused on whether Barr would release any report completed by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Lawmakers and commentators have expressed consternation over Barr’s refusal to commit to make Mueller’s report public. But Barr is absolutely correct. It’s not Mueller’s job to prepare a public report, and there’s no reason to expect that whatever report he does prepare would necessarily be released.

 

Under the old independent counsel statute, authorized in the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, the independent counsel was required to write a report to Congress if he or she found any evidence of potentially impeachable misconduct. The most famous — or infamous — example of this was Kenneth Starr’s voluminous and graphic report about the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair. Public backlash over the excesses of Starr’s report arguably contributed to Congress’s decision to let that law expire in 1999.

 

We now have the Department of Justice special counsel regulations under which Mueller operates. Pursuant to those regulations, Mueller is much more like a typical federal prosecutor. Although he has a great deal of day-to-day autonomy, he is treated like a U.S. attorney, subject to all Justice Department rules and regulations.

 

(more at link)

 

[twa]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

 

ANYWAYS

 

What I am wondering is if Barr did not dissolve or weaken, on purpose or accidentally, the DOJ's policy re: not indicting a sitting President.

 

See, in Nixon and Clinton, the AG made no prosecutorial decisions as the Special Counsels instead punted to Congress, based on DOJ policy.

 

Here, Barr made a traditional prosecutorial decision.

 

That implies that on the issue of obstruction, the DOJ policy was suspended.

 

If that is the case, doesn't that open the door to other offices following suit and choosing to make traditional prosecutorial decisions re: sitting Presidents?

 

I believe your answer is in the changes made after the Clinton mess.

Different rules/regs than w/Nixon and Clinton.

 

Reviewing that might answer several issues you seem troubled over.

[Hersh]

Trolls are both funny and sad. There are so many great things to do in life and they chose to get off from trying to rile other people up which is just sad. (I don't mean about meaningless issues like sports which can be funny but when people troll others over important issues to negatively impact someones life) The need to feel superior over someone else is a real sign of insecurity. It add no value to anyone's life when it's done.   

[First Colony]

3 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

 

 

He's dead now, that dorky 6th grade kid. Nobody misses him.

oh man, that took a turn.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 minutes ago, First Colony said:

oh man, that took a turn.

He died a horrible death. His mom buried him under an old oak on the farm where she grew up.

 

Not in that order.

 

I commend her. He was an asshole and an embarrassment.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[NoCalMike]

Yeah where I think people are getting confused is in their understanding/lack thereof that Mueller was not going to be the one indicting the President whether he committed crimes or not. That was never his job.  He was just the lead FBI investigator gathering all the information he could on whether Trump (or anyone else) should be indicted, then hand off that information to the powers that be, which historically has been congress, but in this case it was Barr who made the determination. 

 

This doesn't mean hands are clean or as the President states "total exoneration" considering even the Barr summary clearly states it does not mean exoneration, but also because the report itself could very well state that shady things were going on, people were up to no good, but the dots could not be connected to the White House.  

 

For a comparison.  Hillary Clinton was investigated over Benghazi, what, 5 times at least?  She was never indicted or charged with anything, however ask elected GOP officials or the GOP voters and I bet you they still to this day think she is guilty of actual crimes that the GOP led senate time and time again found zero evidence of.  The main difference there is the public was privy to all the information and the investigation itself, where the Russia-Gate stuff as of now has not been made public so we don't really know what is in the actual report. 

 

Trump played the same game with "making the report public" as he did with releasing his tax returns.  He kept saying he would release them if he was actually running, then oh if he wins the nomination, then, oh after the audits are complete.   He said it should be made public, but since the report was submitted he has put zero pressure on Barr for more transparency. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by NoCalMike

[Dan T.]

^^^ Imagine if Donald Trump was brought before a Congressional committee and grilled for 8 hours under oath like Hilary was in the Benghazi "investigation". . .

 

[Popeman38]

11 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Yeah where I think people are getting confused is in their understanding/lack thereof that Mueller was not going to be the one indicting the President whether he committed crimes or not. That was never his job.  He was just the lead FBI investigator gathering all the information he could on whether Trump (or anyone else) should be indicted, then hand off that information to the powers that be, which historically has been congress, but in this case it was Barr who made the determination. 

 

This doesn't mean hands are clean or as the President states "total exoneration" considering even the Barr summary clearly states it does not mean exoneration, but also because the report itself could very well state that shady things were going on, people were up to no good, but the dots could not be connected to the White House.  

 

For a comparison.  Hillary Clinton was investigated over Benghazi, what, 5 times at least?  She was never indicted or charged with anything, however ask elected GOP officials or the GOP voters and I bet you they still to this day think she is guilty of actual crimes that the GOP led senate time and time again found zero evidence of.  The main difference there is the public was privy to all the information and the investigation itself, where the Russia-Gate stuff as of now has not been made public so we don't really know what is in the actual report. 

 

Trump played the same game with "making the report public" as he did with releasing his tax returns.  He kept saying he would release them if he was actually running, then oh if he wins the nomination, then, oh after the audits are complete.   He said it should be made public, but since the report was submitted he has put zero pressure on Barr for more transparency. 

Historically it was Congress for an Independent Counsel - like Ken Starr.  AG Janet Reno issued new DoJ regulations, which I linked in my previous post.  Here are the reporting obligations:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.9

Quote

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -

     (1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

     (2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

     (3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

 

(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.

 

(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

 

[RedskinsFan44]

These people are delusional:

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1110615068247576579

 

 

[NoCalMike]

10 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Historically it was Congress for an Independent Counsel - like Ken Starr.  AG Janet Reno issued new DoJ regulations, which I linked in my previous post.  Here are the reporting obligations:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.9

 

 

Yes I understand all this.  I didn't say what Barr was doing was illegal, but I do think what he is doing by not releasing the full report (sanz anything that needs to be redacted for national security reasons) has more to do with concealing and protecting than it has to do with him determining it "isn't in the public interest" to do so. 

[bearrock]

5 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

These people are delusional:

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1110615068247576579

 

 

[youngestson]

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Yes I understand all this.  I didn't say what Barr was doing was illegal, but I do think what he is doing by not releasing the full report (sanz anything that needs to be redacted for national security reasons) has more to do with concealing and protecting than it has to do with him determining it "isn't in the public interest" to do so. 

I'm going to guess (only a guess) that there is both classified information (as you noted) and an array of criminal wrongdoings by Trump which were not covered in Muller's job assignment looking for collusion with the Russian government as well as the private information and details of various and sundry people caught up in the investigation.