Is Barr Going to Indict Trump? (radical, myth, biased, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just saw this theory floated on George Webb's Youtube channel: The Russian collusion issue was laid to rest, but the obstruction issue was left open for a reason. Barr and Mueller are good friends with each other, and with Stefan Halper, who worked with Barr on Iran-Contra. These guys go back a long way. They're going to take down Trump on obstruction over Mike Flynn, and put in Mike Pence, so it'll be Pence in 2020.
It does look to me as if Trump has done a deal with the Bushies, thinking it'll help him (hence, we have Pompeo, Bolton, Abrams, Rubio, etc. and of course, Barr). Unfortunately, they may stab him in the back. Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, considering Reagan was shot by the son of a good friend of HW's.
Now, if this happens, it'll happen fast, so watch for April. I even think Barr sort of gave everyone a preview on what he's going to release and when.
It's a long process. Kicking the decades long habit can be hard, but worth it.
Lol, Hesy, I remained happily agnostic during the second half of the Bush horror and all through the Obama years. And then along came Trump and I fell off the wagon.
I once made a list demonstrating how Republican politicians and officials are largely responsible for many of the issues that Republican voters complain about and blame on Democrats. Take immigration, for example. I'll fling that squarely in the lap of St. Ronald Reagan, Republican icon. Got a problem with the ACA? Meet John Roberts, Republican head of the Supremes. I could go on, but you get the idea.
There is nothing more that a Republican politician enjoys than capitulating to the Democrats. There's actually a sick, orgasmic quality about the way they do it, too.
the obstruction charge would have leg IF Mueller found evidence of collusion......but since they have NO evidence of collusion that proves Trump was right for firing Comey since Comey lied to President Trump (his boss) and told him 3 times he wasn't personally under investigation and then he was leaking to the media with McCabe classified information to undermine Trump.
Barr is correct, you can't charge a President for obstruction for doing a constitutional legal act. He can fired the FBI Director for any reason.
Trump believed Comey was doing a bogus investigation behind his back and lying to him and leaking to the press so the President used his constitutional powers to fired him.
Mueller had to prove that the collusion charge was legit before he could sell the obstruction charge and he couldn't. Mueller had to prove that Trump colluded with Russia and that's why he fired Comey because he knew he was guilty......but Mueller couldn't indict 1 person of collusion so the firing of Comey is not a crime and obstruction looks very weak. Especially when Mueller never interview Trump to find out his intentions or state o mind for the record.
now Comey and McCabe are in trouble. When you try to take out the President and fail, it leaves you vulnerable and now the President will counter punch and Comey and McCabe did leaked classified information to the press.
I think a lot of people are "in trouble" ...... I doubt all the toothpaste can be stuffed back in the tube.
“When you strike at a king, you must kill him.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson
Mueller attempted to overstep the Law - Former AG Barr (a friend of Mueller's) warned him and the US Department of Justice that they were on bogging ground and not following US Law OR the Constitution.
By June of 2018 - Bill Barr had worked out what Mueller was attempting to do, which was to charge the President of the United States with the crime of Obstruction based on "his State of Mind".
Why do such a crazy thing??? That was apparently ALL that Mueller had and he drug the entire thing out past the 2018 Election when he knew long before that Election that there was no Russian/Trump Campaign "Collusion/Conspiracy" and that there could be NO charge of Obstruction.
The central problem with Mueller’s interpretation of §1512(c)(2) is that, instead of applying the statute to inherently wrongfulacts ofevidence impairment, he would now define the actus reus of obstruction as any act, including facially lawfulacts, that influence a proceeding. However, the Constitution vests plenary authority over law enforcement proceedings in the President, and therefore one of the President’s core constitutional authorities is precisely to make decisions “influencing”proceedings.In addition, the Constitution vests other discretionary powers in the President that can havea collateral influence on proceedings — including the power of appointment, removal, and pardon. The crux o fMueller’s position is that, whenever the President exercises any of these discretionary powers and thereby “influences” a proceeding, he has completed the actus reus of the crime of obstruction. To establish guilt, all that remains is evaluation of the President’s state of mind to divine whether he acted with a“corrupt”motive.
Executive branch official. Mueller’s overly-aggressive use of the obstruction laws should not be embraced by the Department and cannot support interrogation of the President to evaluate his subjective state of mind.
I. Applying §1512(c)(2) to Review Facially-Lawful Exercises of the President’s Removal Authority and Prosecutorial Discretion Would Impermissibly Infringe on the President’s Constitutional Authority and the Functioning of the Executive Branch.
This case implicates at least two broad discretionary powers vested by the Constitution exclusively in the President. First, in removing Comey as director of the FBI there is no question that the President was exercising one of his core authorities under the Constitution. Because the President has Constitutional responsibility for seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, it is settled that he has “‘illimitable” discretion to remove principal officers carrying out his Executive functions. See Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 130 S.Ct. 3138, 3152 (2010); Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). Similarly, in commenting to Comey about Flynn’s situation — to the extent it is taken as the President having placed his thumb on the scale in favor of lenity — the President was plainly within his plenary discretion over the prosecution function.
TheConstitution vests all Federal law enforcement power, and hence prosecutorial discretion, in the President. The President’s discretion in these areas has long been considered “absolute,”and his decisions exercising this discretion are presumed to be regular and are generally deemed non-reviewable. See, e.g., United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974); see generally S. Prakash, The Chief Prosecutor, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 521 (2005)
Construed in this manner, §1512(c)(2) would violate Article II of the Constitution in at least two respects:
First, Mueller’s premise appears to be that, when a proceeding is looking into the President’s own conduct, it would be “corrupt” within the meaning of §1512(c)(2) for the President to attempt to influence that proceeding. In other words, Mueller seems to be claiming that the obstruction statute effectively walls off the President from exercising Constitutional powers over cases in which his own conduct is being scrutinized, This premise is clearly wrong constitutionally.
Second, quite apart from this misbegotten effort to “disempower”the President from acting on matters in which he has an interest ,defining facially-lawful exercises of Executive discretion as potential crimes, based solely on the President’s subjective motive, would violate Article II of the Constitution by impermissibly burdening the exercise of core discretionary powers within the Executive branch. The prospect of criminal liability based solely on the official’s state of mind, coupled with the indefinite standards of “improper motive” and “obstruction,” would cast a pall over a wide range of Executive decision-making, chill the exercise of discretion, and expose to intrusive and free-ranging examination of the President’s (and his subordinate’s) subjective state of mind in exercising that discretion.
This is exactly why Mueller did NOT subpoena President Trump to appear before a Grand Jury or an Interview with Mueller's Team ....... there was NO evidence EVER.
how can you have obstruction when there is no crime to have obstructed?
Geeze ... How many more times do we have to explain this? Yes, you can be charged with obstruction even if there was no crime. It even happened to Bill Clinton, who was charged with obstruction of justice for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, even though having sex with somebody is not a crime.
That could be because we are under the Laws of the USA and not some other Country.
Democrats like to Cherry Pick which Laws will be followed.
We are either a Nation of Law that is applied Equally regardless of Political Party --
OR we are not a Nation at all.
I agree with you in principle, Kibby, but although the US gives the appearance of having a legal system, it seems to me that the law is a convenient farce that applies to some and not to others. It seems that the FBI and DOJ themselves twist the law and apply it at whim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, you can be charged with obstruction even if there was no crime. It even happened to Bill Clinton, who was charged with obstruction of justice for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, even though having sex with somebody is not a crime.