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.
Nothing in there says yhey are friends...he is giving a legal opinion on the mueller investigation. And he is legally correct.
19 pages of discrediting Mr. Mueller's invesigation in a memo entitled: Mueller's "Obstruction" Theory?
A legal opinion where he admits to being "in the dark about many facts". A personal defense lawyer might attempt something similar to support a motion to dismiss.
Analogous to Mr. Barr's attempts when he was President Reagan's Attorney General. Mr. Barr's history of stonewalling to help President Reagan & members of his administration to avoid the consequences of investigations is well known. It's why William Safire referred to him as the “Cover Up General” because first, he rejected calls to initially appoint an independent counsel, & then only relented when Congress considered impeaching him. & Second, when he attempted to discredit Lawrence Walsh's investigations. When that didn't work out, he attempted to fire him for misconduct. (That didn't work either but the Presidential pardons granted to those found guilty by Mr. Walsh's investigations sure did.)
Back to the 19 page "job interview" memo, at bottom of first page:
Quote:
Obviously, the President or any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.
While the "Cover Up General" asserts from his first sentence that he's "in the dark" about many facts, Mr. Mueller was not "in the dark" about the many facts, evidence, & circumstances, nor was he focused on covering up the facts ... .
One legal outcome of Mr. Mueller's investigations:
Quote:
Michael Cohen testified Wednesday that Trump attorney Jay Sekulow and other members of Trump’s legal team made “several” changes to his false statement to the House Intelligence Committee, including a change to the “length of time that the Trump Tower project stayed and remained alive.” Cohen later pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the timeline of Trump’s involvement in the project.
Cohen: Trump Lawyer Jay Sekulow Edited My False Statement to Congress
the people insisting this investigation go on for years longer are the same group who supported Avenatti for President. I hope they keep re-investigating this for the next 2 years. Healthcare and immigration reform aren't nearly as important. Right?
Mueller was brought in to spy on a sitting President. Espionage, up close and personal.
That 'strategy' was first tried in 1974.
Then, during the 'cover-up phase', it blew up in their faces when the "Watergate Seven"— H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John N. Mitchell, Charles Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian, & Kenneth Parkinson were charged with conspiring to hinder the Watergate investigation.
At that time, the grand jury secretly named then President Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator.
19 pages of discrediting Mr. Mueller's invesigation in a memo entitled: Mueller's "Obstruction" Theory?
A legal opinion where he admits to being "in the dark about many facts". A personal defense lawyer might attempt something similar to support a motion to dismiss.
Analogous to Mr. Barr's attempts when he was President Reagan's Attorney General. Mr. Barr's history of stonewalling to help President Reagan & members of his administration to avoid the consequences of investigations is well known. It's why William Safire referred to him as the “Cover Up General” because first, he rejected calls to initially appoint an independent counsel, & then only relented when Congress considered impeaching him. & Second, when he attempted to discredit Lawrence Walsh's investigations. When that didn't work out, he attempted to fire him for misconduct. (That didn't work either but the Presidential pardons granted to those found guilty by Mr. Walsh's investigations sure did.)
Back to the 19 page "job interview" memo, at bottom of first page:
While the "Cover Up General" asserts from his first sentence that he's "in the dark" about many facts, Mr. Mueller was not "in the dark" about the many facts, evidence, & circumstances, nor was he focused on covering up the facts ... .
One legal outcome of Mr. Mueller's investigations:
Cohen: Trump Lawyer Jay Sekulow Edited My False Statement to Congress
Too late to edit this post, I wanted to make a correction:
William Barr was President Bush'sCover Up Attorney General.
Now he's acting as Trump's Cover Up Attorney General as he did previously for Reagan & Bush:
Quote:
Christmas day of 1992, the New York Times featured a screaming all-caps headline across the top of its front page: Attorney General Bill Barr had covered up evidence of crimes by Reagan and Bush in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Cover-up Attorney General Bill Barr strikes again
This time, Barr buries Mueller’s report and cherry-picks fragments from it to justify Trump’s behavior
Trump's Attorney General names a Republican who then gives his report to the Attorney General who buries it and says there was nothing to see there and we're supposed to just accept that? And you people are perfectly ok with that because "duh, but that's the law"???
History is repeating, or, at the very least ~ rhyming:
Quote:
History shows that when a Republican president is in serious legal trouble, Bill Barr is the go-to guy.
Cover-up Attorney General Bill Barr strikes again
This time, Barr buries Mueller’s report and cherry-picks fragments from it to justify Trump’s behavior
A nonsensical post.
There were grounds for Clinton's indictment and impeachment, so the report was released.
There are no grounds for the impeachment of Trump. So, just as in the case where you or I may be investigated, the report is not made public.
Sez you. A full un-redacted Mueller report could prove otherwise for Trump.
I think Congress is still functional enough that its National Security Committees could do an excellent job of redacting any sensitive security issues from a full report. The AG doesn't need to do it alone, and nor should he.
Other than that one issue, I believe the public has a right to see it all. Or at the minimum, to leave it up to Congress. That's what they are there for, in part, and hired to do.
Seems the redacted report is to be released on Thursday. Wonder if anyone is still interested.
Apparently, team Trump will issue a rebuttal.
Though why they would refute a report that exonerates him is somewhat of a mystery.
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.
