Robert Mueller investigation

[Bernie Brewer]

just as a sign off, i really cannot believe how dismissive of facts, of non partisan reality you hold, bernie. 500+ retired prosecutors from doj, people beholden to no one, across admins and political lines, calling out Barr, who is trying to cover up the work of Mueller. this is not a partisan group, and this isnt something that ever happens, but you are dismissive as if a letter of support from some friends counters this?

your pov is such you process every word in a completely different framework of meaning to such an extent there really isnt a reason for us to converse, is there? i can state your free thought paragraphs claiming you are in middle and the report is partisan and the noise is desperation looking for cause is pretty gross that someone can really process what is happening in this unique time in history the way that you do.

Thanks? As difficult as it is for you to understand me, I’m having the same inability to fully understand your concrete unwavering conviction that there is no other way to view the Mueller Report. Let’s be done for today.

[Judge Jude]

what I'm finding a little confusing is the tremendous deference those on the left suddenly are giving prosecutors. I thought right-wingers were the "law-and-order" ones.

the idea that this is not a "partisan group" also is a little confounding. they may be bipartisan in terms of which Presidents they served under (I haven't seen more than a rough breakdown), but prosecutors gonna prosecute/indict.

further, a President unquestionably has sweeping power as the head of the executive branch. did Trump overstep that sweeping power? there is mostly no and sometimes scant precedent. this isn't exactly indicting a guy whose face is clearly visible on a film of a bank robbery - whether we like it or not.

if 500 defense attorneys sign a letter saying that an indictment based on this report would be an overreach, would they be seen as equally credible? if not, why not? I don't think they as a group are nearly as easy to round up as ex-federal prosecutors, of course.

huh, here's one:

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/441726-alan-dershowitz-barr-is-right-mueller-is-wrong

(keep in mind that it's Alan Dershowitz, so you won't agree with it)

"As Comey himself has acknowledged, President Trump acted within his constitutional authority when he fired Comey, and such a constitutionally authorized act cannot form the basis for a criminal charge of obstruction, regardless of why the president may have done it.....

"There are no Supreme Court decisions or even Justice Department positions that directly resolve the issue of whether “the President’s exercise of his constitutional authority to terminate an FBI director and to close investigations” can constitutionally constitute an obstruction of justice. The Mueller report also acknowledges the principle that “general statutes must be read as not applying to the President if they do not expressly apply where application would arguably limit the President’s constitutional role.” And it correctly concludes that “the obstruction statutes do not disqualify the President from acting in a case simply because he has a personal interest in it or because his own conduct may be at issue.”

"In the absence of a contrary precedent, the general obstruction of justice statute should not be deemed applicable to the commission of an act by a president authorized by the Constitution, even if it was self-serving. This conclusion applies not only to the firing of Comey, but to all actions taken by President Trump pursuant to constitutional authority under Article II.....

The real controversy is whether President Trump’s actions, that were authorized by the Constitution, could constitute the crime of obstruction of justice. Barr is right in concluding it couldn’t. Mueller is wrong in concluding it could."

[DMT]

Yes because Barr believes in the imperial presidency doctrine so in his view Trump could do whatever the fuck he wants and not be criminally liable. Cheney shares this philosophy. It is wrong and results in psychopaths running our country without any concern for rules or laws.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Yes because Barr believes in the imperial presidency doctrine so in his view Trump could do whatever the fuck he wants and not be criminally liable. Cheney shares this philosophy. It is wrong and results in psychopaths running our country without any concern for rules or laws.

Maybe we want psychopaths running our country? You have an opinion, I have an opinion, who's to say, really?

[Judge Jude]

Yes because Barr believes in the imperial presidency doctrine so in his view Trump could do whatever the fuck he wants and not be criminally liable. Cheney shares this philosophy. It is wrong and results in psychopaths running our country without any concern for rules or laws.

well, there's another guy who believes that (at least while he's in office) - his name is Robert Mueller.

If I didn't know better, I'd almost think that Mueller is considered a pillar of the community when he makes some points and an idiot when he makes others - coincidentally, mirroring the desires and biases of the observer.

[Bernie Brewer]

just as a sign off, i really cannot believe how dismissive of facts, of non partisan reality you hold, bernie. 500+ retired prosecutors from doj, people beholden to no one, across admins and political lines, calling out Barr, who is trying to cover up the work of Mueller. this is not a partisan group, and this isnt something that ever happens, but you are dismissive as if a letter of support from some friends counters this?

your pov is such you process every word in a completely different framework of meaning to such an extent there really isnt a reason for us to converse, is there? i can state your free thought paragraphs claiming you are in middle and the report is partisan and the noise is desperation looking for cause is pretty gross that someone can really process what is happening in this unique time in history the way that you do.

See that’s how you guys operate. You make shit up. Show me where I’ve ever stated the Mueller Report is partisan. Don’t assign GOP talking points to me because you assume I believe them. You can’t show me where I’ve ever said this because I don’t think it was partisan; however, I do think the Democrats (and GOP) conclusions are highly partisan. Maybe you actually believe the partisan line of claptrap bullshit you threw out about Cohen being in prison for crimes Trump committed. That’s weird. But completely fact based, expect that few facts support it. Doh!

[gcstomp]

well, there's another guy who believes that (at least while he's in office) - his name is Robert Mueller.
pardon? that is not at all mueller position. the entire pt 2 of report is an in depth point by point building of case after case of obstruction that he recommends congress pursuing, or otherwise tabling until charges can be filed against trump. how could you think mueller and barr are on same page when this is exactly wrong? barrs position was there should not have been investigation, muellers is there is overwhelming evidence, pursue as you can as my hands are tied.

mueller is not being called into question for his handling, no one has hinted he is an idiot, or at all in agreement with barrs view that a president cannot be investigated . though it would be interesting to hear how you could read what is not there. again, where are you getting this absolute odd pov. ok, you are just calling me in with silliness, i vow to let your absolute bizarro world slam sit as you like for rest of day as this is just wild you could say what you just said.

[gcstomp]

bernie, you want to pursue what, cohen? you accept that trump is named as "unindicted co conspirator 1", or no, is that made up? you know cohen is in jail for campaign violations among other things, at orders of trump, or "unindicted co conspirator 1" if you prefer. you are arguing that this is not trump but someone else? because this has been accepted to be trump. lets start from this, you get cohen is in jail, for something not benefiting him, but for following orders of "unindicted co conspirator 1" and this isntdisputed.

and you have been saying what about pt 2 mueller report? the one with 500+ retired prosecutors of doj stating there is more than enough evidence to indict on case after case as presented for obstruction. i seem to recall you not agreeing with this, and you call various actions partisan, no? how am I making this up, when you are always stating this is partisan and i am one continually pointing out as kavanaugh letter, this is not.

you guys? look, you are supporting a criminal, a racist, and a habitual liar. you are now claiming you havent been over and over playing the partisan card and i know i have been saying it is not partisan. this is yet another unprecedented mass call from a historically non partisan dept, the doj, to call out barr. you need me to review your postings where you paint actions as partisan, really?

[Judge Jude]

gcstomp,

why don't you try and reread what I posted? both Barr and Mueller believe Trump cannot be indicted while in office. do you disagree? if not, then the rest of your post was pointless. here, I'll help.


DMT wrote:

"Yes because Barr believes in the imperial presidency doctrine so in his view Trump could do whatever the fuck he wants and not be criminally liable. Cheney shares this philosophy. It is wrong and results in psychopaths running our country without any concern for rules or laws."

I wrote:
"well, there's another guy who believes that (at least while he's in office) - his name is Robert Mueller."

so how are Barr and Mueller not "on the same page" regarding that point to which I very clearly referred?

I look forward to your response.

[gcstomp]

judge, you are looking forward to response? ok, poster 1 said

"Yes because Barr believes in the imperial presidency doctrine so in his view Trump could do whatever the fuck he wants and not be criminally liable. Cheney shares this philosophy. It is wrong and results in psychopaths running our country without any concern for rules or laws."

to which you responded "well, there's another guy who believes that (at least while he's in office) - his name is Robert Mueller."

and i answered as if you were saying you were saying Mueller was on same page as Barr regarding a sitting president really cannot be investigated, never mind charged. of course, as i have said from well before mueller report release, we know mueller was charged with investigating but without ability to indict.

[gcstomp]

barr and mueller have very different positions. mueller feels you can investigate, and there are avenues to hold sitting president accountable. if you feel you were clearly stating simply a sitting president cannot be indicted, thats not what you said, thats not what i read, and again, barr and mueller hold very different positions not on that point but on accountability of a sitting president. it is why there was a 186 page pt 2 of report when barr position is that should not have been pursued.

[Judge Jude]

"and i answered as if you were saying you were saying Mueller was on same page as Barr regarding a sitting president really cannot be investigated, never mind charged."

exactly - "AS IF YOU WERE SAYING"

unfortunately, that is not at all what I said.

can you really still not see that?

[Bernie Brewer]

bernie, you want to pursue what, cohen? you accept that trump is named as "unindicted co conspirator 1", or no, is that made up? you know cohen is in jail for campaign violations among other things, at orders of trump, or "unindicted co conspirator 1" if you prefer. you are arguing that this is not trump but someone else? because this has been accepted to be trump. lets start from this, you get cohen is in jail, for something not benefiting him, but for following orders of "unindicted co conspirator 1" and this isntdisputed.

and you have been saying what about pt 2 mueller report? the one with 500+ retired prosecutors of doj stating there is more than enough evidence to indict on case after case as presented for obstruction. i seem to recall you not agreeing with this, and you call various actions partisan, no? how am I making this up, when you are always stating this is partisan and i am one continually pointing out as kavanaugh letter, this is not.

you guys? look, you are supporting a criminal, a racist, and a habitual liar. you are now claiming you havent been over and over playing the partisan card and i know i have been saying it is not partisan. this is yet another unprecedented mass call from a historically non partisan dept, the doj, to call out barr. you need me to review your postings where you paint actions as partisan, really?

Honestly, I can’t tell if you’re being intentionally obtuse or not. Again, YOU made a statement that Michael Cohen is now in jail because of crimes Trump committed. That’s simply bullshit and you know it. He’s in jail because of crimes he plead guilty to, the majority of which have nothing to do with Trump. Co-conspirator 1 or whatever you feel appropriate has nothing to do with Cohen’s personal tax evasion or lying to banks. He lied to Congress. If You suggest it was at Trump’s direction, then Prove it. Brighter minds couldn’t but you can?!?! Ya might be right but if ya can’t prove it and Mueller couldn’t, then it’s just speculation. If your working theory is he is only in jail because of campaign finance violations that’s dumb. If thats true, why isn’t Obama in jail. His campaign was levied the largest fine ever for campaign finance violations. Still more than misreporting a $130,000 payment to a porn star. If you want to be outraged at Trumps morality, well, then we can agree. But it isn’t something that gets someone, an otherwise innocent third party, thrown in jail.

[gcstomp]

ok i have again been sucked, or suckered in to a really gross back and forth. the entire idea i am spending time i will not get back engaging with people who are trump supporters but claim to be moderates, but again and again defend against say the views presented in letter of 2400+ law professors, or the view of 500+ retired doj prosecutors across partisan line who are not beholden to anyone expressing outrage. this is, i cant think of another word, gross.

[Bernie Brewer]

ok i have again been sucked, or suckered in to a really gross back and forth. the entire idea i am spending time i will not get back engaging with people who are trump supporters but claim to be moderates, but again and again defend against say the views presented in letter of 2400+ law professors, or the view of 500+ retired doj prosecutors across partisan line who are not beholden to anyone expressing outrage. this is, i cant think of another word, gross.

Ah, never mind. You win. And, I’m now a Trump supporter. You’re a funny guy! Weak sauce, Dude, real weak sauce.