Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Breaking: Mueller expressed concern to Barr about his summary

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator_lawyer, Apr 30, 2019.

  1. bullgator4life

    bullgator4life Freshman

    15
    0
    26
    May 2, 2019
    It absolutely does. It all comes down to what you define as "ordered". As I've already detailed at length, Trump has plenty of room to argue that he in fact did not order McGahn to fire Mueller. That would most certainly be challenged at the least.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  2. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    70,939
    35,546
    2,858
    Apr 3, 2007
    Miami, OK
    As @rivergator said, the mods don't have time to research whether or not something is copyrighted or just copied from a free site. Limit it to 4 paragraphs and provide a link for anything longer. Many people view this site from their phone and exceeding long posts can be a problem. The rules have been amended now.
     
  3. bullgator4life

    bullgator4life Freshman

    15
    0
    26
    May 2, 2019
    Why did the Democrats make their summary about the report before it was even released? lol
     
  4. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,004
    691
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    Oh, and a summary of the report wouldn't be to say the conclusions in short form? What is a summary if not that?

    You keep deflecting because you recognize how hilarious your attempt to delineate those things really is.
     
  5. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    4,925
    1,144
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    There is no question of executive privilege. There is clear SCOTUS precedent addressing that question. Also, demanding that McGahn, as White House counsel, have Mueller fired is obstruction, regardless of whether McGahn acts on it or not. The statute does not require your attempt to obstruct be successful. There is a difference between asking an attorney to advise you and directing your attorney to do something illegal. Are you an attorney?

    Trump asking an attorney to fire someone to obstruct an investigation could be a criminal act. He didn't ask McGahn to consider it. He ordered him to do it. And the ruling of the D.C. Circuit is binding precedent in the D.C. Circuit, where any case dealing with the attorney-client privilege would be filed. But that's irrelevant at this point because Trump WAIVED any privilege that could have arguably existed.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,004
    691
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, right? Would you also struggle with the word "suggest?"
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    70,939
    35,546
    2,858
    Apr 3, 2007
    Miami, OK
    There is a less redacted version of the report available to ranking member of Congress. So far no Democratic leaders have read it.

    Just 2 lawmakers have seen less-redacted Mueller report
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  8. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    4,925
    1,144
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    Why would they opt to view a "less-redacted Report" when they requested an unredacted Report?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    2,344
    382
    393
    Nov 3, 2013
    I am not deflecting anything. Mueller was the one running from doing his job so his Trump hating friends wouldn't kick him out of the gang. Pretty embarrassing a grown man named special counsel makes AG Barr have to make the initial and final decision on obstruction. I wonder what Mueller thought when AG Barr called him out yesterday saying he didn't understand why Mueller didn't do his assigned job on that.

    Barr gave a quick summary of the conclusions which was what mattered and then gave them the whole redacted report and some have access to an almost fully unredacted report.
     
  10. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,004
    691
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    Yeah, you are deflecting. At no point did I ask for you to speculate as to the motives of Mueller. I asked you what the difference between a summary and a summary of conclusions was. You have failed to clearly delineate the two concepts, and have instead discussed motives, access to reports, etc. That is deflecting from the question that I asked.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. g8tr80

    g8tr80 Premium Member

    5,835
    158
    258
    Apr 3, 2007
    So impeach him. Stop the threats and get on with it. Congress has the power and the left is in control. What's the hold up?

    i am looking forward to opening that can of worms, aren't you?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. bullgator4life

    bullgator4life Freshman

    15
    0
    26
    May 2, 2019
    Thank you for reminding us of an example where a sitting president clearly lied under Oath and was still acquitted by the Senate. But we're going to impeach a president for asking his lawyer to do something that he never did, when said investigation concluded no underlying crime to cover up. Not really looking for partisan bickering here. I'm speaking solely to the point of the viability of impeachment charges against Trump. They aren't viable.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
  13. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,801
    1,330
    713
    Nov 25, 2017
    Barr did have to release the

    Precisely. And Barr utterly lacks integrity. which is why Mueller wrote his letter and referenced the public confidence section of the special counsel regs in his letter.

    And Barr answers to Trump.
    the teeets where his thrifts against Michael Cohen’s family.
     
  14. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    70,939
    35,546
    2,858
    Apr 3, 2007
    Miami, OK
    They can still make their "talking points" if they don't read it.
     
  15. bullgator4life

    bullgator4life Freshman

    15
    0
    26
    May 2, 2019
    You are refuting the facts I posted with an opinion.

    The idea that Barr sat on the report for three weeks to create a narrative helpful to Trump is rich considering the Dems created a narrative about Trump for two years before there was even a report to release a summary on.
     
  16. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    4,925
    1,144
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    That's not what the investigation concluded on the underlying crime. And your analysis on the obstruction question is wrong. Here are three relevant statutory provisions for what Trump is accused of doing:
    1. 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress"

    2. 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
    "Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding"
    OR
    "Whoever corruptly otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so"

    What is clear from those statutes is that attempting to obstruct an investigation is a crime. Thus, directing your subordinate (McGahn) to have Mueller fired is an attempt to obstruct justice. It does not matter if McGahn refuses to do it. Further, obstruction isn't tied to the underlying crime. If beating the underlying crime also allowed you to beat obstruction of justice, it would defeat the purpose of the law.

    Are you a lawyer? You're opining on the "viability" of impeachment charges against Trump, but I'm not sure what your expertise is on this subject. Your legal analysis thus far hasn't been accurate, which is why I am asking that question. You can say that you don't want "partisan bickering," but you haven't given us anything to indicate that you're an expert or an objective observer.

    As a final matter, there are some legal mines in the statutory language above. It's an open question whether the Mueller investigation would be considered a proceeding (there's a split of authority). But that's not an issue you need to address until you've already decided there's sufficient evidence for charges.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    4,925
    1,144
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    They want the unredacted Report. Until he complies and gives it to them, the "talking points" exist regardless. Reading a "less-redacted Report" doesn't change anything. It's Barr acting like he's trying to comply when he's not actually doing so. It's an empty gesture.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,801
    1,330
    713
    Nov 25, 2017
    The “facts” you quoted are inaccurate, as pointed out above. Since I can’t post more then 4 paragraphs from the Mueller report, all I can give you are summaries of the findings. Which I did since my longer post quoting it was shortened. Please refer to Mueller’s letter to Barr concerning Barr’s mischaracterization of the Mueller report and Mueller’s report itself. Mueller lakes it clear that Barr’s summary created public misconceptions about Mueller’’s findings. That is what people lacking in integrity do. Also, the Dems have nothing to do with Barr and mueelr, who are Republicans. And, the narrative stands on the Russia connections between Trump and Mueller. I have posted at length about this in other threads. When I have time later, a I will try to find the Mueller findings and assess them. The Trump Tower findings are illustrative. A crime as not charged because Mueller could not show that the “dirt on Hilary” was worth more than $2000k, the minimum statutory threshold and because Mueller could not show that the three idiots knew what they were doing was wrong. In other words, they were too stupid to know that the meeting with agents of the Russian government for dirt was wrong. Endeavoring to obtain stolen emails was not charged because the statute on acquiring stolen property only covers tangible property, not electronic information. Mueller noted that Manafort repeatedly gave voter data to a Russian spy, but that Manafort told the SCO that the purpose was to work of his debt to an oligarch and that Mueller could not prove what Kiliminick did with the data and that Manafort was a liar so he could not be reliably believed. So, your own comment about a Democratic narrative shows just how valuable that Barr’s summary has been in convincing people like you who will not read the report and get their opinions from what people tell them. Then again, so have been accused of arrogance for asking people if they read the report and referring to it. Give the Trump camapign medals. “You can’t prove that” is good enough for people to suspend common sense.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,801
    1,330
    713
    Nov 25, 2017
    Trump says it didn’t happen. McGahn said it did. There is no wiggle room. It comes down to who you believe. If this is ever on front of a jury, there is no wiggle room. But, it will also be there with Trump telling Lewandowski to tell Sessions to inrecise and to order the investigation be limited to future investigations and his threats to Michael Cohen’s family together with his comments about “flippers.” Nobody is going to believe Trump. Except the faithful.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. MaceoP

    MaceoP GC Hall of Fame

    2,638
    114
    288
    Apr 3, 2007
    Regarding McGahn.. I maintain if Trump told, ordered, asked, requested that McGahn fire Mueller.. It's McGahn's responsibility (as White House Counsel) to tell Trump it would be an act of Obstruction of Justice if Trump were to have Mueller fired ) if that's what McGahn thought. If Mcghan didn't tell Trump the ramifications of the proposed actions, he is was a piss poor White House Counsel. The mere act of discussing, ordering, inquiring between the President and White House Councel cannot be a crime in any way, whether obstruciton or otherwise. Just my take on this.