'Barr gets to handle this. That's how the law works': Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvane

Sgt Meowenstein said:

Yeah I understand how the process works. But Barr is a political appointee who is of the opinion that a sitting president can’t obstruct justice. Those are the facts. He wrote an unsolicited memo on the subject before he got the nomination.

Click to expand...

No, you don't know how "the system" works, you (and many in the "NeverTrump" camp) don't seem to remember the way to get rid of a president you don't like is at the ballot box. All this concocted investigating, discussion of whether a president can be indicted in office, threats of impeachment is the wrong approach. Throw your support behind a good candidate with an appealing vision and nothing in 'the closet', get out there and promote that candidate, get others to work with you, if enough people agree, Trump will be gone!

"I also want to caution people. Maybe not everyone will love hearing this," Bharara said. "Lots of people don't like the president, think he should not be president, and they want to be delivered from him, and I get that, and I may be one of those people also. It doesn't mean that you're going to be delivered from that in some place other than the ballot box. It doesn't mean you're going to be delivered from that by Bob Mueller, as good as he is, because his job was not to get the president."

"The Southern District's job, the place I used to lead, is not to get the president," he added. "Maybe they'll find evidence of a crime, maybe they'll think they have something to say in a courtroom, whether it's about the hush money payments or something else or the Trump Organization, but if people don't like the direction of the country and they think we're moving away from the ideals of the country should be about, whether it's on immigration or decency or rule of law, then they should set their sights and their energy on doing things politically." https://freebeacon.com/politics/bha...e-southern-districts-job-to-get-rid-of-trump/

Click to expand...

Critical lefties gleefully noted the SDNY's taking up further investigations of Trump (I think it was about finances of his charitable foundation, that "hush money" or maybe real estate fraud). They happily noted there's no State preclusion against indicting a sitting president, so SDNY would do the trick. More than a dozen Congressional Committee "investigations" have also been announced under some notion Mueller missed something. Just get back to basics, vote!

Plus Ultra said:

No, you don't know how "the system" works, you (and many in the "NeverTrump" camp) don't seem to remember the way to get rid of a president you don't like is at the ballot box. All this concocted investigating, discussion of whether a president can be indicted in office, threats of impeachment is the wrong approach. Throw your support behind a good candidate with an appealing vision and nothing in 'the closet', get out there and promote that candidate, get others to work with you, if enough people agree, Trump will be gone!

Critical lefties gleefully noted the SDNY's taking up further investigations of Trump (I think it was about finances of his charitable foundation, that "hush money" or maybe real estate fraud). They happily noted there's no State preclusion against indicting a sitting president, so SDNY would do the trick. More than a dozen Congressional Committee "investigations" have also been announced under some notion Mueller missed something. Just get back to basics, vote!

Click to expand...

Well, that’s a rosy picture you’re painting. Sort of the Rodney King argument.

No. Congress has the authority of oversight. Mueller didn’t make the call on obstruction because of DOJ policy. That’s fine. Congress is capable of making that decision once they see the evidence. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

Plus Ultra said:

Subpoenaing the Mueller report is premature and manifests intransigence and disrespect. Barr gave assurances as much of the report as legally possible will be released within two weeks, why not wait, what justifies this urgency? Let Barr do his job, he’s got Mueller helping out, together they’ll put out the Report as lawfully as possible.

Click to expand...

Not responding to a House deadline "manifests intransigence and disrespect."

I do agree they (both parties) should cool their jets and have a real dialogue here. Barr should have responded to the request of the House with an action plan: what was he going to do and when. The House should have given him some grace to actually do what he said he would do. Then Congress would have had some dry powder to ensure Barr delivered something credible.

Both sides get some blame for the escalation of this.

Atomic Kid said:

Here's a thought. Where in the Constitution does it say that a criminal indictment is a necessary component for impeachment? "High crimes and misdemeanors" can cover a wide range of conduct that is not statutorily criminal.

Click to expand...

It does not even have to be an indictment. ACTUALLY. JUST that it being there.

AGAIN RIGHT NOW Dems can hold an impeachment resolution AT ANY TIME..... They just need majority of the HOUSE to vote. 2/3rds to RATIFY and force the SENATE to Vote... if just a simple majority it goes to the Senate for TRIAL.

1) I DOUBT Dems will ever get 2/3rd Impeachment in the HOUSE
2) I Doubt Dems will ever get 2/3rds impeachment in the Senate.

NOW if TRUMP & associates were found guilty and indictments were issued the chance likely would SKY ROCKET PERIOD. BUT its a complete DUD NOW. so the only thing they can do now is CREATE MORE accusations to allow them to create an impeachment resolution so it gets a simple majority to go to TRIAL in the senate.


They WANT to Impeach a sitting president on accusation NOT on a verifiable crime.... PERIOD..

upsideguy said:

Not responding to a House deadline "manifests intransigence and disrespect."

I do agree they (both parties) should cool their jets and have a real dialogue here. Barr should have responded to the request of the House with an action plan: what was he going to do and when. The House should have given him some grace to actually do what he said he would do. Then Congress would have had some dry powder to ensure Barr delivered something credible.

Both sides get some blame for the escalation of this.

Click to expand...

Why would you want Barr to break the law that he his held too.?

Exactice said:

It does not even have to be an indictment. ACTUALLY. JUST that it being there.

AGAIN RIGHT NOW Dems can hold an impeachment resolution AT ANY TIME..... They just need majority of the HOUSE to vote. 2/3rds to RATIFY and force the SENATE to Vote... if just a simple majority it goes to the Senate for TRIAL.

1) I DOUBT Dems will ever get 2/3rd Impeachment in the HOUSE
2) I Doubt Dems will ever get 2/3rds impeachment in the Senate.

NOW if TRUMP & associates were found guilty and indictments were issued the chance likely would SKY ROCKET PERIOD. BUT its a complete DUD NOW. so the only thing they can do now is CREATE MORE accusations to allow them to create an impeachment resolution so it gets a simple majority to go to TRIAL in the senate.


They WANT to Impeach a sitting president on accusation NOT on a verifiable crime.... PERIOD..

Click to expand...

Ultimately the issue is whether the grounds for seeking an impeachment seem justified. These "grounds" can't be just dislike of the president, his manner, the language he uses, his perceived perspective, mainstream media's opposition... The "grounds" don't have to be a recommendation from Special Counsel, the Attorney General, the Director of the FBI or the DoJ either. Congress could resolve to impeach Trump simply because they found he had committed "impeachable offenses" and then enumerate them, the public reaction is where the problem comes up. The public knows this effort to oust Trump has been going on for a while, it knows Mueller charged dozens of Trump associates with a variety of thing, and none with collusion, it knows the president has denounced the "witch hunt"... If Congress tries to impeach and there's this sense there's no big there there, Congress will look bad.

Plus Ultra said:

Ultimately the issue is whether the grounds for seeking an impeachment seem justified. These "grounds" can't be just dislike of the president, his manner, the language he uses, his perceived perspective, mainstream media's opposition... The "grounds" don't have to be a recommendation from Special Counsel, the Attorney General, the Director of the FBI or the DoJ either. Congress could resolve to impeach Trump simply because they found he had committed "impeachable offenses" and then enumerate them, the public reaction is where the problem comes up. The public knows this effort to oust Trump has been going on for a while, it knows Mueller charged dozens of Trump associates with a variety of thing, and none with collusion, it knows the president has denounced the "witch hunt"... If Congress tries to impeach and there's this sense there's no big there there, Congress will look bad.

Click to expand...

BINGO BANGO, That is why its a much of Fanatics... Kind like the boards here... I swear 2 people act like they have MORE LEGAL authority than Mueller.

They keep saying wait till the report comes out. OR I want to SEE the whole report... Like what they are NOW the Special Council themselves and can indict the POTUS over Mueller and his 19 prosecutors.

Lets BE realistic HERE for a second. ALL the criticism by Trump about 12 angry democrats, Hell Andrew Weissman etc.... These guys likely wanted blood..... and with Mueller there FOUND NOTHING?????? I mean really?......... Shenanigans.

Born Free said:

Why would you want Barr to break the law that he his held too.?

Click to expand...

It's not that type of law. Its a law that defines the position and lines of reporting.

But, the answer to your question is that it is in the public interest.

The more important question is 'after two years of this being in the forefront of the news everyday, why would you NOT want the findings fully released to the public?" Could it be that you are afraid its far more damning of Trump than Barr let on? Yes, you are savvy enough to know that. If so, shame on you for choosing Trump over country.

upsideguy said:

the answer to your question is that it is in the public interest.

Click to expand...

You'll need to elaborate on this, the way I see it, it would be very detrimental for the Attorney General to break the law, no matter why.

The more important question is 'after two years of this being in the forefront of the news everyday, why would you NOT want the findings fully released to the public?"

Click to expand...

I think you misinterpret deference to the judgment of the Attorney General regarding what can be lawfully made public, with some desire to keep the report secret. Everyone wants to see the whole report, we all want to know on what basis Mueller concluded as he did. If the redacted report adequately presents the bases for Mueller's conclusions, I'm fine with that, I don't suspect the redactions will be used to hide evidence of Trump's wrongdoing that Mueller should have taken into account. I know Mueller knows all of what is in his report, even whatever gets redacted, plus the details in every item of information he consulted to prepare this report. He concluded as he did and I expect he supports his conclusions.

Congress is now demanding not just the unredacted report, but every item of information, transcripts from all those interrogated suspects, probable cause hearings, depositions, agents 302s, everything Mueller saw and considered in drafting his report. Congress wants to continue investigating, it seems they think there is something Mueller overlooked, didn't properly consider, that he isn't being candid about some things they investigated. I see no basis for such views, except resistance to accept there may actually not be evidence Trump colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary.

Finally, and back on the advisability the Attorney General actually break the law, I'd note the 4 bases for Barr's redactions (forbidden by law, compromising sources and methods, matters handed off for further investigation, or harmful to the reputation of witnesses) all are legally sound and well-established practice. I'm sure even the most rabid anti-Trumper would at least agree it would be better no not make public details on matters about Trump his agents came across that were handed off for SDNY to look into. On the sources and methods, I think the sources certainly should be protected, wouldn't it be better if Trump doesn't know the names of informants on his team? On the need to protect witnesses from reputational harm, this is a matter of liability, DoJ could be liable for disclosing testimony that harmed the reputation of witnesses or suspects depending on how that information was used or not used. Finally, the secrecy of Grand Jury proceedings has a lengthy history, and I can think of a variety of reasons disclosing particularly political Grand Jury proceedings would be very detrimental.

If Mueller's report indicates he relied a lot on material within those 4 circumscribed rubrics, I'd advocate working something out, letting Congress see some of it, requiring Congress not disclose it, but I wouldn't just demand it all be made public without having a better idea of what all is there.

upsideguy said:

It's not that type of law. Its a law that defines the position and lines of reporting.

But, the answer to your question is that it is in the public interest.

The more important question is 'after two years of this being in the forefront of the news everyday, why would you NOT want the findings fully released to the public?" Could it be that you are afraid its far more damning of Trump than Barr let on? Yes, you are savvy enough to know that. If so, shame on you for choosing Trump over country.

Click to expand...

Let me ask a reversal for a second....

1) Do you Trust Mueller and the Special Council? Yes or NO
2) Actually and I am playing Semantics for a second. "The Findings" will actually be fully released to the public..... With that, Barr made a Summary of Mueller's KEY Findings.
2a) WHAT MAY BE REDACTED is the information leading UP "TO THE FINDINGS" that are considered protected as sources and methods and non indicted Grand Jury Statements.

I have said it... THE MOMENT this thing is released. WHAT am I going to do? Flip to Mueller's Conclusions & Findings..... and see if they MATCH with Barr's Summary.

1) Mueller and Co. could NOT find collusion with TRUMP & CO
2) Mueller could NOT indicted yet not exonerate Trump for obstruction and referred the judgment to the DOJ


THESE KEY FINDINGS I highly doubt will Be redacted YES or NO?

After I edify what Barr summarized by Mueller's ACTUAL statements I will then take my time reading everything else.... So if you do NOT now Trust Mueller Because he did NOT follow your personal belief that Trump is guilty.... then thats a personal problem. .....

Exactice said:

Let me ask a reversal for a second....

1) Do you Trust Mueller and the Special Council? Yes or NO
2) Actually and I am playing Semantics for a second. "The Findings" will actually be fully released to the public..... With that, Barr made a Summary of Mueller's KEY Findings.
2a) WHAT MAY BE REDACTED is the information leading UP "TO THE FINDINGS" that are considered protected as sources and methods and non indicted Grand Jury Statements.

I have said it... THE MOMENT this thing is released. WHAT am I going to do? Flip to Mueller's Conclusions & Findings..... and see if they MATCH with Barr's Summary.

1) Mueller and Co. could NOT find collusion with TRUMP & CO
2) Mueller could NOT indicted yet not exonerate Trump for obstruction and referred the judgment to the DOJ


THESE KEY FINDINGS I highly doubt will Be redacted YES or NO?

After I edify what Barr summarized by Mueller's ACTUAL statements I will then take my time reading everything else.... So if you do NOT now Trust Mueller Because he did NOT follow your personal belief that Trump is guilty.... then thats a personal problem. .....

Click to expand...

I will believe Mueller's findings, once I see them. Barr is not an honest broker. Whatever conclusions he drew are highly suspect. In fact, the New York Times just ran a story on members of the Mueller investigative team that have charged that Barr mis-characterized the findings.

Some on Mueller’s Team See Their Findings as More Damaging for Trump Than Barr Revealed - The New York Times

"....Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations...."

I do believe Mueller lacked foundation for advocating charges of criminal conspiracy against Trump and other members of his campaign team. Any other conclusions people draw from what Barr said, or did not say, behind that (including that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice) are merely speculation.

This matter occupied the public attention for 2 years. There was more than enough evidence supporting probable cause making it a righteous investigation. The American people have a right to see the substantial conclusions, with members of Congress having the right to see the entire report.

upsideguy said:

I will believe Mueller's findings, once I see them. Barr is not an honest broker. Whatever conclusions he drew are highly suspect. In fact, the New York Times just ran a story on members of the Mueller investigative team that have charged that Barr mis-characterized the findings.

Some on Mueller’s Team See Their Findings as More Damaging for Trump Than Barr Revealed - The New York Times

I do believe Mueller lacked foundation for advocating charges of criminal conspiracy against Trump and other members of his campaign team. Any other conclusions people draw from what Barr said, or did not say, behind that (including that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice) are merely speculation.

This matter occupied the public attention for 2 years. There was more than enough evidence supporting probable cause making it a righteous investigation. The American people have a right to see the substantial conclusions, with members of Congress having the right to see the entire report.

Click to expand...

Ill take that as opinion as, while it may be .... Why or what benefit would Barr get for lying or misrepresenting that just does not make sense.

Barr' Summary was of Mueller's Key Findings.... NOT a summary of the report. So the team member CANT comment yet on Barr as we have not see the substance on the Report.... WAS THE SUMMARY correct or was it a lie....we will find out shortly but again... Why Barr would lie, makes no sense to include Mueller working together with Barr to release the report? I can just see Mueller Slapping Barr across the head if he lied no?

Thank you for at least making your statement, I do agree to that Mueller lacked foundation.... I do believe that Trump was a conspiratory idiot...But he was not guilty of a crime... just an idiot to a crime...

I Agree.... probable cause and RIGHTEOUS investigation I 100% agree.... With that being said.. after all is said and done Mueller would then Lie about his conclusions... Thats kinda dumb? NO?

upsideguy said:

It's not that type of law. Its a law that defines the position and lines of reporting.

Click to expand...

And you want Barr to ignore those laws that define the lines of reporting.

But, the answer to your question is that it is in the public interest.

Click to expand...

So if it's in the public interest you ignore all the laws and you have MOB RULE, Trumps guilty hang that bastard

The more important question is 'after two years of this being in the forefront of the news everyday, why would you NOT want the findings fully released to the public?"

Click to expand...

For the exact same reason you stated "Its a law that defines the position and lines of reporting."

But now you want those positions and lines governed by law to be ignored. And you want Mob Rule

Could it be that you are afraid its far more damning of Trump than Barr let on?

Click to expand...

Not a bit, but we are a country of laws, of which when it comes to something you want, **** the law, and the Mob will Rule

If so, shame on you for choosing Trump over country.

Click to expand...

You choosing Mob Rule which is not accordance with our values of a democracy and our constitution. I suggest you look at yourself as one that wants Mob Rules when you want it. And **** our democracy and our constitution. Further you are taking Upsideguy over our country.

Although some here think Barr has blatantly misrepresented the two most important conclusions Mueller made in his report (that there wasn't evidence to show Trump and people associated with him colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary, or that conclusively showed Trump obstructed justice). Barr also said he would release as much of Mueller's report as lawfully permissible. Thus I expect what he does release will at least show that those two conclusions by Mueller are the most important ones in the report, and that Barr accurately described them. It would be senseless to say Mueller didn't find evidence of collusion if the report was replete with it, just as it would be for him to claim Mueller was ambivalent about whether there was indictable evidence of obstruction when his report conclusively showed this.

No doubt some will find more important conclusions in Mueller's report than those two Barr specified, but those two are fundamental, they are the primary claims of those denouncing Trump, most couldn't care less if there is evidence Manafort perpetrated mortgage fraud or Cohen concealed the citizenship of taxicab medallion buyers, these are certainly not as important. Nonetheless I do expect comparatively trivial matters more conclusively shown to Trump's detriment will be duly highlighted. I also expect comparatively less important conclusions (like Manafort's mortgage fraud or Cohen's inadequate accounting of foreign investors in regulated transactions) will be highlighted as conclusive evidence of both collusion and obstruction.

From what I gather Mueller's report goes through every indictment and presents the evidence supporting each charge, I expect this will show his indictments were substantiated on solid evidence that supports every charge and each indictment. People may differ on this (probably on the admissibility and 'poisonous tree' issues) some will trace back grounds to support probable cause to evidence unlawfully obtained and conclude some charges and indictments were non-prosecutable. Those who pled guilty to those 'process crimes' will appeal, Stone (and maybe Manafort) will have their hands strengthened.

What Barr does not release will be a major concern, some will claim all of this conceals Trump's collusion and obstruction, the rest will figure from sequence and context that it may be precluded from publication for the reasons Barr stated. Judges will read the redacted portions and tell us if they should be made public.

I want as much as possible made public, I expect it will show collusion of a different sort, that many will "read into" the report evidence DoJ, FBI, DoS and the intelligence community coordinated efforts to procure evidence in order to oust Trump. There was animus, this is already known.

Exactice said:

It does not even have to be an indictment. ACTUALLY. JUST that it being there.

Click to expand...

What the hell does those sentences even mean? If indeed they are sentences. A sentence is suppose to be comprised of a complete thought. I don't think I see one there. I have no idea what it is you are trying to say there.

Exactice said:

AGAIN RIGHT NOW Dems can hold an impeachment resolution AT ANY TIME..... They just need majority of the HOUSE to vote. 2/3rds to RATIFY and force the SENATE to Vote... if just a simple majority it goes to the Senate for TRIAL.


1) I DOUBT Dems will ever get 2/3rd Impeachment in the HOUSE
2) I Doubt Dems will ever get 2/3rds impeachment in the Senate.

NOW if TRUMP & associates were found guilty and indictments were issued the chance likely would SKY ROCKET PERIOD. BUT its a complete DUD NOW. so the only thing they can do now is CREATE MORE accusations to allow them to create an impeachment resolution so it gets a simple majority to go to TRIAL in the senate.

Click to expand...

You don't know what it is you are talking about. This how the impeachment process works. First of all any member of the House may make a suggestion to launch a an impeachment proceeding. It is then up to the Speaker of the House, as leader of the majority party, to determine whether or not to proceed with an inquiry into the alleged wrongdoing.

If there is a decision to proceed the Speaker can then decide if the House judiciary committee handles the impeachment inquiry or to form a separate special committee. If the Speaker assigns it to the Judiciary Committee then there would be no time limit placed upon their investigation. If it is assigned to the Judiciary Committee they will review the evidence and then formulate charges, or "articles of impeachment", if any, based upon the evidence presented. A public hearing would then be scheduled at the discretion of the committee chair to vote upon the articles of impeachment.

A simple majority of the members of the committee would have to vote in favor of approving an article or articles of impeachment in order to proceed to a vote by the full House. The House Judiciary Committee currently consists of 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans; 21 votes in favor would be necessary.

Each article of impeachment that is passed by a simple majority vote in committee would then be voted on by the full House of Representatives. If any of those articles gets a simple majority vote, which is 50 percent plus one more vote, the House will have impeached the president. The President can still continue govern while having been impeached pending trial by the Senate, And THAT is where the 2/3 vote needed for conviction comes into play. If the Senate fails to convict, then the President will have been impeached but not removed. As what had transpired with Bill Clinton.

Exactice said:

They WANT to Impeach a sitting president on accusation NOT on a verifiable crime.... PERIOD.

Click to expand...

WTF is a "verifiable crime" and what does that have do with "high crimes and misdemeanors? Are you creating a whole new category for impeachable offenses? Suggest you take a closer look at the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

"Impeachable offenses" are vague, I think they're more 'political' and subjective.

It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor", "maladministration", or "other crime". Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave". Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved "...for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors", there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official from office for subjective reasons entirely. Alexander Hamilton said, "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, impeachment proceedings are conducted like a criminal proceeding (with lower standards of proof). Legal analysts constrain the 'political' aspect behind an impeachment by constitutional preclusions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, but there have been plenty of examples where actual criminal violations have only been ancillary justification for plainly politically animated impeachments.

This is what troubles me, I think Democrats are so bothered by Trump and so strongly desire to remove him from office, they will reach for evidence that is too vague and remote. I also think Democrats just don't realize most of the country doesn't want to get rid of Trump enough to reach as far for vague and remote evidence. I also think a failed attempt to impeach Trump before the next election guarantees his reelection.