Some on Mueller’s Team Say Report Was More Damaging Than Barr Revealed

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by eatrains, Apr 4, 2019.

  1. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #201
    The article never mentioned a specific question, only it "was a very pointed question directed at him."
     
  2. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #202
    It may not have been illegal but I'm sure the methods will have to change going forward or professives will leave the Democratic party.

    https://observer.com/2017/08/court-...rman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
     
  3. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #203
    Questioning, sure but to completely dismiss them while trusting Russia is almost treasonous.
     
  4. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #204
    I think a more conciliatory relationship with the world's only other nuclear power is a good thing.

    We are not at war with Russia even though there are many who want to start another cold war. That to me is treasonous.
     
  5. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
    #205
    and this disproves what exactly?
    This stuff ended up in court and ... well, here is something more "legal" for you?
    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R45456.pdf

    or
    *snip*
    None of the exceptions contained in Rule 6(e) plainly permit disclosure to Congressional investigative committees. However, the analysis does not stop there. Several Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that courts have the inherent authority to order disclosure of grand jury materials even outside of the constraints and exceptions of Rule 6(e), with different courts offering tests to determine the narrow circumstances when this would be permitted. See, e.g., Carlson v. United States, 837 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2016); In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997); In re Petition of Stanley Kutler, 800 F.Supp.2d 42 (D.D.C. 2011) (permitting disclosure of Richard Nixon’s Watergate grand jury testimony).

    https://www.justsecurity.org/44191/mueller-grand-jury-report-public-hand-congress/
     
  6. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #206
    I think "treason" is being used too much these days.
     
  7. Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
  8. macsmurf macrumors 65816

    macsmurf

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #208
    Luckily Barr isn't jewish or there would have been hell to pay.
     
  9. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #209
    That's why cheney had to bring all the raw itelligence in house. To make damn sure that the case for war in Irag wouldn't be damaged by the peaceniks who had by then completely infiltrated the analysis branch.
     
  10. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #210
    You sure about that?

     
  11. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #211
    Nonsense. The majority of American Jews including myself and left leaning Jews I know found the the cartoon offensive. The cartoonist could have created a similar cartoon criticizing American-Israeli without disrespecting Jews and dog whistling (no pun intended) classically antisemitic tropes.

    The amazing how some have completely misrepresented this story. First of all, American Jews vote overwhelmingly democrat- like 80%. The overwhelming number American Jews that actually take interest in Israeli politics do not support Netanyahu (80% oppose?). In fact, as time progresses, fewer and fewer American Jews (particularly of the younger generations) have the slightest interest in Israeli politics.

    There as been these repeated message coming from somewhere that discontent for the cartoon is merely a weapon against the MSM and NYT for their criticism of Israel. A) The NYT is literally one of the most vocal critics of Israel/Netanyahu. Critical articles are written regularly. I am not seen any campaign against the NYT by Jews or Jewish organizations that have labeled them as a chronic supporter of anti Semitism. B) Numerous non-Jewish reporters in the American MSM, such as those on CNN and the NYT itself have denounced the content of the cartoon. But the response to that has been “Jewish control of the media”.

    Now let’s look at the cartoonists response:

    Notice the term “Jewish propaganda machine”. Not “Israeli propaganda machine”. Not “Netanyahu propaganda machine”. To me this seems pretty objectively as minimizing Jew’s legitimate feelings and writing them off as a conspiracy. Apparently he believes there is no actual anti semitism, just Jews weaponizing a word to harm Israel’s critics. This is a constant defense use by people who in the next breath swear their devotion not only to destroy Israel but murder every last Jew.

    Once again, same story. Any criticism is simply an attack Jewish right against critics of Israel. I’ve already established that the overwhelming majority of American Jews vote Democrat and do not support Netanyahu, while an accelerating and substantial population of secular Jews have no connection to Israel. This reinforces the tropes that a Jewish conspiracy is trying to manipulate not only the media but also American opinion and that American Jews have loyalty to Israel above America.

    Maybe this guy is just completely ignorant. But using anti-Israel sentiment a proxy for both promoting antisemitic stereotypes and defending antisemitic actions. And remarkably the defenses continuously put forward are explicit tropes or allude to such. And any MSM condemnation, including the NYT’s apologies, is simply the result of Jewish control over the media and US government, how is it that A) this cartoon was published in the first place and B) the NYT routinely condemns Netanyahu/Israel. Or will I be told this wasn’t a false flag operation?

    On some level I can’t help but think some people have so much distain for Trump (understandably so, I’m not a fan of him myself) and therefore by extension Netanyahu due to their close relationship, they refuse to give any credence to the idea that anti-Zionism when used in certain ways is a proxy for anti-Semitism and that any condemnation of anti-semitism is an endorsement of Netanyahu and by extension Trump. Furthermore, given Trumps antagonistic attitude towards the MSM, any condemnation toward the MSM would be a win for Trump. And I’ll take this one step further, re: Ilhan Omar’s comments (which BTW, I gave her the benefit of the doubt on), most Democrats won’t risk the condemnation of a peer out of fear it will empower the Republicans- as highlighted as their inability to pass a resolution on antisemitism and flipping the narrative to the R’s being Islamaphobic, thus negating or maybe even gaining a leg up).

    I want to make two things very clear. I’m not trying making this a D vs. R thing. I’m writing this about out of concern for political motives superseding going level reality.

    And the reality is all of these allegedly anti-Semitic comments, intentional or not, have been continuously been falsely represent by the media as attacks by the Right. If you actually pay attention, in direct response to Ilhans tweets it was her D- colleagues who condemned her language. It was her D- colleagues who drew up a resolution against antisemitism. It was D/liberal reporters online, on TV at CNN, and in print at the NYT who condemned this cartoon.

    Sure the right will take every opportunity they get, but now the bigotry itself is less important than how you can spin it into a weapon against the opposite political party. People go straight to blaming Israel for weaponizing antisemitism while completely ignoring their party’s political motives. Have people really become so blinded and ignorant? It’s really disturbing to hear arguments straight out of Nazi propaganda and truly evil middle eastern regimes’ leaders discrediting the voice and autonomy of Jews. Because to me it sounds like Jew’s opinion only matters when it’s politically convenient.
     
  12. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #212
    er... what?

    barr is depicted as a dog.
     
  13. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #213
    There is a long history of anti-semites creating cartoons that depict Jewish people as animals, sub-human, etc. The Nazis had a term for this: Untermensch. Because of this historical context, Jewish people are justifiably offended by similar depictions in the present.

    In comparison, there is no established history of William Barr being depicted as a dog. Therefore, the two depictions are not equivalent.
     
  14. macsmurf macrumors 65816

    macsmurf

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #214
    In other words you agree that there would have been hell to pay if Barr was jewish.

    Anyway, I did not mean to derail the thread. Sorry about that.
     
  15. Admiral macrumors regular

    Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2015
    #215
    I thought that the special counsel's role was prosecutorial — i.e., to make a determination whether or not the state has sufficient evidence of guilt in respect of a crime, in order to make an up-or-down charging decision. Mueller's team appears to believe that their assignment was to "damage" Donald Trump.
     
  16. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #216
    Their responsibility includes submitting a report that explains their decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute (see 28 CFR 600.8(c)), which is precisely what they have done.
     
  17. Admiral macrumors regular

    Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2015
    #217
    Right. But I seem to recall that this statute provides that the Special Counsel's report to the Attorney General shall be confidential to the Attorney General, which makes the reported bitching about the release of information not being "damaging" enough kind of curious.
     
  18. LizKat macrumors 603

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #218
    Well now there are over 370 former federal prosecutors signed onto a statement that says the only reason Trump's not been indicted on multiple counts for obstruction of justice is that he is the President, i.e. the nod by Barr to precedent and DoJ guidelines. The prosecutors in question had up to 20 years of service, and were appointed by presidents going back as far as Dwight Eisenhower.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html

    “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.​

    “We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”
    So maybe many Americans' sense of what was going on while they were watching this President attempting to discredit an investigation of himself and his campaign staff was not that far off from the sense of it as viewed also through the prism of the legal experience of a bunch of former federal prosecutors, appointed by presidents of both Republican and Democratic presidents.

    Barr should resign, even if the Democrats decide to move on and let Trump face the legal music that will address some of his adventures after he leaves office. It was Barr's call not to prosecute, yes... but by his slanted summary and report to the public in advance of releasing the Mueller report, he has disgraced himself and his profession in so thoroughly politicizing the position of Attorney General of the USA.

    Nixon's infamous remark that "when the President does it, that means it is not illegal" almost sounds like an understatement of presidential power as interpreted these days by Donald Trump, especially with a sidekick like Barr on board now to back him up.

    Barr starts to make ol' Jeff Sessions look like a paragon of legal virtue for having recused himself and gone down knowing he was right to have done so rather than end up in the position Barr's in now. What legal tack will Barr take the next time Trump tweets disregard and contempt for some aspect of our rule of law?
     
  19. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #219
    Where were those all those same prosectors when Hilary wasn't indicted?!? Pffttt....Grandstanding partisan politics.
     
  20. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #220
    The investigation wasn't to damage the President, it was to determine if a crime was committed. Anyone saying "it was more damaging than what Barr led people to believe" is because now that it's been determined he didn't commit a crime, the goal post shift to damaging him politically.
     
  21. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #221
    Conversely, I would say that anyone saying "it wasn't more damaging than what Barr led people to believe" without knowing what the full report says is determined to let Trump off without any oversight, which Congress is entitled to by law.
     
  22. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #222
    The report is released to the public, you can view it for free or buy it off Amazon. Right now a less redacted version is sitting at the Justice department for members of Congress to read if they so wish (hell they can even bring an aide with them, not a single democrat has done so.
     
  23. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #223
    You shouldn't be confused. They made Russiagate their entire platform for 2 years, that and marginalizing progressives. They've got no other ideas that their donors will agree with. They're buying time. For what? I don't know, but I'm sure it's not anything that is going to make the country happy.
     
  24. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #224
    Read the report. It’s page after page of incredibly damning examples of Trump’s abuses of power. Pointing only to the lack of criminal findings is completely missing the point. Just one little example, on page 91 of Volume II, it documents Trump’s efforts to block Mueller from investigating the Russian interference with the 2016 election. Trump failed and Mueller found that the Russians committed dozens of crimes to subvert the election to help Trump. And last Friday, Trump got on the phone with Putin to discuss how the Mueller report was nothing and the investigation a hoax. I’m confused how any supposedly patriotic American isn’t totally outraged by this.
     
  25. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #225
    I imagine they agreed with the decision to not indict Hillary, or felt there wasn't sufficient evidence available to publicly challenge Comey's decision not to indict Hillary.

    Whereas with Barr's decision to declare that the Mueller investigation didn't turn up enough evidence to establish that Trump committed obstruction, there's enough evidence in the Mueller Report itself to challenge Barr's declaration.
     

Share This Page