Independent Counsel Ken Starr Who Investigated Bill Clinton Chimes in on Trump Obstruction
Independent Counsel Ken Starr Who Investigated Bill Clinton Chimes in on Trump Obstruction
By BarbWire - April 20, 2019
Ken Starr has served as a federal judge, Solicitor General of the US, President and Chancellor of Baylor University along with Independent Counsel for the Whitewater Controversy involving Bill Clinton.
His investigation of Bill Clinton led to Clinton’s impeachment by the House on the charge of perjury and the charge of obstruction of justice.
Clinton was acquitted by the Senate when 10 Republicans v**ed with the Democrats.
After the release of the Mueller report, Starr stated that President Donald Trump may have been on the edge of obstructing justice but did not cross that ‘red line’ to warrant formal charges.
Newsweek – KEN STARR SAYS DONALD TRUMP WENT TO THE ‘BRINK’ ON OBSTRUCTION ‘BUT HE DIDN’T WALK ACROSS THAT RED LINE’ – Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton, said that Robert Mueller’s Russia report showed that Donald Trump went to the “brink” on obstruction of justice but didn’t commit a crime.
Appearing on Fox News on Friday morning, Starr talked about why the president was not prosecuted on obstruction of justice despite evidence that he had tried to interfere several times with the special counsel’s probe into Russian e******n i**********e.
“The law cares about what is done, not what is thought or what is said,” Starr said. “The president’s instincts are very aggressive, he knows how to fire people and he fires people but guess what: He may have come to the brink but he didn’t walk across that red line.”
Starr added that Trump “showed wisdom in the end” but can sometimes be his “own worst enemy.” …
While Mueller did not charge Trump with any obstruction of justice charges, he did provide evidence that Trump may have tried to interfere with the investigation, leaving the issue of obstruction of justice issue up in the air.
Democrats are still salivating over the Mueller report despite Attorney General William Barr declaring Trump innocent.
Some Democrats have vowed to continue to investigate and pursue the obstruction of justice issues, in hopes of finally finding something they can legally use against him.
I can't say the following is applicable in the case of the Mueller Investigation, but it may well be...
The legal concept of 'Plausible Deniability':
'Plausible deniability is the ability of people (typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command) to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others in an organizational hierarchy because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such acts to insulate themselves and shift blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, as they are confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible, although sometimes it merely makes it unactionable. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge. In some organizations, legal doctrines such as command responsibility exist to hold major parties responsible for the actions of subordinates involved in heinous acts and nullify any legal protection that their denial of involvement would carry.'
bahmer wrote:
Independent Counsel Ken Starr Who Investigated Bill Clinton Chimes in on Trump Obstruction
By BarbWire - April 20, 2019
Ken Starr has served as a federal judge, Solicitor General of the US, President and Chancellor of Baylor University along with Independent Counsel for the Whitewater Controversy involving Bill Clinton.
His investigation of Bill Clinton led to Clinton’s impeachment by the House on the charge of perjury and the charge of obstruction of justice.
Clinton was acquitted by the Senate when 10 Republicans v**ed with the Democrats.
After the release of the Mueller report, Starr stated that President Donald Trump may have been on the edge of obstructing justice but did not cross that ‘red line’ to warrant formal charges.
Newsweek – KEN STARR SAYS DONALD TRUMP WENT TO THE ‘BRINK’ ON OBSTRUCTION ‘BUT HE DIDN’T WALK ACROSS THAT RED LINE’ – Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton, said that Robert Mueller’s Russia report showed that Donald Trump went to the “brink” on obstruction of justice but didn’t commit a crime.
Appearing on Fox News on Friday morning, Starr talked about why the president was not prosecuted on obstruction of justice despite evidence that he had tried to interfere several times with the special counsel’s probe into Russian e******n i**********e.
“The law cares about what is done, not what is thought or what is said,” Starr said. “The president’s instincts are very aggressive, he knows how to fire people and he fires people but guess what: He may have come to the brink but he didn’t walk across that red line.”
Starr added that Trump “showed wisdom in the end” but can sometimes be his “own worst enemy.” …
While Mueller did not charge Trump with any obstruction of justice charges, he did provide evidence that Trump may have tried to interfere with the investigation, leaving the issue of obstruction of justice issue up in the air.
Democrats are still salivating over the Mueller report despite Attorney General William Barr declaring Trump innocent.
Some Democrats have vowed to continue to investigate and pursue the obstruction of justice issues, in hopes of finally finding something they can legally use against him.
Independent Counsel Ken Starr Who Investigated Bil... (
show quote)
Exactly correct. Under American law (at least now) what you think, feel and say are NOT prosecutable offenses. It is what you DO. Luckily the thought police haven't taken over - yet.....
"Some Democrats have vowed to continue to investigate and pursue the obstruction of justice issues, in hopes of finally finding something they can legally use against him."
In other words Democrats will be to busy spending millions of tax payer's dollars to accomplish anything except trying to over throw an elected president who has already gone through two years of an investigation by a group of rabid Trump h**ers. If Democrats believed in God they would thank him for an over abundance of stupid people.
bahmer wrote:
Independent Counsel Ken Starr Who Investigated Bill Clinton Chimes in on Trump Obstruction
By BarbWire - April 20, 2019
Ken Starr has served as a federal judge, Solicitor General of the US, President and Chancellor of Baylor University along with Independent Counsel for the Whitewater Controversy involving Bill Clinton.
His investigation of Bill Clinton led to Clinton’s impeachment by the House on the charge of perjury and the charge of obstruction of justice.
Clinton was acquitted by the Senate when 10 Republicans v**ed with the Democrats.
After the release of the Mueller report, Starr stated that President Donald Trump may have been on the edge of obstructing justice but did not cross that ‘red line’ to warrant formal charges.
Newsweek – KEN STARR SAYS DONALD TRUMP WENT TO THE ‘BRINK’ ON OBSTRUCTION ‘BUT HE DIDN’T WALK ACROSS THAT RED LINE’ – Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton, said that Robert Mueller’s Russia report showed that Donald Trump went to the “brink” on obstruction of justice but didn’t commit a crime.
Appearing on Fox News on Friday morning, Starr talked about why the president was not prosecuted on obstruction of justice despite evidence that he had tried to interfere several times with the special counsel’s probe into Russian e******n i**********e.
“The law cares about what is done, not what is thought or what is said,” Starr said. “The president’s instincts are very aggressive, he knows how to fire people and he fires people but guess what: He may have come to the brink but he didn’t walk across that red line.”
Starr added that Trump “showed wisdom in the end” but can sometimes be his “own worst enemy.” …
While Mueller did not charge Trump with any obstruction of justice charges, he did provide evidence that Trump may have tried to interfere with the investigation, leaving the issue of obstruction of justice issue up in the air.
Democrats are still salivating over the Mueller report despite Attorney General William Barr declaring Trump innocent.
Some Democrats have vowed to continue to investigate and pursue the obstruction of justice issues, in hopes of finally finding something they can legally use against him.
Independent Counsel Ken Starr Who Investigated Bil... (
show quote)
It’s just starting.
“Mueller concluded that Congress could make "obstruction-of-justice statutes applicable to corruptly motivated official acts of the president" without infringing on President Trump's constitutional rights, according to the redacted report released by Attorney General William Barr Thursday.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/mueller-report-release-today-congress-could-make-obstruction-of-justice-statutes-applicable-to-trump-2019-04-18/
bahmer wrote:
Independent Counsel Ken Starr Who Investigated Bill Clinton Chimes in on Trump Obstruction
By BarbWire - April 20, 2019
Ken Starr has served as a federal judge, Solicitor General of the US, President and Chancellor of Baylor University along with Independent Counsel for the Whitewater Controversy involving Bill Clinton.
His investigation of Bill Clinton led to Clinton’s impeachment by the House on the charge of perjury and the charge of obstruction of justice.
Clinton was acquitted by the Senate when 10 Republicans v**ed with the Democrats.
After the release of the Mueller report, Starr stated that President Donald Trump may have been on the edge of obstructing justice but did not cross that ‘red line’ to warrant formal charges.
Newsweek – KEN STARR SAYS DONALD TRUMP WENT TO THE ‘BRINK’ ON OBSTRUCTION ‘BUT HE DIDN’T WALK ACROSS THAT RED LINE’ – Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton, said that Robert Mueller’s Russia report showed that Donald Trump went to the “brink” on obstruction of justice but didn’t commit a crime.
Appearing on Fox News on Friday morning, Starr talked about why the president was not prosecuted on obstruction of justice despite evidence that he had tried to interfere several times with the special counsel’s probe into Russian e******n i**********e.
“The law cares about what is done, not what is thought or what is said,” Starr said. “The president’s instincts are very aggressive, he knows how to fire people and he fires people but guess what: He may have come to the brink but he didn’t walk across that red line.”
Starr added that Trump “showed wisdom in the end” but can sometimes be his “own worst enemy.” …
While Mueller did not charge Trump with any obstruction of justice charges, he did provide evidence that Trump may have tried to interfere with the investigation, leaving the issue of obstruction of justice issue up in the air.
Democrats are still salivating over the Mueller report despite Attorney General William Barr declaring Trump innocent.
Some Democrats have vowed to continue to investigate and pursue the obstruction of justice issues, in hopes of finally finding something they can legally use against him.
Independent Counsel Ken Starr Who Investigated Bil... (
show quote)
So just because a Trump plant at the DOJ says Trumps innocent even thou the Muellar report clearly makes the Barr summary look foolish
Airforceone wrote:
So just because a Trump plant at the DOJ says Trumps innocent even thou the Muellar report clearly makes the Barr summary look foolish
And Starr’s analysis is flawed in that intent is enough for conviction. As we have the most free speech in the world here in the U.S. but if you write on a note “give me all your money” and hand it to a bank teller, then you will get arrested whether you got any money or not. In Federal law, intent is enough. Ten times the Mueller report exemplifies an intent to obstruction.
debeda wrote:
Exactly correct. Under American law (at least now) what you think, feel and say are NOT prosecutable offenses. It is what you DO. Luckily the thought police haven't taken over - yet.....
Yes, we’d all be on death row for some of our thoughts, wouldn’t we?
markc wrote:
And Starr’s analysis is flawed in that intent is enough for conviction. As we have the most free speech in the world here in the U.S. but if you write on a note “give me all your money” and hand it to a bank teller, then you will get arrested whether you got any money or not. In Federal law, intent is enough. Ten times the Mueller report exemplifies an intent to obstruction.
Attempted robbery, not robbery!
Carol Kelly wrote:
Attempted robbery, not robbery!
You still get arrested and convicted but attempted robbery is not obstruction of the highest office in the land. The latter affects sooo many more people the world over.
https://amp.pressconnects.com/amp/3091457002
[quote=Larry the Legend]"[I]n hopes of finally finding something"! Anything! Please!
Pathetic.[/quote]
Amen and Amen
slatten49 wrote:
I can't say the following is applicable in the case of the Mueller Investigation, but it may well be...
The legal concept of 'Plausible Deniability':
'Plausible deniability is the ability of people (typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command) to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others in an organizational hierarchy because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such acts to insulate themselves and shift blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, as they are confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible, although sometimes it merely makes it unactionable. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge. In some organizations, legal doctrines such as command responsibility exist to hold major parties responsible for the actions of subordinates involved in heinous acts and nullify any legal protection that their denial of involvement would carry.'
I can't say the following is applicable in the cas... (
show quote)
and it's done in every government in this world
and in every corporation
badbobby wrote:
and it's done in every government in this world
and in every corporation
in Nov. of 2020 the American v**ers will decide if Trump was guilty of being a lowlife conman and I believe that he will lose this e******n. The whole Mueller Report will come out. Roger Stone will flip unless he gets pardoned either wayfor the good of this country Trumps days are numbered
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.