woodguru

So when a new AG is appointed, he is going to have a lot of work coming up to speed with his team, his team is the FBI and department of justice as in the court's prosecution system. Especially when there is so much investigation and issues involving conflicts of interest with the executive branch, there would be no huddling with the white house special counsel and the president...NONE. Any communication between the white house and the AG would be formal and done through and with DOJ staff.

Barr openly and obviously made up his mind that he was not part of the DOJ team investigating Russia and e******n meddling. He did not meet extensively with Mueller to find out what he had and how he got it. He spent minimal times getting information and taking it to the white house to work out strategies for protecting the president, who he had already declared could not be prosecuted by the DOJ for anything. He's obviously taking the position that even though the DOJ or AG cannot prosecute the president, congress isn't going to go after him for anything either.

Barr is part of obstructing the legal and constitutional oversight congress is responsible for doing. They have every right to go where Mueller pointed in his report. They have every right to talk to Mueller and McGahn, they have every right to have access to the unredacted report, including actually the dozen more prosecutions passed on to other prosecutors....

and most importantly, if Barr isn't cooperating as an arm of the law as far as going after crimes, Mueller can, and there is no way the DOJ can stop him from doing it. He knows what the crimes are and the evidence proving them is. Months ago before congress took over Schiff had said that if the DOJ and white house obstructed the investigation by firing Mueller they intended to hire him as their counsel.

Smedley_buzkill

When you were a child and didn't get your way, did you believe your parents/teachers/wh**ever adults were guilty of obstruction?

Carol Kelly

There you go again. Schiff is a total dead eye jerk.

Carol Kelly

Perfect. They’re just riding this in order to claim no one knows what they’re doing when the prosecution/investigations of Socialists money grabbers like the Clintons and other crooked Democrats are brought on. Just watch and see. I’m hoping it will happen in my lifetime. Looking a bit iffy!

kemmer

Hahahahaha... Typical. What does that have to do with anything?

kemmer

Yet he will bury Trump.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Well hell, since you have the US Constitution memorized and you know more than anyone about separation of powers, congressional committee oversight protocols, the US Code and all the pertinent DOJ regulations, what are you doing sitting on your butt posting messages for 40 or 50 people to read?

Make sure though that you understand that the DOJ and its officers, including the AG, are part of the president's team. They work for the POTUS and the Attorney General answers directly to him.

Keep in mind also that Mueller is no longer a special prosecutor, his investigation is over, he has no official position in the DOJ with any legal authority to investigate anything. Mueller can apologize to a congressional committee for his failure to destroy our Constitutional Republic so the entitled progs can take over.

Make sure you have irrefutable proof that president Trump and Vladimir Putin conspired to defeat H Rotten Clinton, and that Trump obstructed every attempt by l*****t maniacs to expose this conspiracy.

Take note that AG Barr has secured the entire unredacted Mueller report in the senate security facility where is is available for review by any committee chairman or member. Take note also that congressional committees have no authority to access any information regarding an ongoing investigation or any court proceedings currently underway.

Go to Wash DC, get the POTUS, the AG, the WH counselors, congressional committee chairmen, and any other relevant people in one room and tell them that the Guru of Wood is there to clean up this entire mess.

Smedley_buzkill

Hahaha yourself. The new l*****t catchall response. You have used and overused RAAAAACIIIIIIIST!! until it is no longer effective. Now your new one size fits all response is OBSTRUUUCTION!!

kemmer

Yup. That’s the word which terrifies Trump the most.

Smedley_buzkill

You should look up the difference between "obstruction" and "annoyance."

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

This will clear that up. Here is the link to a four page letter in PDF format from the WHSC, Emmett Flood, to AG William Barr regarding the entire unredacted Mueller report. In the realm of American law and our system of justice, this letter is a constitutional cruise missile with a nuclear warhead.

WHSC LETTER TO AG BARR

This official letter details in easily understood language the "extraordinary legal defect" in Mueller's report, that "quite deliberately fails to comply with the requirements of governing law . . ."

Emmett Flood clerked for Justice Scalia and is now the WHSC.

kemmer

Yeah. I read part of that desperate letter last night on Rachel Maddow. Legal experts on the show said it was a laughable “Hail Mary” ploy by the WH.

kemmer

Perhaps Trump should.

Smedley_buzkill

He is not the one suffering from a knowledge deficit.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Rachel Madcow??? Legal experts??? Good grief. Did you find a law degree floating in your bubble bath?

The following excerpt from the WHSC letter should be shoved up MSNBC's ass.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to return and indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to charge, they make the decision not because they have "conclusively determined that no criminal conduct occurred". but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence, any more than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American system of justice, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to "conclusively determine" it. Nor is there any place for such determination. Our country would be a very different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were obliged to prove "conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred."

Because they do not belong to our criminal justice vocabulary, the SCO's inverted-proof-standard and "exoneration" statements can be understood only as political statements, issuing from persons (federal prosecutors) who in our system of government are rightly expected never to be political in the performance of their duties. The inverted burden of proof knowlingly embedded in the SCO's conclusion shows that Special Counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors.

Second, and equally importantly. In closing its investigation, the SCO had only one job--to "provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by Special Counsel. "28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). Yet the one thing the SCO was obliged to do is the very thing the SCO--intentionally and unapologetically refused to do. The SCO made neither a prosecution decision nor a declination decision on the obstruction question. Instead, it t***smitted a 182-page discussion of raw evidentiary material combined with its own inconclusive observations on the arguable legal significance of the gathered content. As a result, none of the Report's Volume II complied with the obligation imposed by governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declination decisions reached.

The SCO instead produced a prosecutorial curiosity--part "t***h commission" report and part law school exam paper. Far more detailed than the text of any known criminal indictment or declination memorandum, the Report is laden with factual information that has never been subjected to adversarial testing or independent analysis. That information is accompanied by a series of inexplicably inconclusive observations (inexplicable, that is, coming from a prosecutor) concerning possible applications of law to fact. This species of public report has no basis in the relevant regulation and no precedent in the history of special/independent counsel investigations.

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular form of closing documentation is the the place for indulging creative departures from governing law. Under general prosecutorial principles, and under the Special Counsel regulation's specific language, prosecutors are to speak publically through indictments or confidentially in declination memoranda. By way of justifying this departure, it has been suggested that the Report was written with the intent of providing Congress with some kind of "road map" for congressional action. See, e.g. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, 4/18/19 (Press Conference) If that was in fact the SCO's intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the SCO's refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation an its "legislative" history make plain that the "closing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose of preventing the creation of this sort of final report. Under a constitution of separated powers, inferior Article II officers should not be in the business of creating "road maps" for the purpose of t***smitting them to Article I committees.