Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My prediction, by the way, is that Barr keeps stonewalling on this but someone decides to just drop a copy in the mail, and it then finds its way on to the internet.

Agreed. Every generation needs its Daniel Ellsberg.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Agreed. Every generation needs its Daniel Ellsberg.

Barr's current line appears to be "it will take us weeks to get the redactions done" before he can release anything, even to Congress.

I'm a corporate attorney and I've heard judges laugh at that line.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No. You are in Crazytown and you've built yourself quite the comfortable life there.

We already know he obstructed justice. He did it in the fucking open. He publicly stated that he fired Comey because of the investigation. He fired Sessions because he recused himself. He asked for his own guy to be put in place at the SDNY. I believe there is lots of evidence showing this in the report. I'd like to see it.

Barr auditioned for this job because he believes, fundafuckingmentally that the President cannot obstruct justice. Trump got the message loud and clear and installed him. And guess what? Barr has concluded Trump didn't obstruct justice. It's a complete joke.

It is so obvious that there is enough in that report--re collusion and obstruction--to impeach this asshole and charge him with obstruction (you know, if you believed that a sitting President could be guilty of obstruction) that the White House, Barr and the entire Republican Party do not want to be held accountable for not being involved in doing so.

Your rants about what the media (again, not a monolithic entity) "implied" by reporting on the actual comings and goings of this criminal fucking Administration are pure ether above the clouds. Maybe you can't separate the opinion pieces and talking heads from the actual reporting. But your ravings are meaningless, empty, bullshit because they are based on a bullshit memo written by a man whose reputation you think is something other than what it actually is about the report that we all absolutely need to see.

You are a sucker because you have swallowed the Republican strategy hook, line, and sinker.

TM

Bill Barr summary: "chortle"

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Barr's current line appears to be "it will take us weeks to get the redactions done" before he can release anything, even to Congress.

I'm a corporate attorney and I've heard judges laugh at that line.

Really? Because it routinely takes people weeks to redact discovery responses of a similar size. Why do you think most discovery deadlines in state and fed rules allow 30 days for response (which is routinely extended by agreement of counsel)?

Also, why wouldn't the brevity and speed of Barr's letter, along with the fact that he has admitted Mueller gave him a heads-up on the report weeks ago, indicate that:

1. Barr had a summary of the report, either verbally or written or both, from Mueller long before the actual report was given to him; and,
2. He worked with Mueller in advance to get a letter together (they are friends and have a professional history), which allowed him to offer one so quickly (he certainly didn't read 300 pages with exhibits over the weekend).

When Mueller delivered his report, by law a notice he'd done so was required to be filed in Court. Barr and Mueller both knew this, and so knew that there would be immense pressure put on Barr to issue something to the public very quickly. While I absolutely believe that the report will contain saucy, sleazy, and ugly bon mots regarding Trump, and Barr may attempt to avoid their disclosure, the speed and brevity of the Barr letter may be 1 part conspiracy to hide bad facts and 5 parts coordination between Mueller and Barr in advance to release something as quickly as possible.

I mean, we all agree there's no way:

1. Barr is misrepresenting Mueller on the material, big issue (collusion);
2. Barr wrote that letter over the weekend; or,
3. Barr or his staff read all the material in the report over the weekend.

This letter and its release were weeks in the making, and that planning could only occur if Mueller was coordinating on some level with Barr, and we already know that his office had tipped off Barr regarding the report a few weeks ago.

Given this timing, if you think Barr's letter is a ratfuck, you also have to think or at least suspect that possibly Mueller was partly in on the ratfuck. One can think anything he likes, but that would some wildly unusual thinking.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From a former federal prosecutor, at TPM:

A few thoughts on the Barr Gambit, which I think will go down as a singular achievement in the annals of intellectual dishonesty and bad faith legal jujitsu:

1. It is undisputed that the Russian government brazenly interfered in the 2016 election to support Donald Trump. In so doing, the Russians and those acting on their behalf committed a variety of federal crimes including computer hacking and conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Those crimes were committed to benefit (a) Vladimir Putin and the interests of the Russian government; and (b) Donald J. Trump. It is also undisputed that Trump and his campaign joyfully used and weaponized the information the Russians stole against Hillary Clinton. Trump personally trumpeted the Wikileaks disclosures 141 times during the campaign, and his surrogates countless more times. While Mueller’s team apparently “did not establish” (i.e., did not find enough evidence to charge criminally) that Trump personally conspired with the Russian government to commit the underlying crimes, there is no question that he was (along with Putin) the single biggest beneficiary of those criminal efforts.

2. Mueller apparently pulled together significant evidence that the President attempted to obstruct the investigation into these crimes. But to support his decision not to prosecute the President for obstruction of justice, Barr relied in part on Mueller’s conclusion that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the President was involved in an underlying criminal conspiracy. Therefore, Barr’s reasoning goes, Trump lacked corrupt intent to obstruct because, at least in part, he was not involved in any underlying crime. This argument is both legally wrong (obstruction charges don’t depend on the existence of an underlying crime, just an investigation or proceeding), and it flies in the face of one simple fact: Trump was a prime beneficiary of the undisputed criminal conduct that did occur. He of course had a strong personal interest in seeking to obstruct this investigation for a variety of reasons. If you receive and use stolen money, even if you weren’t involved in the theft, you have a strong interest in thwarting any efforts to investigate the underlying theft. Why? Because you don’t want to lose the right to hold onto your money. Same here. This investigation posed a direct threat to the Presidency. It also posed a direct threat to prying open Trump’s shady business empire. Barr’s argument might hold water if the Russian election interference was intended to help Hillary and Trump’s campaign was not the subject of the investigation. As it stands, the President had a deep personal stake in the outcome of the investigation and it appears he used his executive power to thwart it. That cannot be countenanced.

3. The non-charging decision on obstruction by Mueller cannot be explained as a failure of evidence. On conspiracy or coordination, it appears Mueller made a clear decision not to charge because of a lack of evidence. As too many members of the media seem to get wrong, this was not a “no evidence” situation, but rather a failure to get to the required level of admissible evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the level of proof had to be something in between probable cause (you can’t get 500 search warrants without it) and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no problem with that decision from a prosecutorial discretion standpoint. There was lots of evidence of an underlying conspiracy, but it was always going to be very difficult to prove the President’s direct involvement with sufficient admissible evidence (classified intercepts from foreign governments won’t do it). And Manafort and Stone holding the line seems to have been the stopped the Mueller team short. Mueller made a decision not to charge conspiracy because of a lack of evidence, so why not obstruction? If it’s a 50-50 call and a pure “jump ball” that’s easy. You decline. If it’s “more likely than not,” the civil standard, you also decline. Even if it’s “clear and convincing” evidence that doesn’t rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you decline the case. So what is going on here? To me, the only answer is that they had a chargeable obstruction case but stopped short of making a decision to charge the President–because he’s the President. It could have been the policy not to indict a sitting President, it could have been the legal and policy arguments around executive authority, or it could have been out of deference to the legislative branch and its impeachment prerogatives. Any way you cut it, I just can’t see Mueller shying away from a tough evidentiary call. If we ever get to see it, I fully expect the actual Mueller report to contain a devastating case against the President for obstruction of justice. This is why we should expect to see Barr, the White House, and the Republicans in Congress fight like hell to keep as much of the report as possible away from the public and House Judiciary. Democrats cannot let this go.

There's no principled reason why Congress shouldn't have access to what Mueller found. Eventually it will.

Sebby, you are welcome to read this but I'm posting it for others on the board, not to try to argue with you or convince you of anything.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Really? Because it routinely takes people weeks to redact discovery responses of a similar size. Why do you think most discovery deadlines in state and fed rules allow 30 days for response (which is routinely extended by agreement of counsel)?

Also, why wouldn't the brevity and speed of Barr's letter, along with the fact that he has admitted Mueller gave him a heads-up on the report weeks ago, indicate that:

1. Barr had a summary of the report, either verbally or written or both, from Mueller long before the actual report was given to him; and,
2. He worked with Mueller in advance to get a letter together (they are friends and have a professional history), which allowed him to offer one so quickly (he certainly didn't read 300 pages with exhibits over the weekend).

When Mueller delivered his report, by law a notice he'd done so was required to be filed in Court. Barr and Mueller both knew this, and so knew that there would be immense pressure put on Barr to issue something to the public very quickly. While I absolutely believe that the report will contain saucy, sleazy, and ugly bon mots regarding Trump, and Barr may attempt to avoid their disclosure, the speed and brevity of the Barr letter may be 1 part conspiracy to hide bad facts and 5 parts coordination between Mueller and Barr in advance to release something as quickly as possible.

I mean, we all agree there's no way:

1. Barr is misrepresenting Mueller on the material, big issue (collusion);
2. Barr wrote that letter over the weekend; or,
3. Barr or his staff read all the material in the report over the weekend.

This letter and its release were weeks in the making, and that planning could only occur if Mueller was coordinating on some level with Barr, and we already know that his office had tipped off Barr regarding the report a few weeks ago.

Given this timing, if you think Barr's letter is a ratfuck, you also have to think or at least suspect that possibly Mueller was partly in on the ratfuck. One can think anything he likes, but that would some wildly unusual thinking.

So now you're just making up your own facts?

I'll grant you that it would make sense for Mueller to have had a say in Barr's summary. The problem is if that were true, don't you think Barr and the right wing media would be repeating that "fact" until blue in the face?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

From a former federal prosecutor, at TPM:

Whoa. That dude models tin foil hats in Crazytown! He's a lunatic.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Really? Because it routinely takes people weeks to redact discovery responses of a similar size. Why do you think most discovery deadlines in state and fed rules allow 30 days for response (which is routinely extended by agreement of counsel)?

Also, why wouldn't the brevity and speed of Barr's letter, along with the fact that he has admitted Mueller gave him a heads-up on the report weeks ago, indicate that:

1. Barr had a summary of the report, either verbally or written or both, from Mueller long before the actual report was given to him; and,
2. He worked with Mueller in advance to get a letter together (they are friends and have a professional history), which allowed him to offer one so quickly (he certainly didn't read 300 pages with exhibits over the weekend).

When Mueller delivered his report, by law a notice he'd done so was required to be filed in Court. Barr and Mueller both knew this, and so knew that there would be immense pressure put on Barr to issue something to the public very quickly. While I absolutely believe that the report will contain saucy, sleazy, and ugly bon mots regarding Trump, and Barr may attempt to avoid their disclosure, the speed and brevity of the Barr letter may be 1 part conspiracy to hide bad facts and 5 parts coordination between Mueller and Barr in advance to release something as quickly as possible.

I mean, we all agree there's no way:

1. Barr is misrepresenting Mueller on the material, big issue (collusion);
2. Barr wrote that letter over the weekend; or,
3. Barr or his staff read all the material in the report over the weekend.

This letter and its release were weeks in the making, and that planning could only occur if Mueller was coordinating on some level with Barr, and we already know that his office had tipped off Barr regarding the report a few weeks ago.

Given this timing, if you think Barr's letter is a ratfuck, you also have to think or at least suspect that possibly Mueller was partly in on the ratfuck. One can think anything he likes, but that would some wildly unusual thinking.

I mostly deal with Delaware Chancery, whose view of such things generally is, take the weekend, have fun. I think there is less urgency in ambulance chasing cases where the Judge probably thinks the Hospital has better things to do than keep responding to your spurious motions.

As to what "we" all "know" or don't: let's get the facts out. This isn't stuff we need to speculate on.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Agreed. Every generation needs its Daniel Ellsberg.

It's kind of interesting how cocky the GOP is based on Barr's non-report.

I'm betting the tone changes as more comes out. The last I heard is that the real report is somewhere between 300 and 1000 pages long, plus attachments. Think of how that much material plays in a multi-day hearing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I mostly deal with Delaware Chancery, whose view of such things generally is, take the weekend, have fun. I think there is less urgency in ambulance chasing cases where the Judge probably thinks the Hospital has better things to do than keep responding to your spurious motions.

As to what "we" all "know" or don't: let's get the facts out. This isn't stuff we need to speculate on.

I used to work in Del Chancery a fair amount. I actually like the Court a lot. Protectionist bar (DE rules for admission are nuts), but very efficient and polite.

In terms of procedure and deadlines, I found it to be very similar to most other Fed and State courts.

Thirty days is typical for doc response everywhere.

ETA: I agree the report should come out in full. But then what will we talk about in the interim?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

So now you're just making up your own facts?

I'll grant you that it would make sense for Mueller to have had a say in Barr's summary. The problem is if that were true, don't you think Barr and the right wing media would be repeating that "fact" until blue in the face?

That cuts against my theory there.

I’m not saying I know the answer. All of this is conjecture, from all sides. The only people who know all the facts are Barr and Mueller and Rosenstein.

But anyone thinking Barr is materially misrepresenting Mueller on collusion is in Crazytown. That’s just too insane.

The battle here is over obstruction. Even that ex-prosecutor cited by Ty had to engage in “logical jujitsu” in his first paragraph to try to somehow find collusion that Mueller hadn’t.

There’s a bit of comedy here in each side of this discussion using conjecture from others when it suits their arguments, then attacking the opposition for using conjecture from others to support its arguments. It’s got a sham feel to it at times. Like everyone’s just dug in really deep, intractably.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree the report should come out in full. But then what will we talk about in the interim?

Avenatti. Extortion or negotiation?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The battle here is over obstruction. Even that ex-prosecutor cited by Ty had to engage in “logical jujitsu” in his first paragraph to try to somehow find collusion that Mueller hadn’t.

The battle is political, whether people will find out what Trump and his campaign did.

Mueller found collusion, you brick. As multiple people have pointed out, we know about it from Mueller's work. "Collusion" is not a crime, as you have pointed out. Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges for conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, something different from and narrower than "collusion."

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Avenatti. Extortion or negotiation?

Straight up gangster stick up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The battle is political, whether people will find out what Trump and his campaign did.

Mueller found collusion, you brick. As multiple people have pointed out, we know about it from Mueller's work. "Collusion" is not a crime, as you have pointed out. Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges for conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, something different from and narrower than "collusion."

If it’s political, you lost already, you naive shmuck. Let’s talk about Avenatti.

If you don’t understand the only thing left for you given the political climate and D/R split in the Senate is proof Barr misrepresented Mueller in regard to ability to criminally charge, and win, you’re in Crazyland. I’ve no interest in wading into that place.

If you think “collusion” sticks without a criminal charge, you’re delusional.

Drive this through that brick between your ears: Go to SDNY and nail this guy in a forum where you can win. This Russiagate thing is Over.

Don’t get pissy. You asked for the pragmatic take. I’m being polite.