Barr and Mueller's Two Testie-fy (SCO v. 34)

Status
Not open for further replies.
glenwo2 said:
Wehelie allegedly intentionally misidentified his own voice that was captured when Person A left a voicemail message on Wehelie’s mobile telephone. When questioned by FBI investigators about this particular incident, Wehelie made several misleading and/or false statements.

Wehelie is scheduled to make his initial appearance in federal court in Alexandria today at 10:00 a.m.


Wehelie is charged with making false statements to government officials and obstruction of a federal investigation. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

>>> Sounds like a crime to me, Joe. {<shrug}
Click to expand...
Lying isn't an underlying crime, it's the same crime as obstruction.
 
JamesRussler said:
Cake, muh dood, you don't need to haggle on this point. This is not really a debatable issue, it's just a straightforward reading of the regulations. What you could argue, if you so chose, is:
  • The DOJ regulations here are an ultra vires to the extent they prevent Mueller from reporting to congress because they exceed the scope of their enabling statue (dunno if this is true, but FYI regulations are invalid if they are inconsistent with their enabling statutes)
  • Since Barr already provided the report to Congress, the issue of whether the regs allow Mueller to report to congress is moot (this is actually true), and Congress is free to act upon the report as it sees fit.
  • Trump's actions, as described in Mueller's report, constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors for which he can be impeached (I disagree, but a plausible argument)
Click to expand...

So you are bailing out on your previous points and are trying to change the subject to new territory? Yeah, it was time.<16>

And Barr hasn't provided the full report to congress, that's kind of been a thing.

And yeah, impeachment is the political remedy, and there are a lot of people who believe "Trump's actions, as described in Mueller's report, constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors for which he can be impeached" which is why Barr wanted to get ahead of it and promote "public confusion about critical aspects of our investigation".

Team Trump is scared of the facts getting out, which is why they want to keep the American public from hearing Mueller, and more specifically McGahn, tell the truth. Team Trump knows that most people are not going to read the report, and they know that they can count on right wing opinion media to push their political agenda, but testimony from McGahn would be devastating.
 
glenwo2 said:
More proof that Cake didn't read ONE WORD of your post if you had to give it to him like this.


EDIT : And he replies that you are redundant. I wouldn't even try anymore with him.
Click to expand...

As if you even read his post before you hollaed back and clicked like.

th
 
Cake4Breakfast said:
So you are bailing out on your previous points and are trying to change the subject to new territory? Yeah, it was time.<16>

And Barr hasn't provided the full report to congress, that's kind of been a thing.

And yeah, impeachment is the political remedy, and there are a lot of people who believe "Trump's actions, as described in Mueller's report, constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors for which he can be impeached" which is why Barr wanted to get ahead of it and promote "public confusion about critical aspects of our investigation".

Team Trump is scared of the facts getting out, which is why they want to keep the American public from hearing Mueller, and more specifically McGahn, tell the truth. Team Trump knows that most people are not going to read the report, and they know that they can count on right wing opinion media to push their political agenda, but testimony from McGahn would be devastating.
Click to expand...

<{nope}>
 
Joe said:
Amusing. barr just charged someone with obstruction with no charged underlying crime.
Click to expand...

haha, i hope they cite Barr's statement as defense of this action as a reason to get it thrown out of court, and force a judge to call bullshit on Barr's position.

A good defense lawyer should certainly test if the courts agree with Barr's position and try to end this before it even gets to court much like you do in challenging the 'evidence' as valid or not based on how it was gathered, as a reason to end the court case before it begins.
 
MikeMcMann said:
haha, i hope they cite Barr's statement as defense of this action as a reason to get it thrown out of court, and force a judge to call bullshit on Barr's position.

A good defense lawyer should certainly test if the courts agree with Barr's position and try to end this before it even gets to court much like you do in challenging the 'evidence' as valid or not based on how it was gathered, as a reason to end the court case before it begins.
Click to expand...
Someone, get Avenatti on the horn...

Michael-Avenatti-Arrested-Bank-Fraud-Embezzlement-Crimes-2-860x771.jpg
 
glenwo2 said:
@bobgeese

<TrumpWrong1><TrumpWrong1><TrumpWrong1><TrumpWrong1><TrumpWrong1>

If he did, Mueller would've said as much instead of punting it to Barr (or rather ATTEMPT to punt it to Congress which isn't how it works).
Click to expand...
So pointing out 10 instances of obstruction isn't saying as much? <puh-lease75>
 
glenwo2 said:
Trump is, as usual, overreacting with his tweets.

But at the same time, I think that while all Mueller will do is confirm Barr's viewpoint, Trump believes Mueller will take that opportunity to paint the POTUS in as much a negative light as possible while giving the Dems plenty of ammo for 2020.

I think that's why Trump went nuclear in his tweets recently 'cause he realized that possibility.

It's all Political Theatre from this moment on.
Click to expand...
Trump wants to hide as much of the truth as possible. Let's see how all the independents vote if he continues to fight any oversight at all. He can litigate all the way up to the election but who is going to trust a word he says?
 
LangfordBarrow said:
Trump wants to hide as much of the truth as possible. Let's see how all the independents vote if he continues to fight any oversight at all. He can litigate all the way up to the election but who is going to trust a word he says?
Click to expand...


Probably the same way they voted last time.

Consider, trump delivered on his economic improvements and wiping out Isis.
 
Another 50 pages of disappointed liberals being laughed at by conservatives.


Good times brah, good times.
 
glenwo2 said:
I asked this before of Polish:

What about the prosecutors who are NOT "FORMER"?

You know....

The ones who matter (and actually did the investigation)?
Click to expand...
The conclusion was that there was so much evidence of obstruction that Congress should review it to determine if impeachment is in order.
 
bobgeese said:
It seems that liberals are unwilling to process that Barr testified that Meuller explicitly stated, it wasn’t because “the president can’t be charged” that he didn’t reach that conclusion.



Me thinks y’all are still desperately clinging to hope.


<{jackyeah}>


Yes yes, please do, it makes your tears that much sweeter.
Click to expand...
Barr made that assertion then declined to share the transcript that would corroborate it. If Mueller testifies to the same then there would be no doubt. For some reason the administration doesn't want him to clear things up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,736
Messages
55,514,038
Members
174,804
Latest member
eltonmjr

Share this page

Back
Top