But once he became the Attorney General, and then issued the opinion that was consistent with how he felt prior to becoming Attorney General, suddenly these same Democrats were suggesting. that he was skewing the law to protect the President? This would be in direct contrast to their statements about his predisposed opinions?
Which criticism is correct. They both cannot be correct?
- Was he predisposed to make this judgement?
- Or was did he compromise his beliefs to favor Trump?
Let's be clear about a couple of things. Robert Mueller was an employee of the Department of Justice. He was not an independent prosecutor, as Kenn Starr was. Mueller was required to run all of his investigative and indictment decisions past his boss, Rod Rosenstein. While Rosenstein was likely predisposed to agree with Mueller, it was still his place to disagree and veto a request. In fact, we know that part of the laws of Special Counsel requires disclosure of anything that Special Counsel recommended or requested that was denied by the Department of Justice.
Furthermore, Mueller's main background was one of FBI director. This is an administrative position overseeing investigators. Meanwhile, William Barr has been the Assistant Attorney General for legal counsel, deputy Attorney General, and this is his second go around as Attorney General (the top law enforcement person in the country). As a matter of fundamental qualifications, Barr (not Mueller) is the person who should be making a judgement call on prosecution.
To clarify:
- Barr was ultimately Mueller's boss while Mueller was Special Prosecutor.
- Barr's position as A.G. is superior to an FBI director (who reports to the A.G.)
- The Department of Justice is tasked with making prosecutorial decisions
- The FBI is tasked with investigating, and then turning that information over to the DOJ to make decisions on indictment or prosecution.
The reality is that there is no logical reason to believe that Mueller was better suited or more qualified than Barr to make a judgement call either in regards to matters of law, or the factual evidence required to secure a valid indictment. If there was a question, it should be answered by the person most qualified. If there was a disagreement, the person with the most prosecutorial decision making should be considered the more credible one.
26 comments:
The Civil War on a conference call this evening.
"Pelosi wrote in a letter to caucus members hours before the 5:00 p.m. call: “While our views range from proceeding to investigate the findings of the Mueller report or proceeding directly to impeachment, we all firmly agree that we should proceed down a path of finding the truth. It is also important to know that the facts regarding holding the President accountable can be gained outside of impeachment hearings.”
This is funny to watch what the Mueller report has done to the Socialist.
Nadler just issued a subpoena for the former White House counsel Don Mcgahn.
This is to pursue the evidence of objection of justice by the President.
You are trying to undermine the testimony of Mueller.
You are such a puppet.
FYI I think that the Democrats have to be very careful about issuing an indictment for #impeachment. Unless they are going to get the Senate to convict the President and remove him from office, they may guarantee that Trump will win reelection.
The reality is that there is a very logical reason to believe that Mueller was better suited or more qualified than Barr to make a judgement call either in regards to matters of law, or the factual evidence required to secure a valid indictment. If there was a question, it should be answered by the person most qualified.
His history of following the law and not covering up the ass of the President.
He was not appointed by the President to conduct the investigation into the Russian intervention in the last election! Barr is getting sharp criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.
*To clarify:
Barr was ultimately Mueller's boss while Mueller was Special Prosecutor, for the last few weeks.
Nader just issued a subpoena for the former White House counsel Don McGahn.
I wonder what McGahn can testify to that isn't covered by executive privilege?
Barr is getting sharp criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.
I haven't heard one Republican of note that publicly criticized Barr.
So what, AG Barr has been under fire from the dip sticks before. To his credit he does his job.
Legally, with in the rules.
Unlike Obama's intelligence community .
Roger, are you saying Muller Coward to Barr and gave us cowardly report?
Spineless simpleton .
"Roger AmickApril 22, 2019 at 4:29 PM
FYI I think that the Democrats have to be very careful about issuing an indictment for #impeachment. Unless they are going to get the Senate to convict the President and remove him from office, they may guarantee that Trump will win reelection."
This is your 2566 flip flop.
O have read and heard some people talking about this. It may end up in the courts. The house has the authority to check on the President.
Over the last 50 years or so, the courts have sided with the congressional authority to act as a check on the executive branch. Nixon and Clinton lost most of the decisions.
Politically, you are going to call it a Witch hunt, the Democrats have the Constitution on their side.
The politics, unless the President's base gets smaller, it will hurt the Republicans. If it doesn't go down the Republicans might get a little help.
Unlike you kput'z, I am not afraid to change my mind, when circumstances change.
If that what you think Roger. My pity for you just went up.
You change your "mind" like a wad of paper in a parking lot that moves a new direction on any slight puff of wind.
Tonight Speaker in Name Only Polosi is against Impeachment.
How is Speaker pro-tem Luddite Cortez going to take it?
Or that Impeach the MotherFucker ?
Speaking of a dumbass on par with Fruit cake Sissy Lynn Amadick.
"Former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign announcement — reportedly slated to take place this Wednesday — is now being pushed back to an unspecified date, according to The Atlantic’sEdward-Isaac Dovere."
Say it ain't so Joe.
@AnnCoulter
If this is what he did for South Bend, think of what Mayor "Pete" could do for the country???
"In 2015, Buttigieg’s South Bend actually topped Chicago’s 16.4 homicides per 100,000 people with a homicide rate of 16.79 per 100,000 people."
https://bit.ly/2UN1hQl
After Buttigieg looks like De Blasio is up next.
@JackPosobiec
In the past week:
- Notre Dame burned down
- St Patrick's Cathedral attempted burning NYC
- Hundreds of Christians killed in Easter terror attacks
- Yankees ban Kate Smith's God Bless America
Has it sunk in yet?
Here's another new choice.
Three of the Democratic candidates are veterans.
This is another one with a high level education. Harvard..and he's not threatening Harvard University for releasing his records.
Monday morning, Seth Moulton, the 40-year-old congressman from Massachusetts, officially announced he is running for president on “Good Morning America.” While Moulton might not yet be a household name, he fits neatly into a certain mold of 2020 candidate — the young, ambitious U.S. representatives who feel their time has come. Like Tim Ryan, he has criticized Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership of the party; like Eric Swalwell, he toppled an incumbent to win his seat the first time; and like Tulsi Gabbard, he served in the military. But though he has little to lose by running, Moulton, like his colleagues, will have to overcome history — not to mention several better-known candidates — to win the nomination.
From ABC News:
One thing Moulton has in his favor is an impressive résumé. A Marine Corps veteran with three Harvard degrees, Moulton served four tours in Iraq and won two medals for valor that he kept under wraps until the Boston Globe broke the story just before he was elected to Congress in 2014. Earlier that year, he had mounted a successful primary challenge against nine-term Rep. John Tierney, who enjoyed the support of major figures like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Barr is getting sharp criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.
this is a lie.
republicans have no reason to criticize barr, and doing so would only provide cover for democrats.
you're a liar AND a political moron alky.
I wonder what McGahn can testify to that isn't covered by executive privilege?
or attorney - client privilege.
leave it to the alky to be so limited in his intellect and understanding of what's really going on here to treat this like the big deal that it is not.
fat jerry is simultaneously showboating and grasping at banned straws here.
all mcgahn did was convince trump NOT to exercise his completely legal and constitutional authority and to avoid the political downside of firing mueller.
once again, the alky prematurely ejaculates.
Alky flip flops again, now believing Military Service Matters.
"Then there is Alky kind of stupid"RRB ®
You are trying to undermine the testimony of Mueller.
Just pointing out the facts.
If you believe that the facts undermine Mueller, then so be it.
The reality is that William Barr is far more qualified that Robert Mueller to make a judgement call about prosecutorial decisions. Heck, Mueller basically admitted that the law was too complicated and the facts too murky for him to make a call. So he didn't.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the man's legal prowess.
If you believe that the facts undermine Mueller, then so be it.
if anything, mueller undermined himself.
the foundation for the entire investigation was the fable cooked up by hillary to explain away her epic defeat. even the most casual political observer knew this. mueller HAD TO have known it. yet he filled his team with democrat hacks and proceeded anyway.
only a clown desperate to be rid of trump ever believed a crime was actually committed or that the clinton fable had a ring of truth to it.
Democrat presidential candidate are for criminals like the Boston Marathon bomber to have the same right to vote as law abiding citizens.
Post a Comment