Newly released testimony: Former top FBI lawyer says agency concerned Trump obstructed justice

[augolf1716 21,303]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Apparently not to sleepy to post and let us know.

Obviously

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

There's a monster difference.  Dems going after Barr has no legal bearing because they aren't his boss.  They have no way to obstruct as the FBI is a part of the Executive branch.

Trump is, quite literally, the AG's boss (and thus the Special Counsel's as well).

But they are doing everything possible to stop/discredit Barr's investigations. That may not be obstruction of justice but it is just plain obstruction.

[AFTiger 282]

Hey Rip Van Winkle, wake up look around at something called the Clinton Foundation

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Perhaps Mueller addressed that in his investigation.

But since you apparently know the facts, how about presenting them?

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, AFTiger said:

 

Trump was accused of obstructing justice because of his criticism of Mueller. The Democrats are engaging in the same behavior hence by their own definition are obstructing justice.  

Exactly!!!

[DKW 86 7,440]

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

There's a monster difference.  Dems going after Barr has no legal bearing because they aren't his boss.  They have no way to obstruct as the FBI is a part of the Executive branch. Trump is, quite literally, the AG's boss (and thus the Special Counsel's as well). 

Did you just say that people can only Obstruct by interfering with people that report to them? Really? Wow, you just denied literally THOUSANDS of cases in the history of American Justice. You know, sometimes these kneejerk reactions around here are so lame it could make your head hurt. Or you just have to pause and hand out some scorn and ridicule...and laugh at some of the total crap things posted on this board. 

https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/obstruction-of-justice

So, if a Drug Cartel kills off witnesses and intimidates witnesses, it means nothing because their names arent DJT and they arent obstructing justice because they arent the employers of the ones they kill and intimidate? Do you not hear how crazy you sound saying something like this? 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Did you just say that people can only Obstruct by interfering with people that report to them? Really? Wow, you just denied literally THOUSANDS of cases in the history of American Justice. You know, sometimes these kneejerk reactions around here are so lame it could make your head hurt. Or you just have to pause and hand out some scorn and ridicule...and laugh at some of the total crap things posted on this board. 

https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/obstruction-of-justice

So, if a Drug Cartel kills off witnesses and intimidates witnesses, it means nothing because their names arent DJT and they arent obstructing justice because they arent the employers of the ones they kill and intimidate? Do you not hear how crazy you sound saying something like this? 

And do you not realize the difference in this specific instance?  I'm not trying to extrapolate anything further than this real life example.  Your strawman argument about cartels in the context of this conversation is beyond silly.

Trump, criticizing the AG in public and specifically calling out the Justice department which he oversees while an investigation is going on into his campaign, is very different from any legislator calling for a resignation.  Said legislator has zero power to obstruct in that instance because as an individual, that person has no influence over the Justice department.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

While there may or may not have been other reasons to fire him, but Trump said he fired him over the "Russian thing".

No research needed for that. 

Trump says a lot. 

Definitely more research on your part needed. 

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

If you are referring to "collusion" with the Russians, the evidence is out there for all to see, starting with the Trump tower meeting and coverup.

Is the adoption meeting something everyone missed but you? Seems that you refer to it often.

Trump fired Comey upon recommendation from his AAG and AG. 

[DKW 86 7,440]

33 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

And do you not realize the difference in this specific instance?  I'm not trying to extrapolate anything further than this real life example.  Your strawman argument about cartels in the context of this conversation is beyond silly.

Trump, criticizing the AG in public and specifically calling out the Justice department which he oversees while an investigation is going on into his campaign, is very different from any legislator calling for a resignation.  Said legislator has zero power to obstruct in that instance because as an individual, that person has no influence over the Justice department.

No Sir, you made a Shotgun Observation and I was just (not too harshly) pointing out that is was simply not true.

About Trump and the AG, You do realize that just weeks before Every Democrat in the nation was criticizing the same FBI Director? 

Simple fact: Comey was probably a poor choice for FBID. He wrecked HRCs Presidential Plans and then likely also mishandled the Russian-Collusion Investigation as well.

Back to your original lunacy: Dems going after Barr has no legal bearing because they aren't his boss.  They have no way to obstruct as the FBI is a part of the Executive branch.

They plainly do. In my link was point after point of how Elected Officials at every level have Obstructed Justice at every level in American Politics. EVERY FREAKIN LEVEL. For you to say that "Dems...have no way obstruct" is just shear freakin loonacy...

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

20 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

No Sir, you made a Shotgun Observation and I was just (not too harshly) pointing out that is was simply not true.

About Trump and the AG, You do realize that just weeks before Every Democrat in the nation was criticizing the same FBI Director? 

Simple fact: Comey was probably a poor choice for FBID. He wrecked HRCs Presidential Plans and then likely also mishandled the Russian-Collusion Investigation as well.

Back to your original lunacy: Dems going after Barr has no legal bearing because they aren't his boss.  They have no way to obstruct as the FBI is a part of the Executive branch.

They plainly do. In my link was point after point of how Elected Officials at every level have Obstructed Justice at every level in American Politics. EVERY FREAKIN LEVEL. For you to say that "Dems...have no way obstruct" is just shear freakin loonacy...

Please, explain to me how in the context of what is going on per the OP it can possibly be construed as obstruction by a Democrat.  I'll wait.

Also, I've never once mentioned the FBID.  Try to keep up.  Not the same as the AG.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Actually, from a legal standpoint, I'm not.

But let's put it this way.  If your boss criticizes your work, are you more or less likely to change how you do things?  That's the point.

From a legal standpoint, does obstruction depend on a party’s status? In other words, is the relationship of the parties a prerequisite? That seems to be your premise. Correct me if I am mistaken. No ill-intentions.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

20 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

From a legal standpoint, does obstruction depend on a party’s status? In other words, is the relationship of the parties a prerequisite? That seems to be your premise. Correct me if I am mistaken. No ill-intentions.

Nope.  Has nothing to do with party pre-requistes.  In this case, leadership from branch A of the government is calling for a resignation from Office A.  That same leadership has no real power over the person they are calling to resign, as said person reports to a different branch.

Meanwhile, leadership from branch B has called for dropping of investigations from the person that previously occupied Office A.  That person does report directly to Branch B.

That's my argument here.  The circumstances are just vastly different.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Nope.  Has nothing to do with party pre-requistes.  In this case, leadership from branch A of the government is calling for a resignation from Office A.  That same leadership has no real power over the person they are calling to resign, as said person reports to a different branch.

Meanwhile, leadership from branch B has called for dropping of investigations from the person that previously occupied Office A.  That person does report directly to Branch B.

That's my argument here.  The circumstances are just vastly different.

So what did you mean by "Dems going after Barr has no legal bearing because they aren't his boss.  They have no way to obstruct as the FBI is a part of the Executive branch."?

Aren't you qualifying the ability to obstruct on the basis of a party's status? e.g. they have no way to obstruct the as the FBI is a part of the Executive branch.... 

I just never thought obstruction depended on status. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So what did you mean by "Dems going after Barr has no legal bearing because they aren't his boss.  They have no way to obstruct as the FBI is a part of the Executive branch."?

Aren't you qualifying the ability to obstruct on the basis of a party's status? e.g. they have no way to obstruct the as the FBI is a part of the Executive branch.... 

I just never thought obstruction depended on status. 

Exactly what I just said.  Flip the parties and my point stands.  It's not about party status.  It's about who Barr answers to and how a call for a resignation is different depending on who is making the call based on which office they hold.  Take party out of it.  I said Dems because that's who the OP is claiming to be obstructing here by calling for a resignation.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Exactly what I just said.  Flip the parties and my point stands.  It's not about party status.  It's about who Barr answers to and how a call for a resignation is different depending on who is making the call based on which office they hold.  Take party out of it.  I said Dems because that's who the OP is claiming to be obstructing here by calling for a resignation.

But you are making it about status (dems going after Barr has no legal bearing because they aren't his boss. They have no way to obstruct....")

I am not saying that Dems are obstructing. But the reason why you say they aren't might be flawed.

Kerryon 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But you are making it about status (dems going after Barr has no legal bearing because they aren't his boss. They have no way to obstruct....")

I am not saying that Dems are obstructing. But the reason why you say they aren't might be flawed.

Kerryon 

Care to explain?  I value your input on legal issues.  Would like to understand your POV better here.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Care to explain?  I value your input on legal issues.  Would like to understand your POV better here.

There’s no limit as to the class of persons that “could” obstruct. It doesn’t rest on who he answers to. You have the potential to obstruct, just as anyone else does. Make sense?

At least this is my understanding. You may know something about obstruction that I do not. That’s why I inquired.

[homersapien 11,447]

17 hours ago, AFTiger said:

Hey Rip Van Winkle, wake up look around at something called the Clinton Foundation

 

That's opinion, not evidence.

Just like the OP was about a news item, not opinion.

[homersapien 11,447]

9 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

There’s no limit as to the class of persons that “could” obstruct. It doesn’t rest on who he answers to. You have the potential to obstruct, just as anyone else does. Make sense?

At least this is my understanding. You may know something about obstruction that I do not. That’s why I inquired.

C'mon Nola, you've got to recognize that a boss : subordinate relationship is inherently more susceptible to "obstruction" that a relationship that doesn't involve such such a relationship, due to the boss's power over the subordinate.

Granted, obstruction of justice might involve an action that doesn't involve power over another - such as by deliberately withholding information - but there's an inherently higher risk when someone has direct power to direct someone else's activities.

[homersapien 11,447]

13 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Is the adoption meeting something everyone missed but you? Seems that you refer to it often.

Trump fired Comey upon recommendation from his AAG and AG. 

"Adoption" meeting?   Seriously?

And Trump SAID why he fired Comey, more than once.  The other reasons are fall backs at worst and ancillary at best.

This discussion is pointless if you are determine to ignore what everyone knows to be fact.  I am not even going to bother with presenting the taped clips of what Trump said. You'd ignore them.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

C'mon Nola, you've got to recognize that a boss : subordinate relationship is inherently more susceptible to "obstruction" that a relationship that doesn't involve such such a relationship, due to the boss's power over the subordinate.

Granted, obstruction of justice might involve an action that doesn't involve power over another - such as by deliberately withholding information - but there's an inherently higher risk when someone has direct power to direct someone else's activities.

As Brad clearly articulated, he is speaking from a legal standpoint. We are not discussing risk.  As Brad said, they have no way to obstruct.... That is the context of the discussion. If you would like to exchange thoughts, we can, but please have the decency to read the full exchange.

Please do not distort context. That may work with others, but not me. 

Also, even if you were in context (which you are not), you'd still be subject to my wrath. There's no class-status "inherently more susceptible to obstruction" by virtue of proximity, relationship, oversight, collateral branch, or any other preferable qualification. That's fanciful at best.  

[AFTiger 282]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's opinion, not evidence.

Just like the OP was about a news item, not opinion.

Go back to sleep

[homersapien 11,447]

1 hour ago, AFTiger said:

Go back to sleep

Wrong forum.

If you are cannot follow the rules relating to serious discussion, don't play.  Leave it to whose who are more capable.

[homersapien 11,447]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

As Brad clearly articulated, he is speaking from a legal standpoint. We are not discussing risk.  As Brad said, they have no way to obstruct.... That is the context of the discussion. If you would like to exchange thoughts, we can, but please have the decency to read the full exchange.

Please do not distort context. That may work with others, but not me. 

Also, even if you were in context (which you are not), you'd still be subject to my wrath. There's no class-status "inherently more susceptible to obstruction" by virtue of proximity, relationship, oversight, collateral branch, or any other preferable qualification. That's fanciful at best.  

"wrath"?   

Please excuse me for exceeding the narrow legal context to which feel the discussion needs to be limited.  (I suggest you lose the attitude.)

How about providing an example of how Democrats criticizing Barr could be an obstruction of justice.  (I believe that is consistent with Brad's original point.)

And I think you are wrong regarding no "class-status that is inherently more susceptible to obstruction". 

Common sense tells you that a employer/employee relationship is inherently more susceptible to the commission of obstruction.  A boss has power over their subordinate which makes it so.  I think that was the basis of Brad's post.  Suggestions or criticism coming from your boss carries weight  or coercive power, whereas suggestions or criticism from someone with no direct power over you carries little weight.

To deny that is what is "fanciful".

[DKW 86 7,440]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

C'mon Nola, you've got to recognize that a boss : subordinate relationship is inherently more susceptible to "obstruction" that a relationship that doesn't involve such such a relationship, due to the boss's power over the subordinate.

Granted, obstruction of justice might involve an action that doesn't involve power over another - such as by deliberately withholding information - but there's an inherently higher risk when someone has direct power to direct someone else's activities.

This is reasonable, but it is not what the poster stated. He stated that a link was a prereq to Obstruction.

IOW, Obstruction CANNOT take place unless there is a link. That is just BS.