Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

(CNN)The Justice Department must make public an internal legal memo commissioned by then-Attorney General William Barr in 2019 to analyze whether he should charge then-President Donald Trump with obstruction related to the Russia investigation, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

The ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals comes in a case brought by a government watchdog group that is seeking to get the unredacted version of the memo. The DOJ argued some redacted portions should be shielded from public view.

But the federal appeals court didn't buy that argument, finding that Barr never seriously considered charging Trump with obstructing the Mueller investigation -- saying in the ruling that the memo Barr ordered up was an "academic exercise" and a "thought experiment."

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation found several instances where Trump's actions while president could meet the requirements for an obstruction of justice charge, but Mueller left the decision to Barr.

Barr then told Congress he was "consulting" with top DOJ officials on whether there was enough evidence to show Trump committed obstruction. But that was misleading, the courts have found and the Justice Department has since acknowledged.

Barr had already decided the sitting President would not be charged with a crime, Chief Judge Sri Srinavasan of the DC Circuit wrote in the new opinion.

The DC Circuit likened the Trump charging analysis that Barr requested from the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel and others to him asking for a departmental position on whether the late President Richard Nixon broke the law during Watergate -- an imaginary request that could be made "because [the attorney general] had simply been curious," the appeals court wrote.

The court ultimately ruled on the side of the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington after the DOJ tried to argue its redactions were still valid because they protected legal deliberations. Those legal deliberations didn't exist in this circumstance, the court decided, agreeing with lower court judge Amy Berman Jackson
 
Oh my, people so stupid they STILL dont know who won the 2020 election are mocking others. He is posting a news story not saying Trump is proven to have collided with Russia. Really starting to think posts need a disclaimer for the short bus people who want to translate what people say into what they want to argue against.
 
Well, uh, thanks for insulting yourself for me. You are a few others saw a news story posted about the investigation and somehow you and a few others translated that to "Trump is caught colluding with Russia and any day now will be arrested, charges, and convicted"
 
cajunrevenge said:
Well, uh, thanks for insulting yourself for me. You are a few others saw a news story posted about the investigation and somehow you and a few others translated that to "Trump is caught colluding with Russia and any day now will be arrested, charges, and convicted"
Click to expand...

We've seen this over and over from 57. Everything the media says is absolute truth and this will be what gets Trump.
 
The memo was released. I very much disagree with the logic used. First is that there's no precedent for this kind of obstruction of justice. Hard to be a precedent if the lack of precedent prevents the setting of a precedent. Two is that Trump was so ignorant that he legitimately believed he was under partisan political attack. Being a delusional narcissist should never be an acceptable defense for a crime. Third is that there was no underlying crime to obstruct. The general point of obstruction is to prevent the finding of an underlying crime. The only people who obstruct investigations are guilty people and ridiculously stupid people. There's no reason to obstruct an investigation where there is no crime and of an innocent person commits a crime to obstruct an investigation that would exonerate them then they are not a very stable genius. I am sure the stooges will barely read what I wrote and go straight to high stepping and projecting on to me that I for whatever reason believed whatever they want to make up to suit their narrative. Inaint gonna cry looked the Republicans. I disagree with the memo but it is what it is.
 
Actually its presume innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I only insist on an indictment because that has a baseline of alleged facts we can go over. As opposed to the speculation of biased media on both sides.
 
Tapate50 said:
Idk you have posted multiple threads being duped on charges that never came, so you tell me
Click to expand...


So are you saying not being prosecuted is proof of innocence? I am fine with that logic but your side cries like bitches when I use that field the various Democrats their fake news media dupes them into believing committed crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top