The whistleblower report was gossip, deep-state dinner theater. Zero first hand knowledge. It mentions names that Trump doesn’t, and even cites twitter and the NYT. It’s a CIA charade. — NOS4A2

The Inspector General spoke to the whistleblower's informants and believes them to be credible.

You need to understand that nos4a2 is from a parallel universe, so if you want to get a point across it’s going to take something other than fact.

It's also quite hypocritical. The whistle-blower's second-hand knowledge is "gossip" and "theatre" whereas these accusations against Biden and the Democrats and the FBI and the CIA are totally credible.

What I said.

Barr’s letter wasn’t a summary. — NOS4A2

From the letter:

I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III ...

That is by definition a summary. What he presents are not the principle conclusions reached by Mueller. The differences between what Mueller reported and Barr's summary are due either to ineptitude or a deliberate attempt to mislead to protect Trump. I think it is clear that Barr is not inept, so why would he deliberately mislead if he was not partisan?

Again, you didn't answer it and are just repeating yourself. What if reasonable people disagree? What then? How do you suggest to resolve this on the particular subject of corrupt intent? And while you're at it, what's the legal standard to impeach? Is corrupt intent required? In other words, is it even relevant?

As to Mueller's judgment; this is just a silly attempt to distract from your lack of arguments. What's Mueller's judgment on this matter again? Oh right, he doesn't have one...

If reasonable people tell me they disagree, then hopefully they have a reasonable reason as to why they do.

So tell me, why do accept Mueller’s judgement? Why do you discount and discredit Barr’s? I’ve told you why I agree with Barr’s assessment, so why don’t you tell me why don’t?

No, presenting the principle conclusions of an investigation is not a summary of that investigation. Barr stresses the reason’s why in his testimony to Congress.

As an apparent libertarian your political views align with the current administration to a large degree. Trump is not truly conservative, liberal, or even libertarian for that matter. The best description of his politics might simply be ‘dictator wannabe’. He’ll do anything to gain power, basically.

Someone has to turn this ship around. It looks like Trump is the one doing it. — NOS4A2

Reduced taxes for the rich, deregulation, increased military spending, more border fencing... yeah, real groundbreaking stuff.

We’ve had enough of the eloquent lawyers speaking in glittering generalities and pontificating on our shared humanity. All they could do was talk and be politically correct. — NOS4A2

Like the typical Trump supporter, you probably believe that Obama (eloquent lawyer) caused the great recession and it was Trump who turned it around. You're probably unable to acknowledge any of Obama's accomplishments.

To be a Trump supporter is to be unconcerned with truth.

Reduced taxes for the rich, deregulation, increased military spending, more border fencing... yeah, real groundbreaking stuff.

And the results are? Great economy, increased wages, more jobs you can shake a stick at, a stronger border, the end of the caliphate, and the US is no longer the laughing stock of the Middle East, China and Russia. We’re winning.

Like the typical Trump supporter, you probably believe that Obama (eloquent lawyer) caused the great recession and it was Trump who turned it around. You're probably unable to acknowledge any of Obama's accomplishments.

To be a Trump supporter is to be unconcerned with truth.

I liked Obama. I voted for him twice. You can ask me what I believe instead of assuming it. No, the previous administrations pulled us out of the Great Recession by spending our money. That’s not an accomplishment to me.

If reasonable people tell me they disagree, then hopefully they have a reasonable reason as to why they do.

So tell me, why do accept Mueller’s judgement? Why do you discount and discredit Barr’s? I’ve told you why I agree with Barr’s assessment, so why don’t you tell me why don’t? — NOS4A2

I wasn't referring to our disagreement on the matter but the fact that Barr and Mueller disagree. You're appealing to authority and it makes me wonder why you think you're incapable of making up your own mind based on the facts as reported in the Mueller report.

As said, Mueller doesn't reach a judgment so it's not what I'm accepting as I already stated in my previous post. I actually read the report, and in the basis of what's relayed in it I disagree with Barr's representation of the "principal conclusions" of it. I don't think he could be considered objective on the matter considering the unsolicited memo taking issue with the entire investigation to begin with. But that's neither here nor there when we can compare the facts of the report with what Barr pretended it said; eg. the facts are there because it's written down.

So I've asked before: Are you aware of the material differences between his representation of the report in that letter and the facts described in the Mueller report? And you said yes, but accept Barr's conclusions while the falsity of them could be readily established.

We are now left with some possible conclusions, none of them very good:

1. You have not, in fact, read the report or the letter or both and lied about it;
2. You have a problem comprehending the English language and erroneously conclude the documents state materially the same thing;
3. You're simply biased and incapable of questioning your own assumptions (did I mention I'm Dutch so I don't have a horse in this race?); or,
4. (I'll help you out here and give it a positive) you think the only worthwhile conclusion was the absence of corrupt intent.

I suspect 1. But let's run with 4. Why did he lie about the principle conclusions of the report? What does it matter what Barr concludes if 1. sitting presidents can't be indicted and 2. corrupt intent is not a requirement for impeachment?

In other words, things don't add up and that's why besides his conclusion being irrelevant I also don't trust his judgment.

I wasn't referring to our disagreement on the matter but the fact that Barr and Mueller disagree. You're appealing to authority and it makes me wonder why you think you're incapable of making up your own mind based on the facts as reported in the Mueller report.

As said, Mueller doesn't reach a judgment so it's not what I'm accepting as I already stated in my previous post. I actually read the report, and in the basis of what's relayed in it I disagree with Barr's representation of the "principal conclusions" of it. I don't think he could be considered objective on the matter considering the unsolicited memo taking issue with the entire investigation to begin with. But that's neither here nor there when we can compare the facts of the report with what Barr pretended it said; eg. the facts are there because it's written down.

So I've asked before: Are you aware of the material differences between his representation of the report in that letter and the facts described in the Mueller report? And you said yes, but accept Barr's conclusions while the falsity of them could be readily established.

We are now left with some possible conclusions, none of them very good:

1. You have not, in fact, read the report or the letter or both and lied about it;
2. You have a problem comprehending the English language and erroneously conclude the documents state materially the same thing;
3. You're simply biased and incapable of questioning your own assumptions (did I mention I'm Dutch so I don't have a horse in this race?); or,
4. (I'll help you out here and give it a positive) you think the only worthwhile conclusion was the absence of corrupt intent.

I suspect 1. But let's run with 4. Why did he lie about the principle conclusions of the report? What does it matter what Barr concludes if 1. sitting presidents can't be indicted and 2. corrupt intent is not a requirement for impeachment?

In other words, things don't add up and that's why besides his conclusion being irrelevant I also don't trust his judgment.

I have read both the report and the letter.

As I’ve stated countless times now, I agree with Barr, but not only because he happens to be the top authority in the land, but because I agree with his arguments. I stated the argument I agree with, which you mysteriously leave out in every reply.

That little problem of proving corrupt intent, especially in an investigation with no underlying crime or no interview, is difficult if not impossible. With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Therefor no obstruction.

Why would you keep avoiding that argument? Some possible conclusions, none of them very good. But I won’t list them because to do so is a massive red herring.

And the results are? Great economy, increased wages, more jobs you can shake a stick at, a stronger border, the end of the caliphate — NOS4A2

None of which is designed to last. It’s only designed to gain power. We are already beginning to see the signs of decline.

the US is no longer the laughing stock of the Middle East, China and Russia. — NOS4A2

True, we’re the laughing stock of the world.

I liked Obama. I voted for him twice. You can ask me what I believe instead of assuming it. No, the previous administrations pulled us out of the Great Recession by spending our money. That’s not an accomplishment to me. — NOS4A2

I appear to have assumed correctly.

You’re not impressed with increasing the national debt? Then how can you be impressed by Trump?

As I’ve stated countless times now, I agree with Barr, but not only because he happens to be the top authority in the land, but because I agree with his arguments. I stated the argument I agree with, which you mysteriously leave out in every reply. — NOS4A2

I've dealt with your "corrupt intent" remark as inconsequential to impeachment at least 2 posts back and again in the last. You're mysteriously dense when arguments fail to agree with your unexamined conclusions.

You've stated the same thing often yes, like a record on repeat, but they are statements not arguments. Which discrepancies have you established between the letter and the report then?

True, we’re the laughing stock of the world. — praxis

At least Europe.

I've dealt with your "corrupt intent" remark as inconsequential to impeachment at least 2 posts back and again in the last. You're mysteriously dense when arguments fail to agree with your unexamined conclusions..

You responded to my argument with a list of loaded questions, in other words not an argument. You’ve dealt with nothing. What a joke.

At least Europe.

That is until you want our protection. Then it’s all grovelling and holding out your hand.

Exactly. And the reason for that is that there appears a divide between people who think the end justifies the means and those who don't. And in the US that seems to follow party lines to an important extent.

But we'll see because I'm not offering a theory here just gut feelings. — Benkei

Since Democratic leadership announced the impeachment inquiry there has been a notable uptick in voter favorability towards impeachment. Among all voters the favorability towards impeachment rose 7 points, and increased 5 points among GOP voters, and 6 points among independents. So I'm curious if you still think that a failure to impeach by the Senate will be transformed into a Trump victory come 2020, despite growing support across party lines.

Oh noes! :groan: "Let's throw about accusations to distract from the fact my statements are baseless and I don't have an argument."

If trying to tease out that you're lying about having read the report and the letter by demanding what factual discrepancies you have established, which everyone knows are there but I'm purposefully not offering up, if a loaded question then guilty as changed. You don't have an argument against the points I'm making. Which discrepancies do the letter and report have?

Trump and his defenders are responding to the impeachment case with a blizzard of lies, threats, rationalization and obfuscation. Rudy Giuliani is spewing nonsense about 'the Ukraine conspiracy' on every TV that he can his face on. Anyone taking Trump's side can be expected to do the same. When the truth is damning, then all you have left are lies. :rage:

Good question. There's new facts out compared to last time. I think the relevant House committee members must already know something we don't, because the information in the public domain is pretty much hearsay. So probably a couple of important facts have already been independently corroborated.

That said, if it doesn't stick I still think it will be of benefit to Trump during the elections. Plus, I find party loyalty quite extreme in the US, where not voting in a Democrat is more important than the character of a candidate and vice versa.

I always find it enlightening to read Breitbart comments to get a feeling of how others think as well. https://www.breitbart.com/news/rep-adam-schiff-trump-whistleblower-agrees-to-testify-before-congress/

So while a majority of voters probably want impeachment I doubt it matters for the impeachment outcome in a Senate controlled by the Republicans. And then come election time that will be played in favour of the Republicans.

With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Therefor no obstruction. — NOS4A2

Mueller didn't say that there was no evidence.

Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation….Some evidence indicates that the President believed that the erroneous perception he was under investigation harmed his ability to manage domestic and foreign affairs….Other evidence, however, indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign….[T]he evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes.

Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct—and most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.

Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct….There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President’s conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope….A reasonable inference […] is that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation.

Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President’s conduct towards the investigation.

In analyzing the President’s intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness, there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen’s information would shed adverse light on the President’s campaign-period conduct and statements.

It simply came down to the fact that the DOJ policy is that a President can't be indicted.

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulation, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.

And it is because a President can't be indicted that he can't be accused.

[W]e considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. ... Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.

This is why he brings up the role of Congress.

The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

So while a majority of voters probably want impeachment I doubt it matters for the impeachment outcome in a Senate controlled by the Republicans. And then come election time that will be played in favour of the Republicans. — Benkei

Sorry, but that doesn't make a lick of sense. A majority of voters favor impeachment, but when the GOP controlled Senate acquittes him, voters will be spurred to...vote for Trump?

Could not agree more Maw!

Ironically enough I was just making the case for that very thing over the weekend. I think the media is overthinking it.

For instance, let the checks and balances process play out viz impeachment hearings so that the voters can be more informed and better equipped in 2020 regardless of outcome.

Impeachment and an impeachment inquiry are two very different things. As Pelosi knows, a rush to impeach is a mistake. The intent of the inquiry is to establish whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach. Although some may be convinced that he should be impeached there are many others who are not so sure. A favorite talking point of the party of Trump is innocent until proven guilty. The principle is, of course, correct, but they are trying to use it to forestall any inquiry to establish guilt or innocence, as if, since quilt has not already been proven we should not even consider the fact that he might be guilty. I trust that all but the most devoted Trumpsters will see the untenability of this and will favor an inquiry and mistrustful of attempts to block it. In addition, Trump's accusations of treason may play well with the Trumpsters but I think that most will be able to see that such tactics are not only false but dangerous.

Thanks for the good faith here.

Mueller didn't say that there was no evidence.

First, I said there was “no evidence of corrupt intent”, not that there was no evidence. With no evidence of corrupt intent, it doesn’t rise to the level of obstruction. Therefor no obstruction.

From Mueller:

“Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.”

There could be other possible motives for his conduct, ie. non-corrupt motives. Barr goes into this in his press conference:

“In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context.  President Trump faced an unprecedented situation.  As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates.  At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability.  Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion.  And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.  Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.  And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.”

It simply came down to the fact that the DOJ policy is that a President can't be indicted.

Barr’s objection was that Mueller could have, and in fact was obligated to do so, make a decision whether a crime was committed, to assess whether a person’s conduct was a federal offense.
Barr contradicts him in his testimony to congress:

“Now, we first heard that the special counsel’s decision not to decide the obstruction issue at the March 5th meeting when he came over to the department and we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. And we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this. Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLP opinion he would have found obstruction. He said that in the future the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion but this is not such a case. We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision. And when we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation.”

Mueller goes into this in the report:

“Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.”

He declined not to do so because of “fairness concerns” regarding reaching that judgement, eschewing Justice Manual standards.

Barr contradicts Mueller’s “fairness concerns”, and indeed Mueller’s whole charade regarding the intention of his investigation into obstruction (not to indict or conclude that comes have been committed, but “to preserve evidence”), arguing that “we don’t conduct criminal investigations just to collect information and put it out to the public”, that it would in fact be unfair to do so.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?459922-1/william-barr-testifies-mueller-report-senate-judiciary-committee&start=1672#

A Trump tweet this morning (9/30):

Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?

Is this a question or a threat? It is a perfect example of the way Trump operates. He leaves himself enough room to deny it is a threat but it attempts to shift attention and blame from Trump and paints him as the victim who not only for his own sake but for the sake of the country must be protected from being investigated.

Whether or not we are able to see through this there will be some portion of the people who see this as more evidence that the Democrats are the enemy and must be removed from power and even executed for treason. The question is just how many people will be persuaded or at least confused and how this will play out in the investigation and election.

One of Trump’s persecutor’s, Adam Schiff, blatantly lied to Congress and the American public. While true believers likely frothed with delusion at the sound of Schiff’s charade, Trump is understandably angry, asking if schiff’s lies against the president amounted to treason.

One of Trump’s persecutor’s ... — NOS4A2

It is funny that NOS entered this discussion complaining about the hyperbole of those who oppose Trump but does the very thing he accuses others of. Right out of Trump's playbook.

Making Trump a martyr may work, but it serves to further tear apart the country by making those who question Trump's actions "persecutors". More evidence of his willingness to destroy the country to save himself. Republicans love to identify themselves with the party of Lincoln but Lincoln said a house dividend cannot stand. The Republicans have cast their lot with Trump. It remains to be seen whether they will continue to do so. They have clearly demonstrated their willingness to abandon what until recently were the principles of the party. Now they have to decide whether their own political futures lie with remaining loyal to Trump of distancing themselves from him.

Note how Fool neither mentions nor addresses Schiff's lies, the subject of Trump's complaints, but deflects to the way Trump made the accusation. Right out of the Dem playbook.