PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on May 29, 2019, 08:34:39 AM
-
Another nothing burger for the dims.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/robert-mueller-our-investigation-is-complete-and-the-report-is-my-testimony
"I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the special counsel's office and as well, I'm resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life," Mueller said on Wednesday.
"There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress," he said. "Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself and the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress."
With his work finished, Mueller said he will be closing up his office and is leaving it up to the Justice Department to decide what to declassify from the redacted documents associated with the investigation, including grand jury and counterintelligence material.
-
Not a nothing burger, and I suspect he spoke to keep it going. He stated they were not allowed to indict a sitting President on obstruction, so he's left it open for the Dems to continue.
-
Mueller is a democrat operative who is only Germaine because that asshole Sessions couldn’t administrate a walk to a men’s room
-
Not a nothing burger, and I suspect he spoke to keep it going. He stated they were not allowed to indict a sitting President on obstruction, so he's left it open for the Dems to continue.
Yes he did. He basically said he was forced by procedure to not be able to declare obstruction. It will give the Dems, and Media stuff to talk about 24/7 and continue the accusations.
-
Not a nothing burger, and I suspect he spoke to keep it going. He stated they were not allowed to indict a sitting President on obstruction, so he's left it open for the Dems to continue.
He submitted his report to the AG, which is protocol and under law. The AG, with the DAG decided that there were no crimes committed, end of story.
Yes, Mueller played a bit of legalese in his remarks, but the bottom line is no crimes committed, no laws broken by the President. Now, Congress can continue the clown show and bring articles of impeachment, which will be amusing given there are no crimes. They can make a spectacle of themselves and have the MSM slobbering daily with their talking points. In the end, they know the senate won't convict, and if history tells us anything, they will only increase Trump's chances of a re-election.
And speaking of congress and impeachment, it's the alt left progressive radicals that want this, the centrist democrats (what's left of them) know it won't go anywhere. So when a vote comes to the house floor on impeachment, you will see several dims in districts that are close vote against it, which will only infuriate the progressives even more.
-
Not a nothing burger, and I suspect he spoke to keep it going. He stated they were not allowed to indict a sitting President on obstruction, so he's left it open for the Dems to continue.
Agreed.
-
Based on Nadler's little presser, Articles of Impeachment forthcoming.
-
Based on Nadler's little presser, Articles of Impeachment forthcoming.
Bring it on. The centrist dims (what few are left) know it will be a suicide mission.
It will be fun watching the floor vote.
-
I’m watching “Outlander” on Netflix on my iPad (escapism; I’m at my mother’s you see) and up pops a “Top News Story” from Apple I suppose:
“Robert Mueller says his office can’t charge a sitting president with a crime but declines to clear Trump of wrongdoing.”
Wut? You yanked me out of Jaime and Claire consummating their wedding with that?
How do you turn off that shit? Who decides what is news for your iPad? What crap.
-
How do you turn off that shit? Who decides what is news for your iPad? What crap.
Microsoft (Edge), Apple, and Google. Both as Far Left Progressive (Democrat) as you can get, and the Libs say corporations are right wing. LOL!
-
I’m watching “Outlander” on Netflix on my iPad (escapism; I’m at my mother’s you see) and up pops a “Top News Story” from Apple I suppose:
“Robert Mueller says his office can’t charge a sitting president with a crime but declines to clear Trump of wrongdoing.”
Wut? You yanked me out of Jaime and Claire consummating their wedding with that?
How do you turn off that shit? Who decides what is news for your iPad? What crap.
That's one thing I really hate about Apple products is how they slip that shit in. I had to go back to my newsfeed on my phone several times to get the Left bullshit news sites off of it. And then, after a while Apple will slip one back in.
Another fallacy of Apple are settings. During updates they will change your settings without you knowing about it. Then it becomes an easter egg hunt to find how to turn the crap back off.
-
That's one thing I really hate about Apple products is how they slip that shit in. I had to go back to my newsfeed on my phone several times to get the Left bullshit news sites off of it. And then, after a while Apple will slip one back in.
Another fallacy of Apple are settings. During updates they will change your settings without you knowing about it. Then it becomes an easter egg hunt to find how to turn the crap back off.
Exactly. Good analogy, it’s all so cryptic, like they really don’t even want you messing with anything.
-
https://nypost.com/2019/05/29/muellers-final-statement-was-a-disgraceful-mess/
The “I couldn’t exonerate him” point is discomfiting for another reason, which is: Since when do prosecutors exonerate people? That isn’t a prosecutor’s job. Maybe in the aftermath of a wrongful conviction, with irrefutable physical evidence, prosecutors will say something exculpatory. But even in most of these cases, they usually drop charges on grounds of insufficient evidence, not positive proof of innocence.
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-29/pelosi-schumer-refuse-endorse-impeachment-after-mueller-statement
-
Prosecutors do not exonerate. The either charge or do not charge. If not charged presumption of innocence then exists.
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/mueller-sets-new-standard-innocence-prove-not-commit-crime/
-
-
Mueller purposely opened the door for the Media, and Democrats to continue the Obstruction mantra, and make Trump look guilty in the court of public opinion. It nullified what was actually in the report. It was a purposeful political ploy and should be beneath the DOJ, but this trend was evident with the Obama Admin, and Holder and Lynch who were pure political operatives. This is dangerous trend, and reminds me of the former Soviet Union, East Germany and their forms of "justice".
-
After hearing Mueller yesterday, one might wonder why obstruction was even investigated if he knew he could not indict. What was the purpose. He also needs to be asked when he knew there was no collusion.
-
After hearing Mueller yesterday, one might wonder why obstruction was even investigated if he knew he could not indict. What was the purpose. He also needs to be asked when he knew there was no collusion.
Mueller has badly damaged the SC process. He has turned it into a partisan political tool and turned the legal aspect of it on it's head.
The "collusion" part of the investigation ended before the 2018 mid terms. They knew going into this it was a giant nothing burger, and this was set off based upon false pretenses.
-
-
Interesting analysis from Andrew McCarthy...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/robert-mueller-press-conference-impeachment-politics-democrats/
-
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/05/30/mueller-backtracks-presser-tries-clarify-matters-joint-statement-bill-barr/
Despite Mueller’s ridiculous insinuations and morphing of the rule of law yesterday, one thing was clear. He didn’t want to go to war with Bill Barr and Mueller was sure to not accuse him of anything.
Now it looks like there’s a bit of a further walk back from the former special counsel. The media’s takeaway was originally to foam at the mouth over the idea that Trump would have been charged with a crime if he weren’t President. Honestly, I can’t blame them for running with that line because Mueller’s obfuscation of words and clear insinuations painted that picture perfectly for them.
That appears to not be true though, as it looks like Bill Barr got ahold of him and has him clarifying matters now. This per a joint statement from Barr and Mueller’s respective offices.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7xTMoLXsAAutts.jpg)
-
After hearing Mueller yesterday, one might wonder why obstruction was even investigated if he knew he could not indict. What was the purpose. He also needs to be asked when he knew there was no collusion.
Mueller couldn't bring charges. But Congress can. It is up to them to act or not.
-
Mueller couldn't bring charges. But Congress can. It is up to them to act or not.
I don't think Congress can "charge" anyone with a crime as they are a legislative body, not a law enforcement body. They can move to impeach which they will not do as they know there is no real basis for it. They will TALK continuously about impeachment then make excuses saying it's not worth it, or this or that.
The Russian Hoax is over. Stick a fork in it. Maybe focus on "Orange Man Bad" type rhetoric or Trump is Racist, Sexist, and Homophobic.
-
Mueller couldn't bring charges. But Congress can. It is up to them to act or not.
Did you ever attend a civics class in high school?
-
I don't think Congress can "charge" anyone with a crime as they are a legislative body, not a law enforcement body. They can move to impeach which they will not do as they know there is no real basis for it. They will TALK continuously about impeachment then make excuses saying it's not worth it, or this or that.
The Russian Hoax is over. Stick a fork in it. Maybe focus on "Orange Man Bad" type rhetoric or Trump is Racist, Sexist, and Homophobic.
Correct, congress cannot "charge" anyone. They can bring articles of impeachment, but they have to lay out what they feel are "high crimes and misdemeanors" and provide evidence. Plus, they have to have the votes in congress to move it to the senate for a trial, which they don't have.
Back to the perfesser's sadly lacking knowledge of the law, it's an OLC opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted, it is not law. Had Mueller actually had any evidence he could have put that in his report and gave it to the AG, who is ultimately responsible to indict based upon evidence presented.
The AG, and DAG, with consultation of Mueller agreed no evidence existed. Now the buffoons of congress can draw up articles of impeachment, but then there is that pesky evidence they must produce. Kinda hard to say the evidence is the Mueller Report when the AG, DAG and SC all agree there is no evidence. And congress does not have the powers to over ride an AG decision.
-
^^^^That's why I don't think they will move to impeach as it will further expose they have no facts, nor evidence. They will TALK about impeachment and Mad Maxine will SAY they are going to impeach, but never will. More Kabuki theater.
-
My takeaway from Mueller's statements is that, even if they knew that they could not find sufficient evidence of a conspiracy involving the President, or that Trump himself committed obstruction, before the 2018 midterms, they could not close the investigation at that point because of the possibility that other parties whom they could charge were involved in obstructing the investigation.
I thought it was much to the point that Mueller dismissed the possibility of an indictment under seal against POTUS as "not permitted either" by (presumably) DOJ policy. That was a point that McCarthy had made earlier and I'm glad that Mueller addressed it, though I would like to know exactly where in the policy statement it says that.
What still isn't clear is whether the decision to not determine whether Trump committed obstruction was determined by Mueller's reading of the DOJ policy, or by the facts themselves. Mueller's press conference left that a complete muddle. McCarthy's analysis is cogent but I still think it's possible that they found the facts too ambiguous to decide whether there would have been enough evidence to charge Trump were he not President AND they believed they couldn't have charged him anyway.
Saying, though, that they were driven partly by fairness not to accuse someone when the matter couldn't be resolved in court, while at the same time leaving the basis for their non-decision to find either way on obstruction clear as mud, really drips with irony... maybe even hypocrisy.
I hope that he does testify before Congress as I'm sure that will be one of the questions, and I hope that he answers it clearly and without evasion.
-
Mueller is under no obligation to testify before congress. His report is final and was accepted by the AG. It's done, and it's over.
-
Mueller is under no obligation to testify before congress. His report is final and was accepted by the AG. It's done, and it's over.
What if they subpoena him? (Yes I know, they are unlikely to... but they can, and IMO should.)
-
What if they subpoena him? (Yes I know, they are unlikely to... but they can, and IMO should.)
Why? The investigation is over, the report was submitted and accepted. The AG and DAG issued a final ruling.
Furthermore, Mueller has already stated he will not disclose any additional information outside of what his report contains.
-
Why? The investigation is over, the report was submitted and accepted. The AG and DAG issued a final ruling.
Furthermore, Mueller has already stated he will not disclose any additional information outside of what his report contains.
As somebody said, the witness doesn't get to decide what questions he will or will not answer.
There is enough seeming double talk in that report (and in Mueller's statements yesterday) that getting clear answers from Mueller should be on the agenda.
They won't subpoena him, of course, because he might not give them what they are looking for, further ammunition to use in pursuing impeachment. All I'm saying is, leaving the reasons for not deciding on obstruction ambiguous shouldn't be acceptable.
-
They can ask any question of Mueller they want. That does not mean that he has to answer them. Oh he will say words in a response, but that doesn't mean he is answering them, and he doesn't have to say what they want him to say. So, it would do nothing to subpoena Mueller.
-
As somebody said, the witness doesn't get to decide what questions he will or will not answer.
There is enough seeming double talk in that report (and in Mueller's statements yesterday) that getting clear answers from Mueller should be on the agenda.
They won't subpoena him, of course, because he might not give them what they are looking for, further ammunition to use in pursuing impeachment. All I'm saying is, leaving the reasons for not deciding on obstruction ambiguous shouldn't be acceptable.
Muller will never testify in front of Congress. If he did Republicans would get a chance to ask the $1B question, "Mr Mueller, is it true that you knew there was no collusion prior to the 2018 mid-term elections?"
-
As somebody said, the witness doesn't get to decide what questions he will or will not answer.
Witness for what?? How is the Special Counsel now a "witness"? Where do you get this nonsense?
There is enough seeming double talk in that report (and in Mueller's statements yesterday) that getting clear answers from Mueller should be on the agenda.
Mueller chose to go beyond the scope of his report and place the "double talk" as you call it in his report. As previously stated, that was done purely for political purposes. The AG and DAG took the report and made a decision, "No Collusion, No Obstruction" which formally ended the investigation.
The Mueller Report was not intended for public consumption, and had the AG decided (under law) not to release it, he could have and there is nothing, nada, congress could have done. The Mueller Report was intended for one person, the Attorney General, to render a decision based upon evidence gathered. He read it, had the DAG read it, then consulted the SC and rendered a decision.
Oh, BTW, the President recommended the AG make the report public in the name of transparency. The President does have the authority to have that report kept secret if he so ordered it.
They won't subpoena him, of course, because he might not give them what they are looking for, further ammunition to use in pursuing impeachment. All I'm saying is, leaving the reasons for not deciding on obstruction ambiguous shouldn't be acceptable.
Oh c'mon. Legal procedure. How many times do you need this explained? The Special Counsel submits his evidence to the Attorney General, it's the AG who decides, not the prosecutor, if charges could be brought.
SC Mueller did a terrible job (in legal terms) of how he presented the report. And has been mentioned over and over, it was done intentionally as a political hit job. He took a legal document and tried to make it political. Many legal experts have stated this.
-
Muller will never testify in front of Congress. If he did Republicans would get a chance to ask the $1B question, "Mr Mueller, is it true that you knew there was no collusion prior to the 2018 mid-term elections?"
Bingo!
If Mueller were to testify, the dims wet dream would be that only they could ask the questions. The republicans will get to ask just as many questions, and it would get real ugly, really fast.
The dims know it.
-
A joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements"
-
They can ask any question of Mueller they want. That does not mean that he has to answer them. Oh he will say words in a response, but that doesn't mean he is answering them, and he doesn't have to say what they want him to say. So, it would do nothing to subpoena Mueller.
I think that's pretty much what I said... he is likely to not give them what they are looking for. The clearest answer he is likely to give is "We found evidence that would tend to implicate the President [on obstruction], and we found evidence that would tend to exonerate him. It is all in the report."
Except it isn't clear, even there. And so people will continue arguing.
-
Lucifer, shove the patronizing bullshit.
If you have proof that Mueller's report was a "political hit job", present it. Yeah, that's your opinion, everyone has one, doesn't make yours right.
There are lots and lots of opinions about this.
I'm still trying to make up my mind about this report and would just like some clarity, that's all.
As far as that joint statement by Kupec and Carr, I already saw that. You might want to read it again. I agree there is "no conflict between those statements", but that still doesn't clarify exactly why they came to that conclusion... i.e. on what basis.
-
I am ready to move on from Russia, Muelller, collusion, etc. However, I am a Trump supporter, and people that aren't may want to dwell on it, and that's fine and that is their right. I do think it is non productive, but again that's their right.
-
Lucifer, shove the patronizing bullshit.
(https://em.wattpad.com/8be8a0115fb34198748a9a3d912a58551e7664cd/68747470733a2f2f73332e616d617a6f6e6177732e636f6d2f776174747061642d6d656469612d736572766963652f53746f7279496d6167652f5656726e356a46497774323670413d3d2d34352e313462643666653066346535306639653432303037313638333439372e676966?s=fit&w=720&h=720)
If you have proof that Mueller's report was a "political hit job", present it. Yeah, that's your opinion, everyone has one, doesn't make yours right.
Several legal experts have weighed in on this. Of course, living in your little echo chamber, you chose to ignore that.
There are lots and lots of opinions about this.
Yes there are. And some are backed up with knowledge of the legal system.
I'm still trying to make up my mind about this report and would just like some clarity, that's all.
Good.
As far as that joint statement by Kupec and Carr, I already saw that. You might want to read it again. I agree there is "no conflict between those statements", but that still doesn't clarify exactly why they came to that conclusion... i.e. on what basis.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/2Faz1t19ZifKOLqZG/giphy.gif)
-
I am ready to move on from Russia, Muelller, collusion, etc. However, I am a Trump supporter, and people that aren't may want to dwell on it, and that's fine and that is their right. I do think it is non productive, but again that's their right.
For those who following polling, the majority of Americans are ready to move on. But our do nothing congress can't get beyond the fact the dims lost the 2016 election, and they cannot accept after everything we've (the country) have been put through, there is nothing there.
-
My read - Mueller thinks the president obstructed justice. But his office cannot do anything, so he laid out the evidence for Congress to take action. But Congress isn't going to do anything either because it's a political body. If Democrats win every seat up for grabs in 2020, they would still not have enough to remove the president from office.
He has stated that if he is forced to testify, he will add nothing that isn't already in the report. So it would be frustration for them to do it.
-
Here's the most cogent analysis I've found so far -- by Rick Pildes, Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU Law School:
On the obstruction issue, the Mueller report is, to my surprise, deeply confused and confusing about the fundamental issue of what the report means to be telling us.
The obstruction analysis begins with a statement of four principles that governed the analysis. The most consequential of these will come as a stunner to most people: “We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes” (emphasis added). In other words, the report was never going to reach a judgment about whether the president had committed a crime. No matter what the facts showed, the special counsel determined at the outset, as a matter of principle, that it would be inappropriate to conclude that the president had committed a crime.
I assume most people would have thought the entire point of the special counsel investigation on obstruction was precisely to determine whether the president had committed any crimes. But the report concludes that because the president cannot be indicted while in office, it would be “unfair” in principle to conclude he had committed a crime, because unlike the ordinary criminal defendant, he would not soon have a trial in which he could clear his name. In other words: Since the president cannot be indicted while in office, he also can’t be found by the Justice Department to have committed a crime while in office.
So what was the point of the obstruction phase of the investigation? Merely to “preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials available.”
The report states that if the evidence had left the special counsel convinced the president had not committed a crime, the report would be able to tell us that. Thus, we are told both that the special counsel would not be able to say if he’d concluded the president had committed a crime, and that the special counsel was able to say that he cannot conclude the president did not commit a crime. But if these considerations of “fairness” to the president are correct, they would presumably also prohibit the attorney general from publicly concluding that the president had committed a crime.
If the report had at least been clear and explicit throughout about how narrowly Mueller conceived his role, it could have expressly said things like, “We believe only Congress can decide whether a president has committed a crime while in office” or “We will only present you with our factual findings and our view of the general legal principles involved.” That would at least have left clear the limited role the special counsel believed the Department of Justice can play in evaluating potential presidential criminal liability.
But instead, the report assessed whether each event it examined could be considered obstructive. This leaves the impression that the special counsel evaluated each event and concluded that one could argue either way about whether it could be part of an obstruction crime. There is a large difference between saying (1) it is not our role, it is only for Congress to decide whether a crime has been committed, and (2) we are indeed evaluating the merits and we conclude the case could go either way.
I am afraid Mueller’s report muddies the difference between these two positions. The result is that partisans will have plausible bases for reading the obstruction analysis consistent with their prior partisan preferences.
-
My read - Mueller thinks the president obstructed justice. But his office cannot do anything, so he laid out the evidence for Congress to take action. But Congress isn't going to do anything either because it's a political body. If Democrats win every seat up for grabs in 2020, they would still not have enough to remove the president from office.
He has stated that if he is forced to testify, he will add nothing that isn't already in the report. So it would be frustration for them to do it.
I agree pretty much with everything you say except the first sentence. That's one reading, and I can see where it comes from , but it's just not clear to me.
-
Azure, if you feel Trump obstructed justice, please detail your reasons. Thanks.
-
Azure, if you feel Trump obstructed justice, please detail your reasons. Thanks.
???
I'm beginning to think it must be me, because now two people on here have read me as saying things I didn't say.
FTR, I don't "feel" Trump obstructed justice. It's a legal question and I don't really have an opinion either way.
Anyway what I wrote was addressing bflynn's comment that Mueller thinks Trump obstructed justice. I'm also not convinced either way on that.
-
Azure, this is not directed at you. I think I understand what you are saying.
How can their be obstruction if there was no underlying collusion, nor any laws broken? The basis for Russian Collusion and how they affected the election is still a mystery to me as no voting machines are connected to the internet, nor can they be "hacked".
Was it just social media posts the Russians supposedly made to sway people? I don't get it, but I am not on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat or any other social media.
-
The basis for Russian Collusion and how they affected the election is still a mystery to me as no voting machines are connected to the internet, nor can they be "hacked".
And I don't think there was ever an allegation that they had DIRECTLY affected the outcome.
Was it just social media posts the Russians supposedly made to sway people? I don't get it, but I am not on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat or any other social media.
I think it was that, and also breaking into Dem Party computers and leaking the proceeds of the theft in a way that was timed to hurt Clinton's campaign. I'm pretty sure Mueller explicitly said that yesterday.
-
I’m trying to think if ever before in history an American President has been subjected to relentless and unfounded attacks of this magnitude. By other Americans!
I’ve seen it posited that the whole goal was to get Trump to be mad enough to do something stupid and actually obstructive that the Dims could then pounce on.
This analysis by Victor David Hansen is well worth a watch. Every day, our POTUS wakes up knowing that he, his wife, his children, and everyone he’s associated with will be subject to baseless attacks. I’d have cracked by now. God bless our President.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1qjDaupNao#
-
I think it was that, and also breaking into Dem Party computers and leaking the proceeds of the theft in a way that was timed to hurt Clinton's campaign. I'm pretty sure Mueller explicitly said that yesterday.
So why did the DNC refuse to let the FBI investigate their computers when they cried about someone had hacked them?
It's never been established the "Russians" broke into the DNC computers.
-
???
I'm beginning to think it must be me, because now two people on here have read me as saying things I didn't say.
FTR, I don't "feel" Trump obstructed justice. It's a legal question and I don't really have an opinion either way.
Anyway what I wrote was addressing bflynn's comment that Mueller thinks Trump obstructed justice. I'm also not convinced either way on that.
Fair enough, thanks.
-
Azure, if you feel Trump obstructed justice, please detail your reasons. Thanks.
I'll point out what I read
First - Mueller is very carefully saying right now that his office did not indict the president first because they could not. But if you listen to the undertones, Mueller is really saying "yeah, I think he's guilty, but there's nothing I can do about it. It's up to Congress."
The Mueller report lays out Mueller's facts in excruciating detail, but a good summary of what they think is bad can be found at the bottom of page 157, paragraph 2)a) This includes things like attempts to fire Mueller, firing Comey, for Jeff Sessions to unrecuse himself and an attempt to have language changed to limit what was an unlimited investigation. There's more, these are just a few.
So clearly Mueller thinks he's guilty. I suspect a good prosecutor could probably make Trump look really bad. But in the end, I'm not convinced that these things add up to obstruction even when taken together. I don't think they would have had an effect at all on the outcome. I'm pretty sure you'll never convince 12 people of it let alone 67 unless those 12 are all die hard democrats.
-
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/mueller-just-proved-his-entire-operation-was-a-political-hit-job-that-trampled-the-rule-of-law/
If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.
“It is important that the office’s written work speak for itself,” Mueller said, referring to his office’s 448-page report. Mueller’s report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected. Its contents have been discussed ad nauseum in print and on television. The report has been speaking for itself since April 18, when it was released.
If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.
Let’s start with the Mueller team’s unique take on the nature of a prosecutor’s job. The standard American view of justice, affirmed and enforced by the U.S. Constitution, is that all are presumed innocent absent conviction by a jury of a specific charge of criminal wrongdoing. That is, the natural legal state of an individual in this country is innocence. It is not a state or a nature bestowed by cops or attorneys. Innocence is not granted by unelected bureaucrats or federal prosecutors.
At one point in his remarks, Mueller seemed to agree. Referring to indictments against various Russian individuals and institutions for allegedly hacking American servers during the 2016 election, Mueller said that the indictments “contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant.”
“Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”
Had he stopped there, he would have been correct. But then he crafted a brand new standard.
“The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said. “After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent. Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.
-
Reading comments on articles about this, I found this one:
You might recall that last October, there were allegations of (excessive, whatever that is) use of Alcohol by Mueller. I wonder if he had a couple of belts before his performance today.
I simply see no evidence that he's not a raging alcoholic, and I cannot declare him innocent of the charge of use of alcohol while on the job.
So appropriate. ;D
-
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role#.XO7RNRd2GnU.twitter
Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.
That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.
No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.
-
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-robert-mueller-trump-russia-investigation-report
Mueller’s actions were not only noxious but patently unfair to Trump. The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality.
This is what prosecutors are never permitted to do. Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment.
How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion.
If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent.
In this regard, Mueller shrewdly and improperly turned the law on its head. Consider the most inflammatory statement that he leveled at the president in his report. It was guaranteed to ignite the impeachment fire:
“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
To reinforce the point, Mueller stated it twice in his report. He then reiterated the argument on Wednesday when he said: “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
Prosecutors are not, and have never been, in the business of exonerating people. That’s not their job.
An experienced federal prosecutor, Mueller certainly knew this. It appears he had no intention of treating Trump equitably or applying the law in conformance with our criminal justice system.
In a singular sentence, Mueller managed to reverse the legal duty that prosecutors have rigidly followed in America for centuries. Their legal obligation is not to exonerate someone or prove an individual’s innocence. Nor is any accused person required to prove his or her own innocence.
Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is the bedrock on which justice is built.
Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed.
The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.
Think about what that rationale really means. It is a double negative. Mueller was contending that he can’t prove something didn’t happen.
What if this were the standard for all criminal investigations? Apply it to yourself.
Let’s say you deposited your paycheck at the bank on Monday, the same day it’s robbed. A prosecutor then announces publicly that he cannot prove you didn’t rob the bank, so you are neither criminally accused nor “exonerated.”
The burden of proof has now been shifted to you to disprove the negative. How would you feel? You’ve been maligned with the taint of criminality and no longer enjoy the presumption of innocence.
This is the equivalent of what Mueller did to Trump. The special counsel created the impression that Trump might have engaged in wrongdoing because he could not prove otherwise.
The consequential injustice and harm that inevitably follows is what happens when we reverse the burden of proof and abandon the innocence standard that are revered in a democracy as fundamental rights.
Yet, this is what Mueller did. He improvised a new standard that applies only to Trump --presumption of guilt. Under this novel “guilty until proven innocent” paradigm, it is up to the president to prove the allegations are false.
Attorney General Barr recognized that Mueller had mangled the legal process, describing his statement as “actually a very strange statement.”
Barr told Congress that he was forced to correct Mueller’s mistake. “I used the proper standard,” said Barr. “We are not in the business of proving someone did not violate the law –I found that whole passage very bizarre,” he added.
Our system of justice in America is designed to protect the innocent. This is why there are laws that prevent disclosure of grand jury testimony and even more expansive rules at the Justice Department that prohibit prosecutors from disclosing derogatory information about uncharged individuals. It is, in a word, unfair to smear people who have not been charged with anything.
Mueller was well aware of this. In the “introduction” to Volume II on obstruction, he recited the duty of prosecutors to be fair by refraining from comment. In the case of a sitting president, wrote Mueller, “The stigma and opprobrium could imperil the President’s ability to govern.”
Ironically, the special counsel then proceeded to ignore his own warning. He produced his own “dossier” on Trump that was filled with suspicions of wrongdoing.
-
I'll point out what I read
First - Mueller is very carefully saying right now that his office did not indict the president first because they could not. But if you listen to the undertones, Mueller is really saying "yeah, I think he's guilty, but there's nothing I can do about it. It's up to Congress."
The Mueller report lays out Mueller's facts in excruciating detail, but a good summary of what they think is bad can be found at the bottom of page 157, paragraph 2)a) This includes things like attempts to fire Mueller, firing Comey, for Jeff Sessions to unrecuse himself and an attempt to have language changed to limit what was an unlimited investigation. There's more, these are just a few.
So clearly Mueller thinks he's guilty. I suspect a good prosecutor could probably make Trump look really bad. But in the end, I'm not convinced that these things add up to obstruction even when taken together. I don't think they would have had an effect at all on the outcome. I'm pretty sure you'll never convince 12 people of it let alone 67 unless those 12 are all die hard democrats.
Oh, there's a lot more.
After reading most of Vol 2 this afternoon, I agree now, in part anyway. I wouldn't go so far as to say that he thinks Trump is guilty, but he thinks there is substantial evidence against him. He laid out the evidence so that it would be available to be used at some time in the future. Much of the last 30 pages of v2 is devoted to refuting an argument by the White House counsel that a president cannot be brought up on obstruction charges for acts that are within his authority under Article II. So he clearly thought that Trump could be charged, but that it was not within his mandate to do so based on the OLC opinion.
I don't think that Trump would necessarily be found not guilty (hypothetically now) just because his attempts to interfere would not have been successful. It all depends on what the applicable statute would be. See the last paragraph of section I A, top of page 12, where Mueller cites United States v. Davis. Elsewhere, the standard he cites seems to be that obstruction can occur if the defendant "acts in a manner that is likely to obstruct justice" (the "nexus" requirement). Again, not that they did, or necessarily would, obstruct it.
Also, (this is really for Anthony, and is not directed at you, bflynn) it's pretty clear that Mueller's view is that obstruction can occur even in the absence of an underlying crime, if the person's acts otherwise meet the criteria for obstruction. See the first paragraph on p. 157.
I'm surprised, though, that Mueller doesn't see the hypocrisy in using fairness arguments to defend a non-decision to find that Trump committed obstruction, while at the same time laying out the case against him. If you decide to not find against someone in a context where they cannot clear their name in court because it would be unfair, then all but saying that he committed a crime without charging him is equally unfair.
-
I get it now, if I tell someone, I wish my wife were dead, I’m guilty of attempted murder.
And, I believe, presumption of innocence is still how things work in this country, unless you are a Republican.
I'll bet Azure feels Hillary did nothing wrong when she deleted 33,000 emails under subpoena. How about all of those classified emails she had on the personal server that she claimed she didn't know were classified.
I'm, honestly, so fucking tired of this shit. If I were Trump and knew I hadn't colluded with anyone I would have been plenty pissed and lashed out. How many of you could focus on your job with half the country and 95% of the MSM hating you and wishing you were dead. Just fucking unblieveable.
-
BTW, have you looked at the economy lately, how about the unemployment rate or maybe growth in manufacturing jobs. Didn't Obama tell us those jobs were not coming back no matter what kind of magic wand Trump thought he had. Didn’t Obama also tell us that 1% GDP growth was the new norm?
-
Democrats (communists) would rather crash the economy put millions out of work and destroy any manufacturing gains of the last two years to win against Trump. They would rather destroy the country than let our economy heal and people prosper.
That is why I hate the Democratic Party and all of their apparatchiks such as ANTIFA, black lives matter and the KKK.
-
Wow... just wow.
I don't know if I'm really that bad a writer, that someone can read my words and think I'm saying something so different from what I intended to say... or if we've just become so polarized that anyone who doesn't immediately accept the party line that Mueller did a hit job on Trump is automatically on the side of the far left Dems in trying to impeach Trump or drive him from office. Doesn't seem like the Right is any more tolerant of dissenting opinions - or even a willingness to LISTEN to them - than the Left.
News flash: I'm not in either "camp". When dealing with professionals like Mueller, I start from the assumption that they probably have good reasons for what they write. Doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to accept their conclusions, but I first try to understand their reasoning. I don't accuse them of acting with a malign motive without compelling evidence.
If Hillary actually deleted 30,000+ emails from her server when they were demanded by subpoena, OF COURSE it was wrong. And OF COURSE it was wrong to keep classified information on that server. Why would you say that I wouldn't see anything wrong with it?
And when have I ever complained about Trump's handling of the economy? Believe me, I was as pleasantly surprised as a lot of people here when I figured my taxes this year, expecting to owe, and getting a sizeable refund instead. And I'm not rich or even close.
Sure, I have problems with Trump... I think his judgment is a bit off, particularly in how he handles controversial issues like race - the Confederate statues brouhaha, etc. I'm not convinced he's taking the right approach playing hardball with our allies, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. The way he talks in circles when answering questions in public also makes me wonder if he's cognitively hitting on all eight.
But there is NO WAY I would support or even vote for any of the far left Dems currently in the 2020 race. And I haven't ruled out voting for Trump to keep one of them out of the White House.
-
Are you aware that Mueller went to Trump and wanted to head the FBI and Trump said no. There is also something in the report about Mueller belonging to a Trump golf club and not being able to get his deposit back when he quit. I'm sure that those had nothing to do with any animus he might have had towards Trump nor his hiring of Weismann, a Hillary supporter, or the 18 Democrat lawyers on the team.
You did do some research on Weismann, didn't you?
-
Wow... just wow.
I don't know if I'm really that bad a writer, that someone can read my words and think I'm saying something so different from what I intended to say... or if we've just become so polarized that anyone who doesn't immediately accept the party line that Mueller did a hit job on Trump is automatically on the side of the far left Dems in trying to impeach Trump or drive him from office. Doesn't seem like the Right is any more tolerant of dissenting opinions - or even a willingness to LISTEN to them - than the Left.
Yes, this country has become that polarized. There are two very distinct subcultures now. Both sides see an uncrossable schism and anyone not firmly on their side is automatically on the other. It's the prelude to war and we are living it.
You are a rare person with the wonderful ability to apply critical thought, and to thoroughly examine a situation without judgment until you feel you have all the facts and a view of the truth. Unfortunately that makes you a target of both sides. In such a polarized political climate you will be rejected by nearly everyone unless you fit their exact version of reality.
It's like the debate I had years ago about religion on one of the other boards before they shut down politics. I was raised Catholic, and someone was arguing that I am not the "right" kind of Christian. It wasn't good enough that I believed in Jesus in his view. I practiced the wrong particulars. So exact are people's idea of reality they cannot tolerate variation in the details. This is normal for humans, we are always subdividing into groups, defining our construction of reality, and then categorizing everyone we meet as either "us" or "them".
Painful as it is for either side to hear, neither is completely right or wrong. One or the other can be more correct on particular issues. It's easier for libertarians to agree with this because we stand with one foot in each camp. If you started out more among left leaning people, then you are in the process of opening your mind to the other side, and it is a process, not a done project. But the other side doesn't often see it that way; they don't accept you until you are all the way over. It's a movie, not a snapshot. They are reacting to the snapshot. And in the snapshot you are, at best, in the no man's land in between sides.
In this particular matter, it's my opinion the right is almost completely correct: this was a political hit job all along, carried out by people who truly believe they are righteous - but they are very wrong, and this is the cause of man's greatest evil: people doing what they believe is right at any cost. Just like the Inquisition torturing you because they truly believed they were saving your soul. These people believe Trump is the next Hitler, and therefore they are fully justified in doing anything to remove him from office. Steingar as much as said so a few months ago.
News flash: I'm not in either "camp". When dealing with professionals like Mueller, I start from the assumption that they probably have good reasons for what they write.
Exactly. Their good reasons are they have painted Trump (and deplorables who voted for him) as the literal Face of Evil. They are on a holy crusade. Every law or moral is sacrificed for the quest. Lying, ruining people's careers, jailing the innocent, all are justified in their mind. When you understand this, their current behavior becomes very clear.
Doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to accept their conclusions, but I first try to understand their reasoning. I don't accuse them of acting with a malign motive without compelling evidence.
If Hillary actually deleted 30,000+ emails from her server when they were demanded by subpoena, OF COURSE it was wrong. And OF COURSE it was wrong to keep classified information on that server. Why would you say that I wouldn't see anything wrong with it?
Do you doubt she did that?
And when have I ever complained about Trump's handling of the economy? Believe me, I was as pleasantly surprised as a lot of people here when I figured my taxes this year, expecting to owe, and getting a sizeable refund instead. And I'm not rich or even close.
Sure, I have problems with Trump... I think his judgment is a bit off, particularly in how he handles controversial issues like race - the Confederate statues brouhaha, etc. I'm not convinced he's taking the right approach playing hardball with our allies, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. The way he talks in circles when answering questions in public also makes me wonder if he's cognitively hitting on all eight.
But there is NO WAY I would support or even vote for any of the far left Dems currently in the 2020 race. And I haven't ruled out voting for Trump to keep one of them out of the White House.
And this is why you are a reasonable person and not a left wing zealot: You connect your tax refund to Trump's tax changes, and you see the improving economy. These realities allow you to consider even voting for him. Therefore you are NOT a religious zealot. A zealot will never allow facts and reality to dissuade him from his course. This is what you see in the far left. You also see it in the far right on other issues. But not on this Mueller investigation. The right is correct on this matter. (IMO)
-
BTW, have you looked at the economy lately, how about the unemployment rate or maybe growth in manufacturing jobs. Didn't Obama tell us those jobs were not coming back no matter what kind of magic wand Trump thought he had. Didn’t Obama also tell us that 1% GDP growth was the new norm?
Yes, because with Obama, even with QUANTITATIVE EASING 1% GDP growth WAS the new norm. I have never seen a President in my life that had that kind of help from the Fed. Who has ever heard or free money? Zero interest rates? Really? And you can't get GDP above an average 1.6%???
Obama liked Solyndra because they were friends of his. He liked Wall Street because they were financial backers and supporters. He liked SEIU, and other UNIONS because they got him votes. All else pfffft!
-
I get it now, if I tell someone, I wish my wife were dead, I’m guilty of attempted murder.
No, you don't get it.
If your wife dies and you have authority over an investigating officer and tell them not to investigate, then you are probably guilty of obstruction, even if she died of natural causes.
I look at the things Trump did objectively and I'm split. What I come back to is that as president, he has enormous authority, but where's line between use of that authority and abuse of it? If the president has authority to do an action (fire Comey for example), then how can he be wrong for using the authority? He either has the right to do it or he doesn't.
-
If your wife dies and you have authority over an investigating officer and tell them not to investigate, then you are probably guilty of obstruction, even if she died of natural causes.
I think there's a slight difference. You tell them not to investigate and they continue to investigate, are you guilty of obstruction? Maybe attempted obstruction, but if the investigation is not obstructed, is there obstruction?
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/mueller_tried_to_entrap_trump.html
Highlights include:
“The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”
I’m sorry, but didn’t Hillary pay her lawyers, Perkins Coie, to pay Fusion GPS, to pay Christopher Steele to pay Russian agents for information to compile a dossier that her campaign could use to steal a presidential election?
When talking of the indictment of the 12 Russians Mueller said, “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.” He added in Clintonesque fashion, “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” (emphasis mine)
A prosecutor does not exonerate. In America, we have the presumption of innocence. A prosecutor either indicts or he doesn’t indict. Yet, according to Mueller, the Russians deserve their presumption of innocence, but the president is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Mueller stated that because of Justice Department guidelines, “Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.” While that may be true, it doesn’t preclude him from determining a crime had been committed in his report, which was his job; and leave it to the attorney general as to whether to indict, which is his job.
What’s more, Mueller told Barr three times that Justice Department guidelines were not the reason he didn’t make a decision on obstruction. We know this, once again, because Barr testified under oath that he did.
Mueller knew indictments for obstruction of justice would never hold up in court. An innocent man screaming. “I’m innocent and this is a witchhunt,” is no more committing obstruction than a guilty man screaming the same thing. Also, an innocent man screaming, “I want that SOB fired” but then who doesn’t fire him is not obstructing either. In addition, the president allowed Mueller to interview any executive officer, never declared executive privilege, or attorney-client privilege, and submitted 1.4 million requested documents.
Failing at entrapping Trump, and because Barr’s summary was controlling the narrative, he had to get the conversation back to impeachment, which is what he did Wednesday. An added benefit was getting Nadler off his back to testify -- he’s betting on the Republicans being too weak-kneed to subpoena him.
It has been pointed out that in smearing Trump while not charging him, Mueller did the same thing Comey did to Hillary Clinton. The difference, however, is that she was guilty of everything Comey said she would not be charged with and Trump is guilty of nothing.
-
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/31/yes-muellers-waffling-obstruction-end-run-around-attorney-general/
Mueller Deliberately Sidestepped Authority to Tar Trump
Mueller’s waffling on obstruction, which “surprised” Attorney General William Barr, was, Goldstein speculates, an end-run around Barr. Two points need to be made here.
One, according to the special counsel regulations, the attorney general is boss. He is the one empowered to decide whether to bring charges and determine next steps in accordance with Justice Department policy.
Two, had Mueller consulted with Barr about his iffy theory, which he was legally obligated to do, Barr could have legitimately quashed it. By avoiding a recommendation, Mueller was able to “make damning insinuations about the criminality of the president’s behavior without taking an ‘investigative or prosecutorial step,’” a move that would have triggered the regulations’ requirement of review.
In other words, Mueller finessed Justice Department oversight in order to get damaging allegations about the president into the public space. Given the political manipulations marking the entire “Russia Hoax,” that Barr was surprised by Mueller’s sleight is no surprise.
But let’s go back to the Dems’ “the republic is burning” rhetoric, newly infused with martyr-like associations with Abraham Lincoln. That rhetoric repeatedly likens Trump’s behavior to Watergate.
Recall that Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski investigated President Richard Nixon for criminal acts, unimpeded by something called “the clear statement rule.” The Mueller apologists blow up the significance of this fact (along with other apparently similar instances when the rule wasn’t applied) with the aim of disposing of the obstacle the rule puts in their path to bringing charges against Trump of obstruction.
But Mueller’s Workaround Doesn’t Cut It
So what is this rule? The clear statement rule holds, not that it is impossible to indict a sitting president, as it is often portrayed, but that constitutional separation-of-powers principles demand that for a president to have exposure to criminal liability, the statute he is accused of violating must explicitly apply itself the president. Otherwise, it can be used against him only if doing so wouldn’t interfere with his exercise the powers granted him under Article II of the Constitution. The obstruction statute is silent in this respect, but Mueller, according to Goldstein, misapplied the rule, resulting in his “odd” analysis.
Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, and two fellow leftist academics have mounted various attacks on the clear statement rule to neutralize it as an obstacle. They maintain that the rule, originally formulated by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in 1995, is wrong because it misconstrues relevant Supreme Court precedent.
Wittes particulary emphasizes alleged historical exceptions to the rule—for example, that Jaworski probed Nixon’s actions for criminality, including in connection with his supervision of the Watergate investigation, an Article II power. This, he asserts, has produced a competing body of law that equally reflects Justice Department rules, policies, and procedures and can serve as a source of counter precedents to gut the clear statement rule.
Both Goldstein and Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law who sides with Goldstein, explain in rebuttal why all that’s irrelevant. If an argument was to be made for overthrowing the rule, they insist, it should’ve been done by Mueller, not after the fact by his apologists. That, of course, didn’t happen.
The Rule Applies, But Mueller Essentially Ignored It
Mueller expressly acknowledged the rule’s applicability. He simply tried to squirm out of it with awkward analogies to private citizens. Even his apologists, Goldstein notes, in trying to improve upon the report, don’t defend Mueller’s workaround.
Moreover, whatever criticisms can be leveled against the rule, it’s Justice Department policy and as such, under the regulations, applies “in robust form to Trump’s actions.” This wasn’t the case before 1992, when the rule had yet to “fully emerge” via the Supreme Court decision Franklin v. Massachusetts and three years later the OLC opinion following and crystallizing Franklin into the rule that has ever since been established DOJ policy. Consequently, Jaworski would’ve had no reason to consider the issues addressed by the rule.
Additionally, Jaworski was operating under a different set of regulations, which didn’t subordinate him to attorney general scrutiny. As a “free agent,” he wasn’t supervised by the Justice Department or bound by its practices, as was Mueller. This, according to Goldstein, weakens the precedential status of his actions.
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-says-he-didnt-agree-with-the-legal-analysis-in-mueller-report-says-it-did-not-reflect-the-views-of-doj
-
-
It's ALL FAUX News. No credibility. I prefer CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NYT, Washpo, AP, Reuters, etc. Now that real NEWS. You RWNJ's are all the same!
-
I think there's a slight difference. You tell them not to investigate and they continue to investigate, are you guilty of obstruction? Maybe attempted obstruction, but if the investigation is not obstructed, is there obstruction?
There is no difference between attempting and doing.
But you would have to do something that would actually obstruct an investigation. In my example, getting rid of Comey would have zero impact on the investigation. Replacing Mueller would have not changed the authority of the special prosecutor's office or impacted their ability to work. One could argue that maybe limiting the investigative scope might, but special prosecutors are not supposed to have unlimited scope, they are for specific purposes.
Additionally, I find it likely that much of what was reported was probably talked about with an advisor because the president never actually did a lot of this stuff. Its not a crime to ask "Can I shut down the investigation". The problem is that the question then gets leaked or reported as actionable and the media's interpretation of it becomes an attempt when it never existed. Desire or asking questions is not criminal, it requires an actual attempt.
-
Azure, this is not directed at you. I think I understand what you are saying.
How can their be obstruction if there was no underlying collusion, nor any laws broken? The basis for Russian Collusion and how they affected the election is still a mystery to me as no voting machines are connected to the internet, nor can they be "hacked".
Was it just social media posts the Russians supposedly made to sway people? I don't get it, but I am not on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat or any other social media.
It’s very simple Anthony.
If this was in Texas in 1875, Trump would be suspected of stealing a horse. Of course the $2,000, two year investigation will find that he did not, in fact steal a horse.
However, he will be charged with collusion for trying to fight the accusers from hanging him from the nearest oak tree.
-
It’s very simple Anthony.
If this was in Texas in 1875, Trump would be suspected of stealing a horse. Of course the $2,000, two year investigation will find that he did not, in fact steal a horse.
However, he will be charged with collusion obstruction for trying to fight the accusers from hanging him from the nearest oak tree.
FTFY.
BTW, spot on observation.
-
It’s very simple Anthony.
If this was in Texas in 1875, Trump would be suspected of stealing a horse. Of course the $2,000, two year investigation will find that he did not, in fact steal a horse.
However, he will be charged with collusion for trying to fight the accusers from hanging him from the nearest oak tree.
Your example doesn't come close to matching the example today. Attempting to flee a lynch mob is not obstruction, it's just common sense.
I think Anthony's question has been answered, but to repeat - an attempt to obstruct investigators is still an attempt even if the event the investigators are looking at reveals no crime. If you're being investigated for your wife's murder and you destroy a bunch of hard drives and smash your cell phones, that is obstruction even if your wife isn't dead.
But again, it requires a discrete action which directly affects the outcome. It would not be obstruction if you asked your lawyer "can I destroy these hard drives?" or even if you said "Hey, I'm destroying these hard drives today", but then didn't actually do it. It must have an outcome.
Democrats are crazy about what they think affects the outcome of an investigation. Apparently to them, the president saying "these guys are being treated unfairly" is a dog whistle meaning "I'll give you a pardon, so don't worry" and is influencing the witness.
-
But again, it requires a discrete action which directly affects the outcome. It would not be obstruction if you asked your lawyer "can I destroy these hard drives?" or even if you said "Hey, I'm destroying these hard drives today", but then didn't actually do it. It must have an outcome.
Hm. Maybe not. Conspiracy to obstruct justice is a thing:
https://finduslaw.com/conspiracy-obstruct-justice-act-42-usc-section-1985-conspiracy-interfere-civil-rights
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, <blah blah blah>
-
You are a rare person with the wonderful ability to apply critical thought, and to thoroughly examine a situation without judgment until you feel you have all the facts and a view of the truth. Unfortunately that makes you a target of both sides. In such a polarized political climate you will be rejected by nearly everyone unless you fit their exact version of reality.
I'm not sure that trying to apply critical thought is that rare - a recent Pew poll found that 38% of Americans identify as politically independent, though to be sure only 10% stood out as truly non-partisan. But that's hardly rare. And I certainly have my biases - one of mine is that when someone is a State or DOJ or judicial system professional with a long career and a sterling reputation, it's a pretty high bar for me to feel comfortable accusing them of bias or unprofessional or improper behavior. That's why during the Kavanaugh hearings, while I thought Blasey Ford should be listened to, I also felt that unless her testimony could be corroborated, it shouldn't derail his confirmation. It's the same way with Comey and now Mueller - it's going to be hard to convince me that either of them acted out of bias against Trump, particularly as Mueller is reported to be a lifelong and registered Republican. Strzok has already met that standard with his texts/emails, but with Mueller all we have is speculation.
Do you doubt she did that?
No. I said IF she did it because we don't REALLY know that she did... but yeah, we know. Either she, or someone she trusted enough to give access to the server, erased those emails. And it was (yeah, I know) a "deplorable" - not to mention criminal - act.
And this is why you are a reasonable person and not a left wing zealot: You connect your tax refund to Trump's tax changes, and you see the improving economy. These realities allow you to consider even voting for him. Therefore you are NOT a religious zealot. A zealot will never allow facts and reality to dissuade him from his course. This is what you see in the far left. You also see it in the far right on other issues. But not on this Mueller investigation. The right is correct on this matter. (IMO)
Could you please explain your reasons for thinking this? Thanks.
-
Your unfettered liberal bias drives you to try and sugar coat your bigotry, azure.
The faculty lounge has derailed your good sense when it comes to intentional blindness of your approved political machine
Nothing new or remotely special about your bigotry.
The entire liberal world spends hours and hours trying to justify their bigotry with high minded speeches like yours.
If mueller, or Comey had the slightest integrity everybody would know it and nobody would need the avalanche of bullshit vomiting out to protect them from prosecution, or derision.
-
I'm not sure that trying to apply critical thought is that rare - a recent Pew poll found that 38% of Americans identify as politically independent, though to be sure only 10% stood out as truly non-partisan. But that's hardly rare. And I certainly have my biases - one of mine is that when someone is a State or DOJ or judicial system professional with a long career and a sterling reputation, it's a pretty high bar for me to feel comfortable accusing them of bias or unprofessional or improper behavior. That's why during the Kavanaugh hearings, while I thought Blasey Ford should be listened to, I also felt that unless her testimony could be corroborated, it shouldn't derail his confirmation. It's the same way with Comey and now Mueller - it's going to be hard to convince me that either of them acted out of bias against Trump, particularly as Mueller is reported to be a lifelong and registered Republican. Strzok has already met that standard with his texts/emails, but with Mueller all we have is speculation.
No. I said IF she did it because we don't REALLY know that she did... but yeah, we know. Either she, or someone she trusted enough to give access to the server, erased those emails. And it was (yeah, I know) a "deplorable" - not to mention criminal - act.
Could you please explain your reasons for thinking this? Thanks.
Have you ever listened to the Comey Presser where he detailed everything?
-
Hm. Maybe not. Conspiracy to obstruct justice is a thing:
https://finduslaw.com/conspiracy-obstruct-justice-act-42-usc-section-1985-conspiracy-interfere-civil-rights
Not the same as asking advice or statement saying you're going to do something.
Planning with another person to commit a crime is conspiracy. Talking about whether or not something is criminal is not.
-
All anyone needs to do is a bit of research on Mueller and his history to understand where he is coming from. Start with his tenure as FBI Director, his mishandling of the Whitey Bulger case, his mishandling of the Anthrax investigation. Then look into his #2 man on the Russia Collusion Investigation, Andrew Weissman.
“Mueller is a republican”. As if that is suppose to clear him. GMAFB
-
Have you ever listened to the Comey Presser where he detailed everything?
If you mean the presser about the Clinton emails, I've read the transcript.
Not sure why you ask.
Anyway my impression was that he went out of his way to give her the benefit of the doubt, particularly on the deleted emails. As I recall, from the pieces they could reconstruct, some of the deleted emails were work-related in contradiction to her claims.
Hard to believe she (or her aides, anyway) didn't know that.
-
“Mueller is a republican”. As if that is suppose to clear him. GMAFB
I never said it "cleared" him. I meant that he didn't seem to have a partisan motive. Doesn't mean there couldn't have been others. But again, I ask for evidence.
And yes, I'm aware that Weissmann was a Clinton supporter. But also, an old colleague and friend of Mueller. Doesn't mean they were politically allied.
-
I never said it "cleared" him. I meant that he didn't seem to have a partisan motive. Doesn't mean there couldn't have been others. But again, I ask for evidence.
And yes, I'm aware that Weissmann was a Clinton supporter. But also, an old colleague and friend of Mueller. Doesn't mean they were politically allied.
Weissman has a long history of legal malfeasance. Why would Mueller, who is supposedly this non biased straight shooter prosecutor hire a guy with Weissman’s background? Then again, why would Mueller hire co attorneys that have such glaring political bias?
But let’s go a step further. Why would Mueller take the SC job going in knowing he was conflicted? After all, had he not been the SC, he could have been considered a witness. A bit of conflict there.
I’ll let Mueller’s background speak for itself.
-
Your example doesn't come close to matching the example today. Attempting to flee a lynch mob is not obstruction, it's just common sense.
I think Anthony's question has been answered, but to repeat - an attempt to obstruct investigators is still an attempt even if the event the investigators are looking at reveals no crime. If you're being investigated for your wife's murder and you destroy a bunch of hard drives and smash your cell phones, that is obstruction even if your wife isn't dead.
But again, it requires a discrete action which directly affects the outcome. It would not be obstruction if you asked your lawyer "can I destroy these hard drives?" or even if you said "Hey, I'm destroying these hard drives today", but then didn't actually do it. It must have an outcome.
Democrats are crazy about what they think affects the outcome of an investigation. Apparently to them, the president saying "these guys are being treated unfairly" is a dog whistle meaning "I'll give you a pardon, so don't worry" and is influencing the witness.
Just to refresh, can you list, with specificity, just how Trump attempted to obstruct investigators? I keep hearing that, but with no evidence.
-
Just to refresh, can you list, with specificity, just how Trump attempted to obstruct investigators? I keep hearing that, but with no evidence.
I will point you at what I previously said, post 53. This is what Mueller reported and I don’t think you can get consensus that it amounts to obstruction. If you want specificity, I am not going to rewrite the Mueller report here for you.
I'll point out what I read
First - Mueller is very carefully saying right now that his office did not indict the president first because they could not. But if you listen to the undertones, Mueller is really saying "yeah, I think he's guilty, but there's nothing I can do about it. It's up to Congress."
The Mueller report lays out Mueller's facts in excruciating detail, but a good summary of what they think is bad can be found at the bottom of page 157, paragraph 2)a) This includes things like attempts to fire Mueller, firing Comey, for Jeff Sessions to unrecuse himself and an attempt to have language changed to limit what was an unlimited investigation. There's more, these are just a few.
So clearly Mueller thinks he's guilty. I suspect a good prosecutor could probably make Trump look really bad. But in the end, I'm not convinced that these things add up to obstruction even when taken together. I don't think they would have had an effect at all on the outcome. I'm pretty sure you'll never convince 12 people of it let alone 67 unless those 12 are all die hard democrats.
-
Just to refresh, can you list, with specificity, just how Trump attempted to obstruct investigators? I keep hearing that, but with no evidence.
Trump didn’t conspire or obstruct anything. He struck back verbally and very justifiably against the real conspiracy: the effort by a cabal of very biased operators using their positions of power to attempt to undo a constitutional election result. If these people aren’t brought to justice the United States as we know it is over. It will signal the left that they can get away with this shit.
-
I don't believe Mueller is objective, nor unbiased. I firmly believe he wanted to find illegal acts by Trump. He couldn't. End of story.
-
I don't believe Mueller is objective, nor unbiased. I firmly believe he wanted to find illegal acts by Trump. He couldn't. End of story.
When someone examines the origin of what's now known as the Mueller Investigation, it is dubious at best. Had Mueller been the unbiased and objective prosecutor that he's been made out to be, the investigation would have never started.
As a country, we cannot have an opposing political faction manufacture "evidence", then use the bogus evidence to invoke a weaponized federal agency into action for pure political reasons.
Remember, this all started under the BHO administration. All evidence presently known indicates members of his administration were deeply involved.
-
I'm not sure that trying to apply critical thought is that rare - a recent Pew poll found that 38% of Americans identify as politically independent, though to be sure only 10% stood out as truly non-partisan. But that's hardly rare. And I certainly have my biases - one of mine is that when someone is a State or DOJ or judicial system professional with a long career and a sterling reputation, it's a pretty high bar for me to feel comfortable accusing them of bias or unprofessional or improper behavior. That's why during the Kavanaugh hearings, while I thought Blasey Ford should be listened to, I also felt that unless her testimony could be corroborated, it shouldn't derail his confirmation. It's the same way with Comey and now Mueller - it's going to be hard to convince me that either of them acted out of bias against Trump, particularly as Mueller is reported to be a lifelong and registered Republican. Strzok has already met that standard with his texts/emails, but with Mueller all we have is speculation.
No. I said IF she did it because we don't REALLY know that she did... but yeah, we know. Either she, or someone she trusted enough to give access to the server, erased those emails. And it was (yeah, I know) a "deplorable" - not to mention criminal - act.
Could you please explain your reasons for thinking this? Thanks.
You don’t have mob mentality. Yes I think that is the minority if not rare. I’m trying to compliment you, just take it. ;D
My reasons for thinking the right is correct in this whole Mueller investigation are that I’ve been following it for two years. It’s what makes logical sense and fits all the facts.
Seriously which to do you find easier to believe? That Trump conspired with Putin to fix the election so he could be president? Or that Trump haters who were shocked when Hillary lost and the world as they knew it was turned upside down tried to make it right again?
Trump didn’t need Putin. All he had to do was pay attention to the people the left has been ignoring. The rust belt, the unemployed, the small business owners, the non-violent prisoners. He correctly identified what the voters have grown to hate about Washington and used that to win.
Those involved in this Russia circus are those disconnected elite and well know it, and feel extremely threatened that an outsider beat their sure to win candidate. They didn’t see it coming and felt a loosening of their grip on power, and reacted by trying to find a way to destroy Trump.
You needn’t go any further than the leftist Michael Moore to know why Trump won. Moore predicted his win, and for the reasons I said above, before the election, and long before anyone thought to accuse Trump of conspiring with Russia. How Trump won is pretty clear.
But those who stay in the delusional bubble can’t make sense of it, and can’t accept the result. There is no better blatant evidence of that mindset than the strzzzok page texts. “Trump can’t possibly win but if for some reason god forbid he does, we will undo it somehow.”
They said that before the election. And then the whole investigation began - this hangs together logically. Much more believable than Trump meeting up with Putin and somehow manipulating the Electoral College.
-
Foremost is the absurdity that Putin wanted Trump to win. Why would Putin want a stronger America? Obama had bled America’s strength nearly dry in terms of unity, patriotism, economic growth; even the military was diminishing under Obama.
Why would Putin want that to stop?
The Mueller Report even states that Putin expressed concern after the 2016 election that he didn’t know any of Trump’s people or Trump himself, so in terms of working with Trump, all was new.
-
Foremost is the absurdity that Putin wanted Trump to win. Why would Putin want a stronger America? Obama had bled America’s strength nearly dry in terms of unity, patriotism, economic growth; even the military was diminishing under Obama.
Why would Putin want that to stop?
The Mueller Report even states that Putin expressed concern after the 2016 election that he didn’t know any of Trump’s people or Trump himself, so in terms of working with Trump, all was new.
That is the prevailing logic but I like to think Putin secretly did want Trump to win, for the simple reason he would be dealing with a logical, straightforward male, and not the hot mess that is Hillary. He would have to stomach conversations and visits with that twit and I don't think he was looking forward to it.
-
Okay Rush, compliment accepted <blush>. Seriously, I totally agree with you on every point regarding collusion. I never believed that Trump conspired with Putin or anyone else from Russia and would have been shocked had Mueller found evidence pointing in that direction. (I was less sure about Manafort and others connected with his campaign, though.) I was referring to the widespread belief on the right that Mueller's handling of the obstruction phase was a political hit job. The one thing I keep coming back to is the statement about clearing Trump if he could, since as others have pointed out that is not a prosecutor's job (nor the SC's as I understand it, though I could be wrong). But to me that is weak evidence. It's equally possible that he found enough acts by Trump that add up to a possible (if equivocal) case that he felt duty bound to lay out the facts.
As for the fact that he hand picked a pit bull to lead his team (Weissmann) and had other Democrats as well, my devil's advocate position is that maybe he didn't want to be accused of bias in the other direction, should he end up exonerating Trump completely.
But maybe there are other facts that I'm unaware of.
-
Okay Rush, compliment accepted <blush>. Seriously, I totally agree with you on every point regarding collusion. I never believed that Trump conspired with Putin or anyone else from Russia and would have been shocked had Mueller found evidence pointing in that direction. (I was less sure about Manafort and others connected with his campaign, though.) I was referring to the widespread belief on the right that Mueller's handling of the obstruction phase was a political hit job. The one thing I keep coming back to is the statement about clearing Trump if he could, since as others have pointed out that is not a prosecutor's job (nor the SC's as I understand it, though I could be wrong). But to me that is weak evidence. It's equally possible that he found enough acts by Trump that add up to a possible (if equivocal) case that he felt duty bound to lay out the facts.
As for the fact that he hand picked a pit bull to lead his team (Weissmann) and had other Democrats as well, my devil's advocate position is that maybe he didn't want to be accused of bias in the other direction, should he end up exonerating Trump completely.
But maybe there are other facts that I'm unaware of.
Oh okay, I see what you’re saying. It’s not just Mueller’s handling of the obstruction phase that the right believes is a political hit job, the entire ball of wax is a hit job from the start. I think you’re giving Mueller too much credit. Way, way, way back in the beginning I did the same thing; when the story first came out about the FISA warrants, I defended them as necessary to unmask potential operatives, but as the details came out, specifically that the warrants were based on a dossier paid for by Clinton and containing unverified information, it became very evident that that part at least was absolutely a political hit job. As more and more information came out I began to connect the dots, it becomes apparent the whole thing is, everything they’ve done since the election, casting a net way wider than they were supposed to, charging other people with process crimes and threatening family members to get people to “sing or compose”. Mueller himself is in it up to his neck. When you ask what facts I base that on, I don’t know what to say other than: Everything. It’s the biggest abuse of power in the history of our country. If you think there are other facts you are unaware of, that’s probably true if you don’t see that. (That it’s the biggest abuse of power scandal in the history of this country.)
-
Oh okay, I see what you’re saying. It’s not just Mueller’s handling of the obstruction phase that the right believes is a political hit job, the entire ball of wax is a hit job from the start. I think you’re giving Mueller too much credit. Way, way, way back in the beginning I did the same thing; when the story first came out about the FISA warrants, I defended them as necessary to unmask potential operatives, but as the details came out, specifically that the warrants were based on a dossier paid for by Clinton and containing unverified information, it became very evident that that part at least was absolutely a political hit job. As more and more information came out I began to connect the dots, it becomes apparent the whole thing is, everything they’ve done since the election, casting a net way wider than they were supposed to, charging other people with process crimes and threatening family members to get people to “sing or compose”. Mueller himself is in it up to his neck. When you ask what facts I base that on, I don’t know what to say other than: Everything. It’s the biggest abuse of power in the history of our country. If you think there are other facts you are unaware of, that’s probably true if you don’t see that. (That it’s the biggest abuse of power scandal in the history of this country.)
Fair enough, thanks.
-
I was referring to the widespread belief on the right that Mueller's handling of the obstruction phase was a political hit job.
Saying it was a hit job is not saying Mueller was the hit man. He's really just a pawn in the Democrat's bigger game.
Ultimately this came about because Trump opened his mouth and gave his enemies ammunition.
-
Saying it was a hit job is not saying Mueller was the hit man. He's really just a pawn in the Democrat's bigger game.
Actually, I think Lucifer and others here are saying exactly that - that Mueller was motivated by political bias. I agree 100% that Mueller played right into the Dems' hands, I'm just questioning whether he was a willing hit man.
Ultimately this came about because Trump opened his mouth and gave his enemies ammunition.
Or, again playing devil's advocate, it came about because Trump opened his mouth and unnerved some by-the-book players who were afraid he was going to run roughshod over the rule of law. If I was the straight shooter Boy Scout that Comey presents himself as (and I'm not saying that he is), my spidey-sense would be all a-tingle when Trump asked me to let the case against Flynn go, and then to make matters worse, asked for my loyalty to him personally.
Against that picture we have the lies and procedural missteps made in the FISA applications. SOMEONE was not playing by the book, it's just not clear to me who, and more importantly, why.
-
You have to understand that the Democrats believe they won and still want to be in control of everything. Witness all the Democrats that are advising Iran on how to deal with Trump and wait him out until a Democrat is back in power. Why isn't that treason?
-
You have to understand that the Democrats believe they won and still want to be in control of everything. Witness all the Democrats that are advising Iran on how to deal with Trump and wait him out until a Democrat is back in power. Why isn't that treason?
Kerry violated the Logan Act with Iran. I think the entire Russia hoax was a veiled coup attempt, and an act of Sedition at least. If people had done this in years past, there would have been firing squads. Now, we have a Media that is for the most part complicit with the Democrats, so neither the facts, nor any outcry is generated. Nothing happens without the Media pushing it. Watergate happened because it was a Republican and the Media created the controversy over it.
-
Kerry violated the Logan Act with Iran. I think the entire Russia hoax was a veiled coup attempt, and an act of Sedition at least. If people had done this in years past, there would have been firing squads. Now, we have a Media that is for the most part complicit with the Democrats, so neither the facts, nor any outcry is generated. Nothing happens without the Media pushing it. Watergate happened because it was a Republican and the Media created the controversy over it.
It's a clear violation, but good luck prosecuting him for it, no one has ever been convicted under that law.
BTW I knew about Kerry, but this article claims there were others from the Obama administration too, though it doesn't name names.
https://www.infowars.com/former-obama-officials-caught-advising-iran-on-how-defeat-trumps-foreign-policy-report/
I'm not sure they're doing it because they believe they should have won, though. France and Germany are working to undermine Trump's strategy as well. It's a common belief that the JCPOA has been more successful than any alternative deal Trump can force them to accept. This likely has more to do with policy than revenge for 2016, with geopolitics rather than domestic politics.
(Which doesn't excuse violating the Logan Act of course.)
-
Trump didn’t ... obstruct anything.
Like I've said before, I think there's no chance of getting 12 people to agree that he did unless they're all Democrats.
However, the office of the president has an enormous amount of power and he can influence without intending to. I understand the argument the Democrats are making, I just reject their conclusions. I don't believe the president ever had an intention to shut down the investigation out of selfish motives, I think he wanted it done because he sincerely believed that it was a waste of the governments time and the people's focus. But, once there's a scandal, nobody wants to talk about anything else. How much good stuff didn't get done because the media kept blasting stuff about Mueller.
-
I will point you at what I previously said, post 53. This is what Mueller reported and I don’t think you can get consensus that it amounts to obstruction. If you want specificity, I am not going to rewrite the Mueller report here for you.
Yea, I read that, but found nothing that could possibly violate the law. A president may exercise his Article II powers without violating any laws enacted by the legislative branch. Further, the DOJ is not an independent fourth branch of government. We only have 3 branches, and the DOJ, AG, and FBI all fall under the executive branch.
I’m not an attorney, but I have a deep understanding of the Constitution. I’ve also heard true Constitutional scholars like Alan Dershowitz say exactly what I’ve said.
-
Like I've said before, I think there's no chance of getting 12 people to agree that he did unless they're all Democrats.
However, the office of the president has an enormous amount of power and he can influence without intending to. I understand the argument the Democrats are making, I just reject their conclusions. I don't believe the president ever had an intention to shut down the investigation out of selfish motives, I think he wanted it done because he sincerely believed that it was a waste of the governments time and the people's focus. But, once there's a scandal, nobody wants to talk about anything else. How much good stuff didn't get done because the media kept blasting stuff about Mueller.
I think the truth is a little darker than that. I think he was also motivated by fear of the zealots in the DOJ, that they would find something or other to trump up (no pun intended) a case against him. I do think he was afraid it would bring down his presidency, and in that sense I think he also had selfish motives, in addition to what you said. The irony is that his clumsy attempts to take control of the investigation out of paranoia are really the only acts he committed that even Mueller could pin on him as possibly amounting to a criminal case. And I doubt even a highly biased jury, after weighing the facts, would unanimously agree that Trump had corrupt intent. The case against him is, was, and probably always will be, equivocal, and under our system it should take more than that to convict someone, either in the courtroom or in the Senate.
-
What clumsy attempts do you think he did? Or are you falling for the line that wanting something done or asking if it's legal amounts to an attempt?
What exactly do that you think the president did which actually impacted the investigation?
-
I think the truth is a little darker than that. I think he was also motivated by fear of the zealots in the DOJ, that they would find something or other to trump up (no pun intended) a case against him. I do think he was afraid it would bring down his presidency, and in that sense I think he also had selfish motives, in addition to what you said. The irony is that his clumsy attempts to take control of the investigation out of paranoia are really the only acts he committed that even Mueller could pin on him as possibly amounting to a criminal case. And I doubt even a highly biased jury, after weighing the facts, would unanimously agree that Trump had corrupt intent. The case against him is, was, and probably always will be, equivocal, and under our system it should take more than that to convict someone, either in the courtroom or in the Senate.
He has always been, verbally, a no holds barred bull in a china shop. It's very refreshing.
-
What clumsy attempts do you think he did? Or are you falling for the line that wanting something done or asking if it's legal amounts to an attempt?
What exactly do that you think the president did which actually impacted the investigation?
What he did is all laid out in Mueller v2, I'm not going to go into all the details here. And it was clumsy precisely *because* it had no impact on the investigation. But as Mueller discussed, it doesn't necessarily have to actually have an impact in order to be obstruction. In one interpretation it's enough that you can reasonably expect it to, and being POTUS you can argue that he had reason to expect that it would.
I'm not saying it WAS obstruction. I'm not falling for any line. I'm saying that by one reading, there might be a case to be made. I also said it was an equivocal case, and that he wouldn't, and shouldn't, be convicted.
-
As you're aware if you read this thread, that's the answer I gave when someone wanted to know everything Mueller reports.
How about just one? I don't care if he "encouraged witnesses by signaling pardons" or if he asked Sessions to unrecuse himself. What is one single thing that Trump did that you would call a clumsy attempt to take control of the investigation?
The irony is that his clumsy attempts to take control of the investigation out of paranoia are really the only acts he committed that even Mueller could pin on him as possibly amounting to a criminal case.
Time to put the chips on the table...
-
How about just one? I don't care if he "encouraged witnesses by signaling pardons" or if he asked Sessions to unrecuse himself. What is one single thing that Trump did that you would call a clumsy attempt to take control of the investigation?
One single thing? There was a list of them, as I said. But the one that stands out most is probably his directing McGahn to try to persuade the AG to remove the SC, and then later trying to get McGahn to deny that he had done that.
Nothing that he did had an impact on the investigation, not a lasting one anyway (firing Comey might have slowed it down, but not much). If you believe that to be obstruction an act has to actually succeed in interfering, then nothing I can say will persuade you. All of his attempts were dismal failures. But he did try.
And that's as far as I'm going to go down this line of discussion. Any farther and people are going to start coming on with the usual ad hominems, accusing me of liberal bias and saying that I have it in for Trump and think he should be impeached or prosecuted, which is NOT, NOT what I am saying at all. I am only saying that Trump did things that by some readings of the law, could amount to a (weak) case for obstruction, as discussed in Mueller v2. I think it would be a waste of time to try to make that case, and more importantly, it would be a distraction and a circus that neither Trump nor the country needs at this time.
-
One single thing? There was a list of them, as I said. But the one that stands out most is probably his directing McGahn to try to persuade the AG to remove the SC, and then later trying to get McGahn to deny that he had done that.
So here's what I found by researching this incident. And please correct me if I'm wrong. White House Counsel McGahn testified that Trump told him to try to persuade the Attorney General to fire Mueller. McGahn refused to do that. Trump denied that he asked McGahn to do this. There is no other evidence that Trump directed McGahn to ask AG to fire Mueller.
So, without evidence that this actually occurred, X asks Y to ask Z to fire Q. Y refuses. X denies the incident. And that's obstruction?
-
So here's what I found by researching this incident. And please correct me if I'm wrong. White House Counsel McGahn testified that Trump told him to try to persuade the Attorney General to fire Mueller. McGahn refused to do that. Trump denied that he asked McGahn to do this. There is no other evidence that Trump directed McGahn to ask AG to fire Mueller.
So, without evidence that this actually occurred, X asks Y to ask Z to fire Q. Y refuses. X denies the incident. And that's obstruction?
Take it a step further. Why would the President ask a personal attorney to fire anyone? The President runs the executive branch, the AG works directly for him. And in turn, anyone in the DoJ works for the President. So, if the President really wanted Mueller fired, all he had to do is draft a termination letter and sign it, end of discussion.
And now it's coming to light that Mueller and company had been altering evidence (Dowd conversation with Flynn's attorney). As you show above, what McGahn says is not what the President said. Was McGahn's testimony also altered?
-
One single thing? There was a list of them, as I said. But the one that stands out most is probably his directing McGahn to try to persuade the AG to remove the SC, and then later trying to get McGahn to deny that he had done that.
Nothing that he did had an impact on the investigation, not a lasting one anyway (firing Comey might have slowed it down, but not much). If you believe that to be obstruction an act has to actually succeed in interfering, then nothing I can say will persuade you. All of his attempts were dismal failures. But he did try.
And that's as far as I'm going to go down this line of discussion. Any farther and people are going to start coming on with the usual ad hominems, accusing me of liberal bias and saying that I have it in for Trump and think he should be impeached or prosecuted, which is NOT, NOT what I am saying at all. I am only saying that Trump did things that by some readings of the law, could amount to a (weak) case for obstruction, as discussed in Mueller v2. I think it would be a waste of time to try to make that case, and more importantly, it would be a distraction and a circus that neither Trump nor the country needs at this time.
It was the firing of Comey that caused an SP to be appointed
-
It was the firing of Comey that caused an SP to be appointed
That firing was prompted and approved by DAG Rod Rosenstein.
-
So here's what I found by researching this incident. And please correct me if I'm wrong. White House Counsel McGahn testified that Trump told him to try to persuade the Attorney General to fire Mueller. McGahn refused to do that. Trump denied that he asked McGahn to do this. There is no other evidence that Trump directed McGahn to ask AG to fire Mueller.
So, without evidence that this actually occurred, X asks Y to ask Z to fire Q. Y refuses. X denies the incident. And that's obstruction?
The only thing you're missing is that McGahn also said that Trump pressured him to corroborate his (Trump's) denial. Early 2018. This is on p. 5-6 of Mueller v2.
It all hinges on McGahn's credibility. I said it was a weak case. Of course there were several other acts that Mueller listed as possibly pointing to obstruction. I have no doubt that he did many of those things, but I would have a hard time saying his conduct met the "corrupt intent" element.
And with that, I've said what I wanted to on the subject, so take it from here.
-
It all hinges on McGahn's credibility. I said it was a weak case. Of course there were several other acts that Mueller listed as possibly pointing to obstruction. I have no doubt that he did many of those things, but I would have a hard time saying his conduct met the "corrupt intent" element.
And with that, I've said what I wanted to on the subject, so take it from here.
Totally. I think that there was no corrupt intent, but rather an unthinking lashing out at being unfairly railroaded. He is not used to be attacked from all sides with such horrible ferocity, with lies being spread unchallenged by a complicit media, and on and on. He did what I think we all would do in that situation. Not smart, but also not corrupt.
-
Totally. I think that there was no corrupt intent, but rather an unthinking lashing out at being unfairly railroaded. He is not used to be attacked from all sides with such horrible ferocity, with lies being spread unchallenged by a complicit media, and on and on. He did what I think we all would do in that situation. Not smart, but also not corrupt.
Very well put. As I see it, he has been acting with incredible restraint under the circumstances.
-
I never thought Super Callous Fragile Ego Extra Braggadocios colluded with Russia or intended to do anything illegal at all. He might be a horrid POTUS, but for the most part he's a fairly honest one and while he does shoot from the hip he doesn't seem to be hatching conspiracies. He might traffic in them, but I doubt he's tried to start any. I think to have a criminal charge like contempt there has to intent, and I don't think there ever was any.
My real fear is if the Democrats wrest control of the Senate away from the GOP they'll try impeachment anyway. I hope not, but I could easily see it going that way. A that point it really does become a politically driven witch-hunt. I've long said the only good way to be rid of the Mango Mussolini is the ballot box.
-
I never thought Super Callous Fragile Ego Extra Braggadocios colluded with Russia or intended to do anything illegal at all. He might be a horrid POTUS,
What has he done to make him a "horrid POTUS"? Tax cuts? Historically low unemployment? Wanting a secure border and to stop the flow of ILLEGAL aliens? Pro business stance? Allowing our energy resources to be used more freely? Removing the penalty from Obamacare? Putting trade deals in place that are more fair to the U.S.? What exactly?
I've long said the only good way to be rid of the Mango Mussolini is the ballot box.
Agreed. If we get Biden, Bernie or anyone else from the Democrat clown car, be prepared for job and economy killing policies, poor housing markets, high inflation, poor stock markets, and unemployment going up from its current historic low.