Mueller investigation

[barbos]

Yeah guys, sorry, but Trump wins this one. It was bad strategy to put so much hope into the Mueller investigation to begin with. But Trump is going to be able to spin this exactly as he needs to.

My feeling exactly. Had the left media kept their expectations lower, Mueller report would have had some shock value. Now it's more like "This is all??!!"

 

[James Brown]

The media should have covered the Mueller investigation with the same measured restraint and calmness that they used for investigations into Hillary's e-mail servers.

 

[RavenSky]

Meanwhile, from the White House:

A senior White House official downplayed Mueller’s comments today, saying that his statement did little to add new information to what was already known about the probe.

“It was news one month ago,” the official said.

I agree... Mueller didn't add anything new. What he did was reiterate things like, the Report doesn't clear Trump of crimes and that Congress should deal with Trump's actions.

On the issue of whether the next step is impeachment, Trump aides don’t believe that Mueller did more than repeat what was in the report, the official said.

“Nothingburger,” is how the official described it.

They are seriously sticking with the "Nothingburger"?

"A senior White house official" might be, but Trump is having a Twitter meltdown about it.

 

[TV and credit cards]

"If we had confidence the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
[h=2][/h]

Mueller should have stomped his foot three times after saying this.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yeah guys, sorry, but Trump wins this one. It was bad strategy to put so much hope into the Mueller investigation to begin with. But Trump is going to be able to spin this exactly as he needs to.

My feeling exactly. Had the left media kept their expectations lower, Mueller report would have had some shock value. Now it's more like "This is all??!!"

I called this in January.

I dunno, I just get the feeling that everyone is so used to the idea by now that nothing will come of it. It'll be acknowledged as a disgrace and everything, but people will just move on and accept whatever narrative is provided.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I called this in January.

I dunno, I just get the feeling that everyone is so used to the idea by now that nothing will come of it. It'll be acknowledged as a disgrace and everything, but people will just move on and accept whatever narrative is provided.

And you’re both wrong. Or, rather, hopelessly hyperbolic. No one that matters, however, has just moved on and accepted whatever narrative is provided, including some Republicans (one of which, so far, has openly called for Trump’s impeachment).

 

[Angry Floof]

Right wing: "What? What? You're telling me there's bad stuff about the President in Mueller's report? I haven't heard this. Fox News hasn't mentioned it at all. What's going on here?"

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Tom Coleman Calls For Trump Impeachment (May 24, 2019):

A former longtime Republican congressman called Friday for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, who he said is an "illegitimate president."

"I'm calling for impeachment now because the Mueller report is out, and in it (special counsel Robert Mueller) describes 10 obstruction of justice charges that he could not bring because of a Department of Justice rule and regulation that says you can't indict a sitting president -- that's (reason) number one," former Rep. Tom Coleman, who represented Missouri for nearly two decades, told CNN's Erin Burnett on "OutFront."

"Number two, I believe this is an illegitimate President because he welcomed help and influence from the Russians in his campaign," he said. "For example, his (campaign) chairman Paul Manafort met with a Russian intelligence asset in New York and shared with him their polling information and a strategy on how to win the Midwestern states."

Coleman continued: "It's wrong and it needs to be handled and looked at by the Congress because I believe it's an impeachable offense."

The former congressman, who also made the impeachment case Wednesday in a Kansas City Star op-ed, told Burnett he believes Trump is "dismantling our democracy every day brick-by-brick (through) his actions, his lies, his abuse of power."

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think Pelosi is wrong - Trump doesn't want impeachment.

What he doesn't want is the damning details from Muellers report splashed all over television day after day. If that were to happen, how many GOP senators may change their minds?

Does initiating a House impeachment inquiry mean impeachment is inevitable? I dunno, but would guess not. If they did Benghazi style hearings for months but don't impeach, is that worse than not holding an inquiry? I don't think so.

 

[PyramidHead]

Guys, we've seen all this before. When Bush II was President, we heard the same excuses. It's Pelosi playing the long game, it's a master plan, it's chess... it's not. There's no master plan. We're living in the outcome of the long game: conservative Republican hellworld

 

[Angry Floof]

I agree, she's totally wrong, and I'm really disgusted by whatever this little flirting game she's playing with a fucking conscienceless dictator wannabe who has already caused tremendous damage to our country and caused suffering and death to many. How many kids does she want to see die in captivity at the border? How many black, gay, trans people, women is she willing to see being abused and killed before she stops playing this crazy stupid game? I've always admired Pelosi, even in times when I disagreed with her, but she's lost her fucking mind and I'm pissed.

 

[blastula]

Does initiating a House impeachment inquiry mean impeachment is inevitable? I dunno, but would guess not.

It's not, but Pelosi acts like it is, and also acts like you have to know Republicans will agree with impeachment before starting proceedings. She's really blowing it, maybe even blowing the next election too. She thinks she's a master at winning elections just because they won in 2018, ignoring how many she lost before that.

 

[blastula]

They could have and should have started impeachment proceedings before the Mueller report came out. Not doing it even now is political and moral malfeasance.

That letter from prosecutors now has over 1,000 signatures.

Former Federal Prosecutors Renew Statement That Trump Would Have Been Indicted If he Weren’t President

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does initiating a House impeachment inquiry mean impeachment is inevitable? I dunno, but would guess not.

It's not, but Pelosi acts like it is, and also acts like you have to know Republicans will agree with impeachment before starting proceedings. She's really blowing it, maybe even blowing the next election too. She thinks she's a master at winning elections just because they won in 2018, ignoring how many she lost before that.

It is a huge risk. Remember the Democrats got trashed after passing a health care bill because of death panels.

The GOP will stop at nothing to win these days. They have resorted to subliminal messages (bureaucrats decide), character assassination of Vietnam veterans (McCain and Kerry), all out lying on ACA from death panels to the Dems wanted to end Medicare.

Impeaching Trump won’t end in his conviction in the Senate. McConnell outright stole a SCOTUS seat. The GOP is corrupted and impeaching Trump will go their route because America will grow tired of ‘Russia’.

This fucker has to go, but without a bipartisan impeachment, the GOP will go nuclear. It really sucks when the GOP act like a party of sociopaths.

 

[Angry Floof]

Does initiating a House impeachment inquiry mean impeachment is inevitable? I dunno, but would guess not.

It's not, but Pelosi acts like it is, and also acts like you have to know Republicans will agree with impeachment before starting proceedings. She's really blowing it, maybe even blowing the next election too. She thinks she's a master at winning elections just because they won in 2018, ignoring how many she lost before that.

It is a huge risk. Remember the Democrats got trashed after passing a health care bill because of death panels.

The GOP will stop at nothing to win these days. They have resorted to subliminal messages (bureaucrats decide), character assassination of Vietnam veterans (McCain and Kerry), all out lying on ACA from death panels to the Dems wanted to end Medicare.

Impeaching Trump won’t end in his conviction in the Senate. McConnell outright stole a SCOTUS seat. The GOP is corrupted and impeaching Trump will go their route because America will grow tired of ‘Russia’.

This fucker has to go, but without a bipartisan impeachment, the GOP will go nuclear. It really sucks when the GOP act like a party of sociopaths.

I'm not convinced of that. Nixon was more popular than Trump and impeachment had much less support at the time. And the GOP did not stop the blue wave in the mid terms. If anything, the past year and the Mueller report have further galvanized Democrat voters.

Meanwhile, immediate impeachment will do two things that are severely needed. It will lay out the evidence and witness testimony in a clear and methodical fashion for the American people, not muddied by the media and social commentary, and that could take months in the House and the Senate won't be able to do shit about it. It would also send a clear message that ant-democratic, lawless powers will be held accountable. What Pelosi is doing is weak and disgusting, and it's helping to pave a path to theocracy in the U.S.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the biggest problem with impeachment is the GOP will set the standard of impeachment at "Collusion with the Russians that hacked into the email servers". Anything else won't count (unlike their position on impeachment under Clinton which wandered around more than a Jeffy Family Circus comic). And ultimately, the Report says that that specific collusion didn't happen. They'll stick to that standard and be done with it.

- Income tax or insurance fraud? That's in the past.
- Obstruction of Justice? Mueller didn't say Trump obstructed justice.
- Wire and banking fraud, campaign finance violations? Mueller didn't say that was a crime.
- Emoluments Clause violation? SCOTUS needs to review it.

Otherwise, everything else is based on obstruction of an investigation of no known crime. Starting an impeachment trial to find a crime can easily be manipulated into saying it is a witch hunt and Americans will buy it at that point... much like they bought the lies in '10 and '16. Trump could be proven to have insider traded on his tariffs announcements, shorting the market... and the GOP wouldn't care.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think the biggest problem with impeachment is the GOP will set the standard of impeachment at "Collusion with the Russians that hacked into the email servers".

Well, the "standard" is "high crimes and misdemeanors." There is no such crime as "collusion," so the crime will be obstruction of justice, primarily. And it won't be the GOP that gets to set anything. It's up to the House to prepare and affirm articles of impeachment. The Senate then hosts the trial.

Otherwise, everything else is based on obstruction of an investigation of no known crime.

Obstruction is the crime. It doesn't matter the motives.

- Income tax or insurance fraud? That's in the past.

There is no statute of limitations on either that I am aware of. Regardless, it was still a crime.

- Obstruction of Justice? Mueller didn't say Trump obstructed justice.

Yes, he did. In legal terms, he affirmed it in the negative. Here is an excellent piece on Vox the explains it: The scientific maneuver Mueller used that implicates the president.

- Wire and banking fraud, campaign finance violations? Mueller didn't say that was a crime.

Not quite. He said that courts had not found uncompensated opposition research to be a "thing of value" and that he didn't find Kushner and Trump Jr knew that accepting such information would be a crime and that members of the Trump team had “general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct" (which Mueller claimed was a requirement to charge them) and that “the investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban" and:

“[L]ater efforts to prevent disclosure of the nature of the June 9 meeting” mostly came from people that did not attend the meeting and has more to do with “avoid[ing] political consequences rather than any prior knowledge of illegality.”

Basically, he found them too ignorant to understand what they were doing was illegal and subsequent actions were not intended to cover up a willful act, but instead were done to cover their asses politically.

I don't agree (nor do others), but that was the reasoning and:

Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at the Campaign Legal Center, said the FEC could still pursue penalties against Trump Jr. for the Trump Tower meeting. He explained that while Mueller couldn’t determine willfulness of Trump Jr. or the value of the information, that doesn’t prevent the FEC from acting.

Mueller often states in the report that it was difficult to discern intent and knowledge of activity, which he then uses to argue generally that it's up to Congress to decide such matters, not him. It's possible (and I would argue highly likely) that he did this deliberately as part of the strategy to get around Barr and the fact that Mueller certainly knew that Barr would automatically dismiss or redact anything that hit too close to Trump directly.

That, or, he legitimately did not find that these idiots knew what they were doing.

- Emoluments Clause violation? SCOTUS needs to review it.

Congress could still easily act on this without SCOTUS.

Regardless and no matter what, it's doubtful a super majority of Congress will convict, but that really isn't the issue. The issue is fully investigating the truth.

 

[Angry Floof]

I think one of the biggest problems with impeachment is that millions of Americans have simply not been exposed to much in the way of facts. As I posted earlier, now that Fox is saying maybe he's not so innocent, their viewers are surprised. Two years of Trump publicly committing crimes, two years of coverage of the investigation, and they are surprised that Fox is now saying maybe it turns out the Mueller report looks bad for Trump after all. Impeachment will mean months of laying out the evidence and testimony publicly, where all Americans can see and hear it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, the "standard" is "high crimes and misdemeanors." There is no such crime as "collusion," so the crime will be obstruction of justice, primarily. And it won't be the GOP that gets to set anything. It's up to the House to prepare and affirm articles of impeachment. The Senate then hosts the trial.

I think you are dreadfully ignoring the GOP's ability to end this before it even begins.

Obstruction is the crime. It doesn't matter the motives.

Legally, at least in court, you must prove the action by the person were intended to obstruct an investigation, motive is extremely important. Granted, in an impeachment trial, these sorts of things aren't quite as important.

- Income tax or insurance fraud? That's in the past.

There is no statute of limitations on either that I am aware of. Regardless, it was still a crime.

- Obstruction of Justice? Mueller didn't say Trump obstructed justice.

Yes, he did. In legal terms, he affirmed it in the negative. Here is an excellent piece on Vox the explains it: The scientific maneuver Mueller used that implicates the president.

- Wire and banking fraud, campaign finance violations? Mueller didn't say that was a crime.

Not quite. He said that courts had not found uncompensated opposition research to be a "thing of value" and that he didn't find Kushner and Trump Jr knew that accepting such information would be a crime and that members of the Trump team had “general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct" (which Mueller claimed was a requirement to charge them) and that “the investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban" and:

“[L]ater efforts to prevent disclosure of the nature of the June 9 meeting” mostly came from people that did not attend the meeting and has more to do with “avoid[ing] political consequences rather than any prior knowledge of illegality.”

Basically, he found them too ignorant to understand what they were doing was illegal and subsequent actions were not intended to cover up a willful act, but instead were done to cover their asses politically.

I don't agree (nor do others), but that was the reasoning and:

Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at the Campaign Legal Center, said the FEC could still pursue penalties against Trump Jr. for the Trump Tower meeting. He explained that while Mueller couldn’t determine willfulness of Trump Jr. or the value of the information, that doesn’t prevent the FEC from acting.

Mueller often states in the report that it was difficult to discern intent and knowledge of activity, which he then uses to argue generally that it's up to Congress to decide such matters, not him. It's possible (and I would argue highly likely) that he did this deliberately as part of the strategy to get around Barr and the fact that Mueller certainly knew that Barr would automatically dismiss or redact anything that hit too close to Trump directly.

That, or, he legitimately did not find that these idiots knew what they were doing.

- Emoluments Clause violation? SCOTUS needs to review it.

Congress could still easily act on this without SCOTUS.

Regardless and no matter what, it's doubtful a super majority of Congress will convict, but that really isn't the issue. The issue is fully investigating the truth.

You are operating in a theoretical world here, where the GOP is acting a bit more like in the 70s with Nixon. This isn't that party, they have become hyper partisan and will stop at nothing to obstruct impeachment, regardless how much Trump has earned it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think one of the biggest problems with impeachment is that millions of Americans have simply not been exposed to much in the way of facts. As I posted earlier, now that Fox is saying maybe he's not so innocent, their viewers are surprised. Two years of Trump publicly committing crimes, two years of coverage of the investigation, and they are surprised that Fox is now saying maybe it turns out the Mueller report looks bad for Trump after all. Impeachment will mean months of laying out the evidence and testimony publicly, where all Americans can see and hear it.

And America is really starting to get tired of it. This is why Barr's initial statement was crucial. It sets what America will believe.