Mueller investigation

[TV and credit cards]

Knowing his findings would not bring unity to impeach, Mueller gave us the next best thing, the lack of a conclusion further clouding this presidency. So no Donald, we will not move on now. You're going to have to act up again in an effort to detract us from this ongoing investigation.

 

[zorq]

No, Muller found plenty of solid evidence for obstruction that could have easily gone to court.*

He refused to recommend prosecution because he was advised that it was legally not an option to prosecute a sitting president. That's a role reserved for congress.

That the evidence wasn't conclusive wasn't at the crux of Mueller's decision not to prosecute, according to his report. The special counsel, even if he had wanted to, couldn't prosecute a sitting president.
"This Office accepted (an internal Justice Department) legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction," Mueller wrote, citing the Office of Legal Counsel policy. Even setting OLC aside, Mueller added, "We recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/obstruction-charge-trump-mueller/index.html

 

[barbos]

No, Muller found plenty of solid evidence for obstruction that could have easily gone to court.*

He refused to recommend prosecution because he was advised that it was legally not an option to prosecute a sitting president. That's a role reserved for congress.

I am sure Congress democrats will ask Mueller about that during his hearings

 

[James Madison]

No, Muller found plenty of solid evidence for obstruction that could have easily gone to court.*

He refused to recommend prosecution because he was advised that it was legally not an option to prosecute a sitting president. That's a role reserved for congress.

That the evidence wasn't conclusive wasn't at the crux of Mueller's decision not to prosecute, according to his report. The special counsel, even if he had wanted to, couldn't prosecute a sitting president.
"This Office accepted (an internal Justice Department) legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction," Mueller wrote, citing the Office of Legal Counsel policy. Even setting OLC aside, Mueller added, "We recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/obstruction-charge-trump-mueller/index.html

No, Muller found plenty of solid evidence for obstruction that could have easily gone to court.*

Having read the obstruction section of the report, the characterization of “plenty of solid evidence” isn’t accurate.

He refused to recommend prosecution because he was advised that it was legally not an option to prosecute a sitting president. That's a role reserved for congress.

That is not consistent with AG Barr’s statement yesterday. Barr unequivocally stated the OLC was not a basis for Mueller’s decision not to make a prosecutorial judgment.

Furthermore, there is some language in the report indicating Mueller’s internal thinking. Mueller apparently was conflicted because of the difficulty of the evidence itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[southernhybrid]

Barr is a lying Trump sycophant. I read enough of the report to realize that, but as the saying goes, "there is no reality, only perception". This morning I read several assessments of the report from both left and right news sources. OMG! It was like reading the accounts of two completely different things. John Dean, who I respect, said yesterday that the report was the most damaging report he had ever read and he compared it to several historical investigations. I think Dean knows what he's talking about more than any of us do.

 

[zorq]

Furthermore, there is some language in the report indicating Mueller’s internal thinking. Mueller apparently was conflicted because of the difficulty of the evidence itself.

Other experts disagree.
He was conflicted on some of the evidence, but really there was plenty solid evidence to push it over the top. At least one former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig, was asked if Trump wasn't the president, would he be prosecuted based on the evidence Muller uncovered? Her answer was...

"Yes, but they're not going to charge the President. It's a strong obstruction case."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Furthermore, there is some language in the report indicating Mueller’s internal thinking. Mueller apparently was conflicted because of the difficulty of the evidence itself.

Other experts disagree.
He was conflicted on some of the evidence, but really there was plenty solid evidence to push it over the top. At least one former federal prosecutor, Elie Holding, was asked if Trump wasn't the president, would he be prosecuted based on the evidence Muller uncovered? Her answer was...

"Yes, but they're not going to charge the President. It's a strong obstruction case."

I think the point is, proving obstruction would be hard, and possibly extremely hard because Trump could plead ignorant.

- - - Updated - - -

No, Muller found plenty of solid evidence for obstruction that could have easily gone to court.*

Having read the obstruction section of the report, the characterization of “plenty of solid evidence” isn’t accurate.

Yeah. I think Mueller states it well when he says Congress should handle the abuse of power.

 

[PyramidHead]

Imagine being an FBI special investigator into the President's misconduct, uncovering true and unambiguous evidence that he literally tried to get you personally fired for investigating him, and concluding "Congress should look into this at some point"

 

[ZiprHead]

That is not consistent with AG Barr’s statement yesterday. Barr unequivocally stated the OLC was not a basis for Mueller’s decision not to make a prosecutorial judgment.

Barr is obviously a liar. It's ridiculous to cite him as evidence for anything.

 

[James Madison]

Furthermore, there is some language in the report indicating Mueller’s internal thinking. Mueller apparently was conflicted because of the difficulty of the evidence itself.

Other experts disagree.
He was conflicted on some of the evidence, but really there was plenty solid evidence to push it over the top. At least one former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig, was asked if Trump wasn't the president, would he be prosecuted based on the evidence Muller uncovered? Her answer was...

"Yes, but they're not going to charge the President. It's a strong obstruction case."

He was conflicted on some of the evidence, but really there was plenty solid evidence to push it over the top.

What “expert” said the evidence in the report was “plenty, solid evidence to push it over the top”?

Oh, one former federal prosecutor. Okay. Hardly convincing. This prosecutor has s particular opinion. A plethora of other former prosecutors, professors, have a contrary view. No surprise.

So, whose right? The people who are right are those whose opinion is best supported by the evidence in the report, and the rational inference and sound logical judgments to be made from that evidence.

So, as an example, Mueller, in focusing upon the various actions by the President, uses the word “relevant” in describing some of the evidence. That’s hardly compelling. Even the WEAKEST evidence is relevant. And in assessing whether I personally have a strong evidentiary case, I’m not lauding the fact I have “relevant” evidence. Every darn case has relevant evidence and it isn’t worth a penny if the evidence does not amount strongly supporting my charges.

Elsewhere, he says the evidence “suggests” something specific. Again, if Mueller is telegraphing or desiring to send the message he has a “strong” case, then he’s using less than convincing wording.

In looking at some of the evidence, there are some 1Ls who could create reasonable doubt. For instance, and I paraphrase, the evidence of Trump telling Comey he “hopes” Comey can see to letting it go, “it” referring to Flynn investigation, is ambiguous evidence regarding intent. The counterargument is Trump expresses a mere desire to Comey and as President, he has the constitutional authority to suggest what should or shouldn’t be investigated.

Now that’s just one specific example, but the evidence in the report does, as AG Barr noted, have significant flaws in demonstrating Trump obstructed justice.

Even Mueller tells the reader, after scrutinizing the evidence, tells the reader the Report doesn’t conclude Trump committed a crime of obstruction. Mueller is very much ambivalent as to whether Trump obstructed justice.

Mueller doesn’t have enough evidence to make him comfortable enough to decide Trump did obstruct. However, some of the evidence is incriminating, which also makes him unable to say Trump did not commit a crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

That is not consistent with AG Barr’s statement yesterday. Barr unequivocally stated the OLC was not a basis for Mueller’s decision not to make a prosecutorial judgment.

Barr is obviously a liar. It's ridiculous to cite him as evidence for anything.

He is? Well, that’s so convincing, your invocation of what is “obvious.” But wait, what if it isn’t “obvious”? Is there a possibility it is not obvious? Yes. And so, merely claiming it’s “obvious” is an empty claim.

In addition, let’s assume Barr lied or made a misleading remark(s) previously, that doesn’t show he’s lying now in regards to a specific statement.

Narrowing my focus, comparing Barr’s prior remarks about the Report to what is in the Mueller report, some of Barr’s prior comments and characterizations are accurate, others are arguably a stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Worldtraveller]

That is not consistent with AG Barr’s statement yesterday. Barr unequivocally stated the OLC was not a basis for Mueller’s decision not to make a prosecutorial judgment.

Barr is obviously a liar. It's ridiculous to cite him as evidence for anything.

He is? Well, that’s so convincing, your invocation of what is “obvious.” But wait, what if it isn’t “obvious”? Is there a possibility it is not obvious? Yes. And so, merely claiming it’s “obvious” is an empty claim.

In addition, let’s assume Barr lied or made a misleading remark(s) previously, that doesn’t show he’s lying now in regards to a specific statement.

Narrowing my focus, comparing Barr’s prior remarks about the Report to what is in the Mueller report, some of Barr’s prior comments and characterizations are accurate, others are arguably a stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Arguably a stretch?

I remember not too many years ago when you had at least a modicum of respectability.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1118917787605454848

Lying by omission is still lying.

 

[James Madison]

Other experts disagree.
He was conflicted on some of the evidence, but really there was plenty solid evidence to push it over the top. At least one former federal prosecutor, Elie Holding, was asked if Trump wasn't the president, would he be prosecuted based on the evidence Muller uncovered? Her answer was...

I think the point is, proving obstruction would be hard, and possibly extremely hard because Trump could plead ignorant.

- - - Updated - - -

No, Muller found plenty of solid evidence for obstruction that could have easily gone to court.*

Having read the obstruction section of the report, the characterization of “plenty of solid evidence” isn’t accurate.

Yeah. I think Mueller states it well when he says Congress should handle the abuse of power.

Yes! Your remarks are supported by the Report itself. Mueller ostensibly believed an obstruction charge was hard to make. However, Mueller also seemingly believed Trump abused his authority but that question is less suited to be decided by a criminal court, but by Congress, in which Trump and Congress can determine whether Trump’s conduct was constitutional or so egregious as to not qualify as a constitutional exercise of his powers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

He is? Well, that’s so convincing, your invocation of what is “obvious.” But wait, what if it isn’t “obvious”? Is there a possibility it is not obvious? Yes. And so, merely claiming it’s “obvious” is an empty claim.

In addition, let’s assume Barr lied or made a misleading remark(s) previously, that doesn’t show he’s lying now in regards to a specific statement.

Narrowing my focus, comparing Barr’s prior remarks about the Report to what is in the Mueller report, some of Barr’s prior comments and characterizations are accurate, others are arguably a stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Arguably a stretch?

I remember not too many years ago when you had at least a modicum of respectability.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1118917787605454848

Lying by omission is still lying.

I remember not too many years ago when you had at least a modicum of respectability.

I’m sorry, I have no prior recollection of who you are. Have we interacted before? Are you new?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

He is? Well, that’s so convincing, your invocation of what is “obvious.” But wait, what if it isn’t “obvious”? Is there a possibility it is not obvious? Yes. And so, merely claiming it’s “obvious” is an empty claim.

In addition, let’s assume Barr lied or made a misleading remark(s) previously, that doesn’t show he’s lying now in regards to a specific statement.

Narrowing my focus, comparing Barr’s prior remarks about the Report to what is in the Mueller report, some of Barr’s prior comments and characterizations are accurate, others are arguably a stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Arguably a stretch?

I remember not too many years ago when you had at least a modicum of respectability.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1118917787605454848

Lying by omission is still lying.

Wake up! The Mueller report is consistent with Barr’s characterization you cite and quote to in your post. The Mueller report did not conclude or find any evidence to conclude Trump/Trump campaign conspired with Russians. The Mueller report did say the Trump campaign was aware the Russians wanted to sink Hillary and that Trump could benefit, but there’s no evidence of any conspiracy between the two entities to do so.

And omission as lying in that context is laughable. Barr omitted over 400 pages worth of info! Surely omission alone in this context is not rationally lying.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Some excellent points here:

Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School
If we were talking about Mr. Trump, not President Trump, we’d be talking about an indictment for obstruction of justice. Today we know that Attorney General Barr put a highly positive (for Trump) gloss on the report. Today we know that Mueller found substantial wrongdoing that would plague, and perhaps end, any other presidency in American history. Today we know that perhaps the difference between a suggestion that Trump be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and a suggestion that he not be was 1) Mueller’s inability to sit down and speak with the Trump without subpoenaing him and Mueller’s decision not to subpoena Trump, and 2) actions by Trump’s staffers that may have protected the president from legal liability.
...
Stephen Legomsky, law professor, Washington University
...
Those accounts gave the president an undeserved free pass, for even Mr. Barr’s cherry-picked quotes had made no such claims. We can now see that all Mr. Mueller decided on that issue was that “the investigation did not establish” such a conspiracy. To non-lawyers this might seem like splitting hairs, but lawyers understand how important that difference is. “Establish” is prosecutor talk that simply means “I won’t bring an indictment because I don’t think a jury would find the proof of conspiracy to be ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” — an extremely high standard of proof. As the Mueller report emphasizes in the introduction, “A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

To the contrary, we now know that Mr. Mueller found abundant evidence of precisely such a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The section titled “Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials” was very heavily redacted, but even the non-redacted evidence of conspiracy was substantial: campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s “periodically” sharing internal polling data and other campaign updates with the Russians; the campaign’s promotion of “dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by” the Russian hacking operation; Trump publicly urging Russia to search for Hillary Clinton’s “missing” emails; the campaign’s successful effort to tone down the anti-Russian language in the Republican Party platform at the nominating convention; the president’s bizarre support for Putin, resistance to sanctions, and corresponding antagonism toward our NATO allies; the multiple meetings between top campaign officials and Russians with Kremlin ties, including their famous meeting at the New York Trump hotel for the express, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton; and the lies they were caught in when they tried to deny either the meetings themselves or their content.
...
Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University

“Putin has won.” Election Day 2016, an intercepted message to Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian national “closely connected to Putin.” (On page 149 of the Mueller report.) This line says everything that the American public should remember about the Mueller investigation. Russian interference in the election has been established beyond doubt. Worse, Mueller found that the Trump campaign “expected to benefit” from criminal actions by Russians who successfully targeted the American election. It is not a crime for any citizen to associate with criminals and spies, nor to enjoy their favors, but that is surely too low a standard for a president of the United States.

More at the link.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He is? Well, that’s so convincing, your invocation of what is “obvious.” But wait, what if it isn’t “obvious”? Is there a possibility it is not obvious? Yes. And so, merely claiming it’s “obvious” is an empty claim.

In addition, let’s assume Barr lied or made a misleading remark(s) previously, that doesn’t show he’s lying now in regards to a specific statement.

Narrowing my focus, comparing Barr’s prior remarks about the Report to what is in the Mueller report, some of Barr’s prior comments and characterizations are accurate, others are arguably a stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Arguably a stretch?

I remember not too many years ago when you had at least a modicum of respectability.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1118917787605454848

Lying by omission is still lying.

Wake up! The Mueller report is consistent with Barr’s characterization you cite and quote to in your post.

Barr's characterization wasn't actually a characterization. It was a seriously politically motivated abbreviated overview of the two primary objectives of the investigation, which in general, should lead to a characterization of a report, except in this case, where Mueller says Trump dun fucked up on abuse of powers... but a conviction in court would be very hard because he must prove intent of Trump... and most of the people who were ordered to obstruct justice either refused to comply or refused to testify due to fear of self-incrimination.

Mueller's Report says, in quite a few more words, 'It would be very hard for me to convict on these charges, but Congress should impeach Trump.'

That is the accurate characterization of the Mueller Report. Barr's initial report on the Mueller Report was, maybe not a "lie", but I think "complete bullshit" could accurately characterize his initial public assessment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He is? Well, that’s so convincing, your invocation of what is “obvious.” But wait, what if it isn’t “obvious”? Is there a possibility it is not obvious? Yes. And so, merely claiming it’s “obvious” is an empty claim.

In addition, let’s assume Barr lied or made a misleading remark(s) previously, that doesn’t show he’s lying now in regards to a specific statement.

Narrowing my focus, comparing Barr’s prior remarks about the Report to what is in the Mueller report, some of Barr’s prior comments and characterizations are accurate, others are arguably a stretch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Arguably a stretch?

I remember not too many years ago when you had at least a modicum of respectability.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1118917787605454848

Lying by omission is still lying.

Barr didn't lie. His assessment was politically motivated and was as close to lying as you can get... without actually lying.

I think the Doonesbury comic should read:

Barr to Trump: Good news, bad news.
Trump: What's the good news?
Barr: Mueller says he can't convict you on any charges.
Trump: That's wonderful! I always knew Mueller was a stand up guy. What could possibly be the bad news?
Barr: He says Congress should impeach you.
Trump: *^%'n Deep State lawyer!

 

[Elixir]

Barr didn't lie.

Four lies Barr told

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-dean-barr-mueller-watergate-tapper_n_5cb8f7abe4b068d795cabbc6

Former Nixon administration White House counsel John Dean said special counsel Robert Mueller’s report is “more damning” than the Watergate findings that led President Richard Nixon to resign, as well as other political scandals since then.

“I looked on my shelf for the Senate Watergate Committee report, I looked at the Iran Contra report. I also looked at the Ken Starr report,” Dean told Jake Tapper on CNN’s “The Lead.”

“This report from the special counsel is more damning than all those reports about a president,” he added. “This is really a devastating report.”

It doesn't take the knowledge and experience of John Dean to realize how damaging the report is to Trump, but since I have a lot of respect for his opinions on this matter, I'm posting what he said yesterday after he read the entire report. Let's face it. Nobody really cares about what the posters here think.

I've only read parts of it, but it's very obvious to anyone with an open mind, that Trump is a corrupt person, and while he didn't conspire with Russia in the most legal sense, he likely would have if his minions had been more willing to to do the things that he asked them to do. I honestly don't understand how anyone can support this man, when it's so obvious that he's been corrupt his entire adult life and he's remained corrupt during his time as president. If any of us had done what Trump did, we'd be arrested long before now. Apparently, Trump and his toadies think he is above the law. If he gets a second term, I can only imagine the damage he will do to the country.

But, perhaps most importantly of all, is that the investigation found that Russia did interfere with our American election. What is the current administration going to do about that? Russia is already criticizing the report and claiming that it's false to assume that they interfered with the election. That's what autocratic leaders do. They deny the truth and make up their own facts, just like Trump.