Mueller investigation

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nothing would surprise me at this point. In the “Just” America that the USA pretends to be in movies, he would have been indicted long ago for a number of things, least of which the things that were uncovered in the report.

Mueller stating that policy forbids him to indict a sitting president is pretty gutless. There is no law stating that. The precedent set is that accepting foreign help is ok as long as you are not intelligent. Obstruction is now ok as well. Punting to Congress was totally chickenshit knowing the senate won’t impeach.

But it’s ok, it was just a few Facebook ads.

Obstruction requires proving intent. Mueller has a higher bar. He says Trump abused power and that Congress can handle this pretty quickly. In court, it'll take years.

IOW, he’s going to get away with it, and even run for re-election with a green light to accept outside help. No one was held accountable except for a few foot soldiers.

Agreed, at least not yet. Stone going to prison would be nice, as is Manafort in Prison. But the Dems are investigating as is the State of NY.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Mueller was bound by DOJ policy since he worked for the doj.

 

[JohnG]

Mueller was bound by DOJ policy since he worked for the doj.

It’s also against policy to public discuss investigations especially before an election. There is no law that says one can’t indict a president.

It was the right thing to do.The report itself outlines criminal activity. Is he above the law or not?

Are they afraid they might divide the country?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Mueller was bound by DOJ policy since he worked for the doj.

It’s also against policy to public discuss investigations especially before an election.

Are you referring to Comey?

There is no law that says one can’t indict a president.

There is, it's the Constitution. A DOJ "guideline" on what the Constitution allows is not just a plaque on a wall you get at Cracker Barrel. Here is the memorandum from 2000 explaining in detail how the Attorneys General arrived at their conclusions. Here's the short answer:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

It goes back to 1973 (Nixon, iow) and it is effectively "law" as far as DOJ is concerned and the only way to fight it would be if one had discovered several smoking guns, but even then the argument would be the same; it's up to Congress to try a President.

In order for Mueller to indict Trump, he not only would have triggered a constitutional crisis (which would have bounced to the SCOTUS, who in turn would have immediately invoked everything already outlined in the DOJ guidelines and kicked it back to Congress, wasting a lot of time in the process), he would have had to get approval from AG Barr, which he knew he would never get.

So, yes, he could have indicted Trump, but it would have been a rogue effort that would simply have been crushed immediately. He knew this, which is precisely why he instead brilliantly booby-trapped his report so that Barr would essentially throw the report into the briar patch.

It was the right thing to do.

What was?

The report itself outlines criminal activity.

Actually, it brilliantly rules out any excuse that the activity is not criminal (hence the conclusion that he could not exonerate). There is a difference.

Is he above the law or not?

Wrong question. The right question is, which mechanism is the right one to try the President? The Constitution--which is the highest law--says it's Congress through impeachment proceedings.

 

[ZiprHead]

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

It goes back to 1973 (Nixon, iow) and it is effectively "law" as far as DOJ is concerned and the only way to fight it would be if one had discovered several smoking guns, but even then the argument would be the same; it's up to Congress to try a President.

In order for Mueller to indict Trump, he not only would have triggered a constitutional crisis (which would have bounced to the SCOTUS, who in turn would have immediately invoked everything already outlined in the DOJ guidelines and kicked it back to Congress, wasting a lot of time in the process), he would have had to get approval from AG Barr, which he knew he would never get.

So, yes, he could have indicted Trump, but it would have been a rogue effort that would simply have been crushed immediately. He knew this, which is precisely why he instead brilliantly booby-trapped his report so that Barr would essentially throw the report into the briar patch.

That is an opinion and NOT the law, and many legal scholars and experts disagree with it. There is nothing in the constitution that says a president cannot be indicted. He cannot be tried while in office, but that's all the constitution says about it.

As far as a constitutional crisis goes, we have an uncooperative criminal in the White House who is being defended by his consiglieri, the Attorney General. He is ignoring subpoenas and ordering others to do the same, continuing his obstruction of justice. We are definitely right smack dab in the middle of a constitutional crisis.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you referring to Comey?

There is no law that says one can’t indict a president.

There is, it's the Constitution. A DOJ "guideline" on what the Constitution allows is not just a plaque on a wall you get at Cracker Barrel. Here is the memorandum from 2000 explaining in detail how the Attorneys General arrived at their conclusions. Here's the short answer:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

It goes back to 1973 (Nixon, iow) and it is effectively "law" as far as DOJ is concerned and the only way to fight it would be if one had discovered several smoking guns, but even then the argument would be the same; it's up to Congress to try a President.

In order for Mueller to indict Trump, he not only would have triggered a constitutional crisis (which would have bounced to the SCOTUS, who in turn would have immediately invoked everything already outlined in the DOJ guidelines and kicked it back to Congress, wasting a lot of time in the process), he would have had to get approval from AG Barr, which he knew he would never get.

So, yes, he could have indicted Trump, but it would have been a rogue effort that would simply have been crushed immediately. He knew this, which is precisely why he instead brilliantly booby-trapped his report so that Barr would essentially throw the report into the briar patch.

It was the right thing to do.

What was?

The report itself outlines criminal activity.

Actually, it brilliantly rules out any excuse that the activity is not criminal (hence the conclusion that he could not exonerate). There is a difference.

Is he above the law or not?

Wrong question. The right question is, which mechanism is the right one to try the President? The Constitution--which is the highest law--says it's Congress through impeachment proceedings.

So here is a question, the acting Attorney General launched the Mueller investigation. Why launch an investigation they can’t act upon?

 

[Gun Nut]

Mueller was bound by DOJ policy since he worked for the doj.

Not a law, even weaker, like a policy.. but, not a policy - even weaker - a guideline.
A Guideline... like wearing a tie in the workplace... or not spending too much on lunch - things for which a multitude of exceptions exist.

.. edited to add... just discovered it isn't even a guideline... it is less than a guideline... it's a memo containing an opinion.. So about as binding as, "have a nice weekend".

 

[Keith&Co.]

So here is a question, the acting Attorney General launched the Mueller investigation. Why launch an investigation they can’t act upon?

You can always have an investigation to exonerate... If, you know, you're not all afeared of what they'll find...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Mueller was bound by DOJ policy since he worked for the doj.

Not a law, even weaker, like a policy.. but, not a policy - even weaker - a guideline.
A Guideline... like wearing a tie in the workplace... or not spending too much on lunch - things for which a multitude of exceptions exist.

.. edited to add... just discovered it isn't even a guideline... it is less than a guideline... it's a memo containing an opinion.. So about as binding as, "have a nice weekend".

Not quite. You should read the memo. This is the opinion of Attorneys General (the top lawyers in the land) in regard to what the Constitution (the top law of the land) and the SCOTUS (the top court in the land) does or does not allow the Department of Justice (top legal department in the land) do in regard to the President (top leader in the land).

It's not just an "aw shucks, have a nice weekend" codicil.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So here is a question, the acting Attorney General launched the Mueller investigation. Why launch an investigation they can’t act upon?

What do you mean? They can and are acting upon it. The Special Counsel's job is to investigate (which he did), issue indictments (which he has), and recommend courses of action (which he has, if indirectly when it comes exclusively to the POTUS).

 

[Gun Nut]

Mueller was bound by DOJ policy since he worked for the doj.

Not a law, even weaker, like a policy.. but, not a policy - even weaker - a guideline.
A Guideline... like wearing a tie in the workplace... or not spending too much on lunch - things for which a multitude of exceptions exist.

.. edited to add... just discovered it isn't even a guideline... it is less than a guideline... it's a memo containing an opinion.. So about as binding as, "have a nice weekend".

Not quite. You should read the memo. This is the opinion of Attorneys General (the top lawyers in the land) in regard to what the Constitution (the top law of the land) and the SCOTUS (the top court in the land) does or does not allow the Department of Justice (top legal department in the land) do in regard to the President (top leader in the land).

It's not just an "aw shucks, have a nice weekend" codicil.

I think you may be mistaken as to the participation of SCOTUS in this "memo". They were not involved, except to disagree with the old DoJ opinion that any one person is above the law (i.e. a sitting president CAN be held accountable for their actions - albeit via other means).

You are correct that the "can't indict... " position is an opinion of the DoJ and that the Attorney General is at the top of the DoJ... It's just that our CURRENT AG can simply say, "Meh, sure we can indict..." and it would be so.

In other words, nothing stopped Mueller from making an indictment... it would have been up to the AG to say, "We're not gonna do it because someone else thought we probably, generally shouldn't, some decades ago".

 

[Gun Nut]

So here is a question, the acting Attorney General launched the Mueller investigation. Why launch an investigation they can’t act upon?

What do you mean? They can and are acting upon it. The Special Counsel's job is to investigate (which he did), issue indictments (which he has), and recommend courses of action (which he has, if indirectly when it comes exclusively to the POTUS).

The report, rather than include an indictment of the President, instead included all of the components of an indictment, minus the actual indictment of just that one person. And that was stupid. It should have included it and then it could have gone to the supreme court who would have either upheld it, consistent with their previous opinion on no one being above the law, or they would have knocked it down with the caveat that Congress must take up impeachment debate, as that would then be the course for "indictment".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As far as a constitutional crisis goes, we have an uncooperative criminal in the White House who is being defended by his consiglieri, the Attorney General. He is ignoring subpoenas and ordering others to do the same, continuing his obstruction of justice. We are definitely right smack dab in the middle of a constitutional crisis.

Exactly. Which means Congress has to take over. If Mueller tried to indict, Barr would have simply shut it down and buried the report. He had the power to do precisely that. Mueller knew he did not have the standard of evidence necessary to justify going rogue like that, so he did the next best thing; he booby-trapped the report so that Barr couldn't bury it, while at the same time forcing Congress to step in.

This was an end-run around Barr and brilliantly done.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[ It should have included it and then it could have gone to the supreme court

The Dark Court is worse than Barr. Mueller knew the only chance was to have the House take over.

who would have either upheld it, consistent with their previous opinion on no one being above the law, or they would have knocked it down with the caveat that Congress must take up impeachment debate

SCOTUS can't instruct Congress on how to act. They can only "knock" something down, not direct Congress to act on something they don't want to act on.

And, again, all they would need to do is uphold the findings of the DOJ and dismiss the indictment. That would most certainly be the end of it.

Mueller, of course, knew all of the angles and chose the most brilliant option to actually go after Trump.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not quite. You should read the memo. This is the opinion of Attorneys General (the top lawyers in the land) in regard to what the Constitution (the top law of the land) and the SCOTUS (the top court in the land) does or does not allow the Department of Justice (top legal department in the land) do in regard to the President (top leader in the land).

It's not just an "aw shucks, have a nice weekend" codicil.

I think you may be mistaken as to the participation of SCOTUS in this "memo". They were not involved

I didn't say they were. The DOJ included past SCOTUS rulings as part of their formation of their guidelines.

You are correct that the "can't indict... " position is an opinion of the DoJ and that the Attorney General is at the top of the DoJ... It's just that our CURRENT AG can simply say, "Meh, sure we can indict..." and it would be so.

Again, no, because then the President would have cause to take it before the SCOTUS, which could simply (and would simply) uphold the DOJ's reasoning and dismiss the indictment

At the same time that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents an indictment, there is also nothing in it that explicitly allows an indictment and plenty of secondary provisions that argue against it (such as the impeachment clause). So, yes, Mueller could have indicted and Barr would have immediately stopped such an action and used that excuse to bury the report.

If Congress wanted to see the report, Barr could have simply stated, "no" and that would be the end of it. Congress has no authority to force the AG to produce a Special Counsel's report; only to request an explanation as to why the AG did not act on the SC's recommendation. Had Mueller pushed for an indictment (contradicting decades old DOJ policy), all Barr would have had to have done is state, "The SC contravened DOJ procedures" and that would be the end of it.

Congress can't say, "Yeah, but those aren't the law..."

In other words, nothing stopped Mueller from making an indictment

Technically, no, which is meaningless. He knew what would happen if he did and didn't have a smoking gun to justify it. So he took the only route that would keep the report from being permanently buried and give Congress (the House) the road map to do it.

 

[Gun Nut]

The President would have cause to take [his own indictment] before the SCOTUS, which could simply (and would simply) uphold the DOJ's reasoning and dismiss the indictment

No, because if it got that far then it would be precisely BECAUSE the DoJ's position changed on the topic of the president being immune to accountability.

I understand what you are saying... and you are not completely wrong... it is possible this was a very strategic move to induce the most just possible outcome.... I however am more of the opinion that it was more of a punt than that. I think the discussion of "he totally appears guilty via this indictment and we must now discuss what to do about it" is FAR better than the current talk of "He wasn't indicted therefore he was totally innocent".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The President would have cause to take [his own indictment] before the SCOTUS, which could simply (and would simply) uphold the DOJ's reasoning and dismiss the indictment

No, because if it got that far then it would be precisely BECAUSE the DoJ's position changed on the topic of the president being immune to accountability.

Not quite. Let's restart. Here's what would have happened. In order to justify even attempting to break DOJ guidelines to indict, Mueller would need a smoking gun. He didn't find one. He found a gun (several in fact), it just wasn't smoking by the time he got to it. So even attempting to go rogue was out of the question. He knew, even if he had found a smoking gun, Barr would have denied approval to indict and likely would have used the fact that Mueller recommended inditment--contrary to DOJ guidelines--as an excuse to fire Mueller and bury the report.

So, what could Mueller do to ensure (a) his report would be released and (b) Trump would face justice?

Hence, he did what he did. It was the only chance--in a process laden with sycophants and Trump landmines--that he could ensure Trump would face additional scrutiny for his crimes.

 

[blastula]

You're both wrong. Until it's settled in court, it's just opinion.

Asinine observation, as even after something is “settled in court” it is still “just opinion.”

No, it's actually the law then once decided in court. The law can be changed, but it's still the law in effect at the time. There is no decided law right now that says whether or not a president can pardon themself. If Trump issues a pardon for himself tomorrow, what would stop him or affirm him? The court.

The piece that neither of you read, however, continues:

I wasted my time and read it and it's irrelevant to the fact that the issue has not been decided.

 

[PyramidHead]

This spy can only be in our waters for a nefarious porpoise

 

[Keith&Co.]

View attachment 21214

This spy can only be in our waters for a nefarious porpoise

?????

Is Mueller investigating the whale? I mean the white whale, obviously, not the orange one?