Special counsel Robert Mueller

[Burls]

Originally Posted by Tom

Anyone read the Mueller presser transcript?



If they knew they could not make a determination, why did they conduct a criminal investigation?

So that the US Congress could use that detailed, accurate information to DO THEIR JOB.

Hint: See US Constitution Article II, Section IV.

[delayjf]

He said DOJ policies do not allow him to prosecute or indict.

The DOJ Policy precludes him from indicting Trump criminally, but it did not preclude Mueller from stating in the report that Trump was guilty of obstruction - similar to what Ken Starr stated in his report. Had he done that it would have put a lot more pressure on Congress (Rep and Dems) to impeach Trump. Mueller further stated that if other evidence becomes known that might justify overturning the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting President.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Wait. Wait. Wait.

10 instances of POSSIBLE obstruction.

Wasn't Mueller's whole job to determine a)whether or not there was collusion with Russia (then when they discovered this was a fairytale, expand it to) b)obstruction of justice
No that was not his whole job.
From Rosenstein's authorization.
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.


OK, let's say you're ok with the witch hunt. Fine.

If his entire job was to come up with SOMETHING, and all he could come up with were 10 POSSIBLE instances of "something"...how is his entire investigation not a TOTAL FAIL at this point?

His job was to investigate and come to CONCRETE conclusions on what he was investigating. Either there was OBSTRUCTION or there wasn't. There is no POSSIBLE here. HE WAS THE INVESTIGATOR.

It's his job to CONCLUDE there was a crime, if there was one. He doesn't have to indict, but he can certainly CONCLUDE in his REPORT that there is concrete evidence of A,B, and/or C. None of this "possible" bullshit.
Unlike Starr, Mueller respects the spirit of the DOJ opinion as well as the letter.

Again, he was the INVESTIGATOR. Who else is going to come along now and determine whether these fairytale "possibilities" are real or not? ANOTHER INVESTIGATOR?
We don't need another investigator. Mueller has plenty of evidence to open an impeachment inquiry in the House. What he does not have is the authority to present that evidence to Congress. As long as we have a corrupt Attorney General, Congress will never see the evidence gathered by Mueller.

The jury in this instance is CONGRESS. They need someone to bring along the EVIDENCE of the crime.

What about this doesn't sound totally ****ed up to you? Pretend his name isn't TRUMP for a minute. Maybe that might help.

OK, I'll bite. His name isn't Trump. Guess what? He still did what he did and he still is guilty.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by mostpost

The nonsensical statement is the one you made. To begin with Mueller never said that DOJ policies prohibit the investigation. He said DOJ policies do not allow him to prosecute or indict.

Mueller also explained very clearly why there was an investigation. It was to preserve evidence while memories are clear and documentation is not lost, misplaced or destroyed. Because a President's immunity from prosecution only lasts until the day after his last day in office. In fact, it many only last until noon of his last day in office.

So the investigation is worthless, because he has no power to find or charge a crime. Thus the investigation had no purpose as the outcome would always be we did not investigate, because the DoJ guidelines prevent finding or charging a crime.

FYI that boat left the dock. The DoJ already determined, per the actual obstruction law, that President Trump did not commit obstruction. Additionally, there is the complications of Article II powers of the President.

Understand Cliff Clavin?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Burls

So that the US Congress could use that detailed, accurate information to DO THEIR JOB.

Hint: See US Constitution Article II, Section IV.

The Treason is stating that the duly elected President is a foreign agent, an asset of a foreign government and unequivocally stating that the President committed treason.

You have no clue and yet you want to interfere in the sovereign elections of foreign country.

[Show Me the Wire]

Mueller's office issues a joint statement clarifying yesterdays presser.

Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office, released the following statement:

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. [emphasis added]

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

The evidence against Trump is much stronger than the evidence against Clinton.

Except it totally isn't. Not by ANY grand stretch of the imagination.

You would think smart fellows such as yourself would have learned your lesson by now.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Burls

Nice job, Tom!

You have regurgitated all of Sean Hannity's talking points PERFECTLY!

A smart fella like you watches Sean Hannity? Hmmm...never would have guessed.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Snip.

The answers to your questions are easily answered in the Constitution.

You can not like the fact Mueller didn't up/down the decision on Obstruction... that's perfectly fine. What isn't fine is the constant "No Evidence of Collusion or Obstruction" constantly being touted as fact by Trump and his supporters... that's not at all what Mueller said...

This shit is in the report that has been out for two months now.

The fact your now posting stuff like this shows you don't know what was really going. Just opining in the dark.

None of you on here have any credibility when commenting because you couldn't be bothered to read it...

Hearing from Mueller and listening to him repeat what he wrote out loud is the closest you've gotten to obejctivity.

I covered this in depth with SMTW on the 1st of the month... you all are late to the party...

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You're dodging...

I'm quoting Mueller's findings and you're unwilling to address them. They are attached again why he didn't indict/clear the President.

There is no point continuing this discussion as everything I've said will simply be labelled my "opinion" when they are anything but to someone with reasonable reading comprehension skills.

I cannot help it if you can't be bothered to read it.

[I]"We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, 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.

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual & 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."[/I]

Next is Mueller's interpretation of Barr Letters... straight from his pen to your eyes...

"The summary letter of the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions."

Really...

I'm extremely unsure why you're wanting to fight on this hill and defend Barr here... He's a hack... I've always known that and not minded it... it is what it is... but now he's an exposed hack.

They're less useful.

[Suff]

My take on Barr is that he subscribes to the idea that as a member of the executive branch he is well within his lane to present the evidence in the best possible light for President Trump. I can't say that I disagree with him.

Can we mention again that JFK had RFK as his attorney general. If that can happen then this can happen. All Good in the USA.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I covered this in depth with SMTW on the 1st of the month... you all are late to the party...

Your need to be right is alarming.

Nobody else really cares.

Oh wait...I have something for you:

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Your need to be right is alarming.

Nobody else really cares.

Oh wait...I have something for you:

The thing is Mike it doesn't matter where you stand on Trump... whether you support him or you don't.

Mueller wasn't unclear about what he felt should happen if you read the summary of his report. He wasn't unclear again earlier this week in repeating what he found and what recommended actions he should take.

He laid precisely his rationale for doing what he did and whether or not you like the way he did it the rationale does pass logical criticism. It makes sense... its not what I would have done... but it makes sense.

What happened was AG Barr got out in front of the report and began spinning Mueller's findings and rationale immediately. During the weeks leading up to the reports release Barr made it seem to the public that he, Rosenstein, and Mueller were all on the same page. We now know that isn't the case because of Mueller's letter to Barr as well as Barr's own comments on CBS yesterday.

It falls on Congress to do its or not do its job...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

What happened was AG Barr got out in front of the report and began spinning Mueller's findings and rationale immediately. During the weeks leading up to the reports release Barr made it seem to the public that he, Rosenstein, and Mueller were all on the same page. We now know that isn't the case because of Mueller's letter to Barr as well as Barr's own comments on CBS yesterday.

Why is any of this important in the grand scheme of things? This entire paragraph above amounts to nothing but a PR move.

What is Congress' job exactly? To waste more of our time and money? Because that's all it will amount to in the end. Just like the Mueller report itself. A giant waste of time and money.

As much as you believe this entire thing was legit, I still believe 100% that it was nothing but a partisan witch hunt. Much like I believed the Bill Clinton thing was a partisan witch hunt and a giant waste of time and money.

It all disgusts me.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Why is any of this important in the grand scheme of things? This entire paragraph above amounts to nothing but a PR move.

What is Congress' job exactly? To waste more of our time and money? Because that's all it will amount to in the end. Just like the Mueller report itself. A giant waste of time and money.

As much as you believe this entire thing was legit, I still believe 100% that it was nothing but a partisan witch hunt. Much like I believed the Bill Clinton thing was a partisan witch hunt and a giant waste of time and money.

It all disgusts me.

I don't think this is a partisan witch hunt.

Russia interfered in our election. Trump and his campaign welcomed that interference. Then when it was being investigated attempted to obstruct or stop it.

If anything Mueller could have been much harder on Trump a la Ken Starr with Bill Clinton but he wasn't.

He investigated, found shit, reported it, and punted to the body that is Constitutionally Empowered to act.

Democrats if they had an ounce of credibility themselves would start impeachment shortly. I can understand wanting to avoid it at first but if the White House is going to stone-wall any and everything might as flex back or shut the hell up.

[wisconsin]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

If anything Mueller could have been much harder on Trump a la Ken Starr with Bill Clinton but he wasn't.

Starr found Clinton guilty of 11 things. He was disbarred in Arkansas because of the findings.

Mueller found nothing that he could prosecute in a court of law.

The two are in no way the same.

You know it, I know it, we all know it.