Mueller Report - Grab your popcorn

[HALL85]

I get why you would think that. Not sure what I could say that would convince you otherwise, but this isn't about partisanship. I didnt buy into the Bush is evil stuff, ive stood and clapped for Christie through other people booing him arouns me. Trump is an entirely different animal for me.

You sre correct that people are looking I to him in that there is an ongoing counterintelligence investigation and 12 matters referred out from Mueller that we dont know about yet. If it looks to be on the worst case side and Trump was involved in some illegal activity, I'm not sure how it would reconcile against the OLC policy of not indicting a sitting president. Oversight here is the responsibility of congress.

Can you confirm any of those 12 referrals have anything specially to do with Trump? That’s your assumption.

 

[Merge]

Can you confirm any of those 12 referrals have anything specially to do with Trump? That’s your assumption.

Thats what i was saying. Probably could have phrased it better. Ongoing CI investigation regarding Trump plus 12 matters from the report that we don't know about yet which may or may not be related to Trump.

 

[HALL85]

Thats what i was saying. Probably could have phrased it better. Ongoing CI investigation regarding Trump plus 12 matters from the report that we don't know about yet which may or may not be related to Trump.

To me there’s a difference between congressional oversight and Constantly overreaching and being investigation crazy. We have multiple law-enforcement agencies and the department of justice. They are and should continue to look into any potential crimes.

Congress needs to legislate but if they want to pursue this further, They have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

 

[Merge]

We have multiple law-enforcement agencies and the department of justice. They are and should continue to look into any potential crimes.

Right, but you have to agree that this gets a little complicated in regards to the president.
The law enforcement agencies that could investigate all report to the DOJ and the DOJ says you can't indict a sitting president. If there is evidence that the president committed a crime, the procedure to hold him accountable for that is to present the findings to congress and have congress remove him from office and then charge him.

Congress needs to legislate but if they want to pursue this further, They have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

I agree but I am just not sure what should be our level of tolerance now and in the future.
Based on the Mueller report, it appears there is a good chance Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice (at a minimum assuming none of the matters referred out were related to him) if he were not the president. Should the be acceptable now and for any president in the future? Not sure I like that precedent.

 

[HALL85]

Right, but you have to agree that this gets a little complicated in regards to the president.
The law enforcement agencies that could investigate all report to the DOJ and the DOJ says you can't indict a sitting president. If there is evidence that the president committed a crime, the procedure to hold him accountable for that is to present the findings to congress and have congress remove him from office and then charge him.

I agree but I am just not sure what should be our level of tolerance now and in the future.
Based on the Mueller report, it appears there is a good chance Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice (at a minimum assuming none of the matters referred out were related to him) if he were not the president. Should the be acceptable now and for any president in the future? Not sure I like that precedent.

Not sure I agree with your first statement. If law enforcement has found Trump did anything criminal, they would certainly do the responsible thing and those items would be made public, so if the DOJ failed to act, Congress would certainly step in. But we know this is political and for Congress to keep requesting more and more information in every direction is an investigation looking for a crime (which once again, is not what they should be doing).

Disagree with your second point. That's your opinion which I don't share.

 

[Merge]

Not sure I agree with your first statement. If law enforcement has found Trump did anything criminal, they would certainly do the responsible thing and those items would be made public, so if the DOJ failed to act, Congress would certainly step in.

How would you see that playing out? Someone from the FBI tips off Adam Schiff?
Then we have get to watch the deep state narrative process play out again? No thanks.

The proper oversight channel, like it or not, is congress.

Disagree with your second point. That's your opinion which I don't share.

Yes, it is my opinion, shared by many others. I'll walk you through where it is coming from though.

"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."1 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."

"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... Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. "

There was no discussion of the OLC policy in Volume 1. It's in volume 2 for a reason.

 

[Pirata]

The law enforcement agencies that could investigate all report to the DOJ

That is not correct.

Moreover, there are mechanisms to bring things forward to Congress.

 

[HALL85]

That is not correct.

Moreover there are mechanisms to bring things forward to Congress.

What he said.

 

[Pirata]

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... Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. "

You omitted a sentence in the middle of that quote. Why?

Here is the full paragraph:

"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."

You are interpreting that to your liking. Perhaps, reading between the lines is more accurate.

In this case, I think you should let the words speak for themselves and not add any speculation or unsubstantiated inference.

The words say that he does not have evidence to state that a crime was committed and also does not have evidence to say that a crime was not committed. That's it. As disappointing as that sounds to you, it is what it is.

 

[Merge]

You omitted a sentence in the middle of that quote. Why?

I was going to say read pages 1 and 2 of volume II but I thought I would just point to where I am drawing my assumptions from.

In this case, I think you should let the words speak for themselves and not add any speculation or unsubstantiated inference.

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.


He is saying that there was no possible outcome where they would decide that the president committed a crime based on the OLC guidelines.

The words say that he does not have evidence to state that a crime was committed and also does not have evidence to say that a crime was not committed. That's it. As disappointing as that sounds to you, it is what it is.

Mueller is pretty clear in that he can not state a crime was committed even if there was one.
He was also clear to note that the president can face charges for obstruction once he is out of office.

 

[Pirata]

Correct, but again don't read more into it than what he said.

he simply said that there was no point in deciding whether they should charge them or not now.

if someone wants to consider that in the future they will have to apply the standard at that time.

You have to be real careful about how you (Merge) use the word "can". Muller didn't say that, you did.

My interpretation of your use of the word "can" is that it means more "could" than it does mean "should".

If I had to guess I would say your interpretation is the reverse.

 

[Pirata]

Don't let your heart be troubled. If they don't prosecute him on obstruction maybe we could go back to the possibility that he grabbed a crotch.

 

[Merge]

Correct, but again don't read more into it than what he said.
he simply said that there was no point in deciding whether they should charge them or not now..

No point? That's not what he said. He said it wasn't possible because of the OLC policy.

You have to be real careful about what is meant the word "can". My interpretation is that it means more "could" than it does mean "should".

Pretty clear it means could as in not possible. No charges could be brought because they "determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes"

If they can't determine if the president committed a crime, they can't bring a charge against him.

The only reason to even mention the OLC policy in the report is because he would be using it.
If there was not enough to bring a change, it would be pointless to discuss the policy.

 

[Pirata]

Ahhhh.. I forgot about your X-ray vision into Miller's brain.

 

[Merge]

It doesn't take x-ray vision to see that the only reason to cite a OLC policy in a memo like that is because you are applying the rule.

In volume I, Mueller was able to make determinations without reference to the policy. It's there because he used it in volume II.

 

[cernjSHU]

Finally read the report, First, the Russian cyber war against the US is truly frightening. I am afraid of the their future attempts that could go after critical infrastructure or military.

Part One

Conspiracy with Russia. Mueller examined this under the scope of not collusion but conspiracy to violate federal laws. Moreover, this was judged through the lens of whether there was enough evidence of crimes. Based upon that high standard of proof, Mueller deemed that there was insufficient evidence for CRIMINAL Conspiracy. However, there was way too may links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Those contacts as far as I am concerned is collusion - The willingness to work together.

Clearly, the Trump tower meeting proves that the Trump campaign was willing to work with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary. According to even Giulliani, that is acknowledged that the campaign tried to get dirt but explains that there is nothing wrong with it. Well, yes there is even if it is not criminal it is dead wrong. Moreover, the reason that the participants were deemed not to have sufficient evidence of a criminal evidence is because 1) they did not know it was wring under election law this is a requirement and 2) that since they did not get any dirt, there would be a difficulty of placing a value on it. However, it is abundantly clear that the Trump campaign was willing to work with the Russian government .

Second, Manafort providing internal polling data in particular on battle ground states of PA, Wisc, Minn, Michigan to a man tied to Russian Intelligence is particularly disturbing. Manafort had Gates send internal polling data. However, since other witnesses remained outside the country and Manafort lying, Mueller could not get to the bottom of this. However, although not enough evidence for a criminal charge there is evidence here. There was certainly evidence of the Trump campaign working with the Russians. However, while there was smoke of it, not enough for a criminal prosecution. However, this does not mean that Trump didn't do it. Example, there was a "peace plan" that was sent to Manafort for Russia to gain control of Eastern Ukraine. This needed US support. Trump could give a signal by having Manafort designated as the US representative for Russia to go ahead. Manafort denied that this ever happened when questioned by Mueller and in front of the Grand Jury even though the investigation found 4 different emails concerning this. Manafort later denied that he ever passed this info along to the campaign or Trump. Mueller did not believe this due to his unreliability and this was one of the reasons his plea agreement was torn up. This is a devastating piece that no one is talking about.

Just because a prosecutor does not have sufficient evidence to charge, does not mean that there isn't any evidence. Or the evidence that we do have we certainly have a good idea what happened and who did what. For example, No one was ever charged with the murder of Jimmy Hoffa, but law enforcement has evidence against Tony Provenzano, not enough to charge, but for him to be a suspect and a person that they believed had Hoffa killed. Similarly, there are far too many Russian contacts and meetings with the Trump campaign for this to be mere coincidence. There is no proof of a crime but clearly enough inappropriate contact that should never be tolerated by people surrounding the President. For Trump to say the there were no contacts whatsoever with Russia and them to uncover this bold face lie that there were many contacts and some teetering on proof of a crime is pretty outrageous conduct of a candidate for President.