Postmortem on Mueller

[innonimatu]

He may have obstructed an investigation. Regardless of guilt or innocence obstructing an investigation is still a crime. Look up the definition.

Obstruction was a phony issue. The real issue, what the investigation was about, will continue to be investigated.

I have to wonder what side Mueller works for. Because it has become cleat to me a long time ago who will ultimately benefit from this theater.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Doesn't look like he'll be offering an opinion on impeachment or criticism of Barr. Trump did try to end the investigation but how does one obstruct justice if no crime was committed? Did Trump try to end the investigation because there was a crime or because it was a politically driven hit job, a 'witch hunt' fishing for a crime to damage a candidate for the WH before the election? I'm leaning toward the latter but if the House wants to conduct an impeachment inquiry I'll have a dramatic replacement for GoT

Mueller said he couldn't charge the President for obstruction of justice but he could go after co-conspirators. Apparently they dont exist, well Papadopoulus did get caught lying about something regarding his knowledge of Russian dirt on the Clinton campaign. But that doesn't mean Trump told him to lie and it wouldn't make sense for Trump to do that since no one else was charged. I was surprised no one got nailed for the Tower meeting, I guess that was a case of lying publicly but not to the FBI.

Censure might be the out for both parties

You keep repeating this, and it is wrong. there does not need to be any underlying crime for a person to commit obstruction. How many times do we need to remind of this? It is not conjecture on our part, it is the law. Please stop repeating this false claim.

Obstruction was a phony issue. The real issue, what the investigation was about, will continue to be investigated.

Obstruction is the legal issue at hand, because Trump obstructed. Mueller could not find sufficient evidence to support a conspiracy. He could find enough evidence to support obstruction, but DOJ policy prevented him from bringing an indictment.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Obstruction was a phony issue. The real issue, what the investigation was about, will continue to be investigated.
I have to wonder what side Mueller works for. Because it has become cleat to me a long time ago who will ultimately benefit from this theater.

Who benefit from Trump being in office setting fire to everything ? is it Russia ????
But that different right ?

Mueller has a long long record of service in the military and law enforcement. As well as the endorsement and high standing of both parties. Iam frankly more surprised that Trump was never supeoned to testify under oath and why the investigation ended before Stones trial.

 

[cardgame]

If Trump can ignore the law, surely Mueller can ignore policy. Too bad he's as spineless as the rest of his Republican cohort. Wasn't he retired before this investigation anyway? It's not like he's worried about his career.

 

[Berzerker]

Actually no.

1 check There is no denying this one.
2 check If you read the investigation results, there seems to be support for this. He literally tried to stop the investigation.

No where does it mention the items you mentioned.

And Trump whining about all the investigations is really precious considering how often he has chanted lock her up or he's a muslim. Karma.

And if you believe that all of Trumps buddies are completely innocent, it's just silly to continue to discuss anything rational with you.

I didn't say his buddies are completely innocent. Did he literally try to stop the investigation? No, he tried to get people he considered biased removed from their positions in the investigation. Now I'm sure he wanted to stop the investigation but he didn't do it.

Is there some law that says you can just spam the forum with dumb lies that have been debunked many times already?

Out of desperation the Clinton campaign leaked its opposition research to the FBI to bring Trump down so they could win. It didn't work, the guy the FBI spied on (Carter Page) didn't lead to a conspiracy. What dumb lie was debunked?

You keep repeating this, and it is wrong. there does not need to be any underlying crime for a person to commit obstruction. How many times do we need to remind of this? It is not conjecture on our part, it is the law. Please stop repeating this false claim.

Obstruction is the legal issue at hand, because Trump obstructed. Mueller could not find sufficient evidence to support a conspiracy. He could find enough evidence to support obstruction, but DOJ policy prevented him from bringing an indictment.

I thought he said they could not with confidence exonerate Trump of obstruction. I know people can be charged with obstruction in the absence of a crime, my point was the severity of the obstruction charge depends on whether or not there was a crime. Its one thing to lie about a murder and another to lie about 'collusion'.

Here: The severity of obstructing justice depends on the existence and nature of a crime.

Would you agree lying about a murder is worse than lying about something mundane, something legal?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I didn't say his buddies are completely innocent. Did he literally try to stop the investigation? No, he tried to get people he considered biased removed from their positions in the investigation. Now I'm sure he wanted to stop the investigation but he didn't do it.

I thought he said they could not with confidence exonerate Trump of obstruction. I know people can be charged with obstruction in the absence of a crime, my point was the severity of the obstruction charge depends on whether or not there was a crime. Its one thing to lie about a murder and another to lie about 'collusion'.

This is what you said:

Trump did try to end the investigation but how does one obstruct justice if no crime was committed?

Actually, obstruction is independent of the crime. Folks may view it differently depending upon the context, but the crime stands on its own and has its own set of rules and penalties. Trump made at least 10 attempts to impede or stop the investigation. Maybe you think it is no big deal to break the law if you are the president. That says more about you than Trump.

 

[cardgame]

Here: The severity of obstructing justice depends on the existence and nature of a crime.

Would you agree lying about a murder is worse than lying about something mundane, something legal?

The office inherently elevates the mundanity of a lying obstruction to a serious issue. See also: 1997

 

[FriendlyFire]

Insufficient evidence for prosecution dose not mean a crime wasnt comitted. Just that FBI didnt have enough to prosecute

Mueller: ‘If We Had Confidence That the President Did Not Commit a Crime, We Would Have Said So’

During a statement on Wednesday, the special counsel clarified that he did not exonerate the president

Though Mueller concluded that the Trump campaign did not criminally conspire with Russia, he detailed how the campaign willingly accepted help from the foreign adversary. Mueller also outlined several instances in which the president appeared to have obstructed justice. Mueller chose not to indict Trump on obstruction charges either, instead placing the onus on Congress to act on his findings.
“There were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election,” Mueller said. “And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you, thank you for being here today.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...-commit-a-crime-we-would-have-said-so-841450/

 

[Old Hippy]

Insufficient evidence for prosecution dose not mean a crime wasnt comitted. Just that FBI didnt have enough to prosecute

if I had confidence that @FriendlyFire did not commit a crime I would have said so....

 

[FriendlyFire]

if I had confidence that @FriendlyFire did not commit a crime I would have said so....

Alcapone was completely innocent, except he did some tax fraud

 

[Berzerker]

This is what you said:

Actually, obstruction is independent of the crime. Folks may view it differently depending upon the context, but the crime stands on its own and has its own set of rules and penalties. Trump made at least 10 attempts to impede or stop the investigation. Maybe you think it is no big deal to break the law if you are the president. That says more about you than Trump.

The quote you're using was me venturing into the (im)morality of obstruction charges in the absence of a crime and in the presence of charges brought as a result of a politically motivated hit job. Its that context I was talking about. I know obstruction doesn't require a crime, that doesn't make it moral. If the FBI was unjustifiably spying on people I'm not inclined to get mad at the victims for lying about something that isn't even illegal.

I have to take back what I said about Trump trying to stop the investigation, his motivation appears to be a distrust of the people in charge of it. If he believed the spying was based on bogus Clinton campaign oppo research - and it was - then he couldn't have much confidence in the FBI hierarchy that allowed it to be used for a FISA warrant.

 

[Estebonrober]

They never indicted Nixon, because he was clearly innocent! /smh

 

[Old Hippy]

Alcapone was completely innocent, except he did some tax fraud

you understand what Trump has been doing for two years ... apparently
bring on the Dems impeachment of Trump...
many people are still discussing if Mueller is helping the Dems or Trump...

 

[Birdjaguar]

The quote you're using was me venturing into the (im)morality of obstruction charges in the absence of a crime and in the presence of charges brought as a result of a politically motivated hit job. Its that context I was talking about. I know obstruction doesn't require a crime, that doesn't make it moral. If the FBI was unjustifiably spying on people I'm not inclined to get mad at the victims for lying about something that isn't even illegal.

I have to take back what I said about Trump trying to stop the investigation, his motivation appears to be a distrust of the people in charge of it. If he believed the spying was based on bogus Clinton campaign oppo research - and it was - then he couldn't have much confidence in the FBI hierarchy that allowed it to be used for a FISA warrant.

Trump started blocking the investigation long before many of the details you cite were known. And you are assuming that the investigation was illegal or wrong or politically motivated. None of that is proven yet. If there was an ongoing investigation, and he tried to stop it, he committed obstruction. Trump's opinion of the investigation doesn't matter.

 

[onejayhawk]

So it is officially over. Mueller announces that the Office of Special Counsel is closed and that investigation is complete. Trump, naturally, tweeted, " Case closed" with considerable justification.

Mueller gave a very scripted nine minute statement and made it sound like a scripted statement. If he is dragged before Congress, he will not do well on cross examination from Republicans. He is open to questions about hiring his team (Anrew Weissmann and Peter Strzok have conflicts of interest), why the team failed to follow any of the many leads toward Democrats, particularly the Clinton campaign, etc. The big question is whether they even had sufficient evidence of collusion to constitute probable cause and, if so, when and where it was acquired.

Far from the culmination of a career, Mueller's report is the ruin of his.

J

 

[Berzerker]

Trump started blocking the investigation long before many of the details you cite were known. And you are assuming that the investigation was illegal or wrong or politically motivated. None of that is proven yet. If there was an ongoing investigation, and he tried to stop it, he committed obstruction. Trump's opinion of the investigation doesn't matter.

From what I understand Comey went to President-elect Trump in Jan '17 to tell him about the dossier and the dirt that was circulating out there. It wasn't long after that Trump was complaining about how he was spied on. The FISA warrant on Page was acquired on the basis of Steele's research and it was BS. Illegal? Nobody will go to jail for it. Wrong? Hell yes. Politically motivated? Most certainly was wrt the Clinton campaign. But did the FBI people receiving and using the dossier to convince a judge to authorize spying do it for political reasons? Its possible. It doesn't look good, a bunch of rumors and gossip somehow took center stage by waltzing right into a FISA warrant application to spy on political opponents.

 

[Berzerker]

I thought he said they could not with confidence exonerate Trump of obstruction.

"if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

Okay, thats not quite the same thing

 

[Wastl]

So it is officially over. Mueller announces that the Office of Special Counsel is closed and that investigation is complete. Trump, naturally, tweeted, " Case closed" with considerable justification.

Mueller gave a very scripted nine minute statement and made it sound like a scripted statement. If he is dragged before Congress, he will not do well on cross examination from Republicans. He is open to questions about hiring his team (Anrew Weissmann and Peter Strzok have conflicts of interest), why the team failed to follow any of the many leads toward Democrats, particularly the Clinton campaign, etc. The big question is whether they even had sufficient evidence of collusion to constitute probable cause and, if so, when and where it was acquired.

Far from the culmination of a career, Mueller's report is the ruin of his.

J

You sound like a broken record, a mix of Pravda, German propaganda in the late stages of WW2, and 1984. At this point it's just down to throwing as many lies as you can at the wall in the hope that at least one person will believe one of them.

 

[onejayhawk]

Trump started blocking the investigation long before many of the details you cite were known. And you are assuming that the investigation was illegal or wrong or politically motivated. None of that is proven yet. If there was an ongoing investigation, and he tried to stop it, he committed obstruction. Trump's opinion of the investigation doesn't matter.

What are you talking about? Trump never blocked the investigation. He did complain about it, loudly and at length, but he was a model of cooperation.

You sound like a broken record, a mix of Pravda, German propaganda in the late stages of WW2, and 1984. At this point it's just down to throwing as many lies as you can at the wall in the hope that at least one person will believe one of them.

That was the plan in the whole Clinton Presidency--I was a small investor, we lost money, those files should never have been there and the person responsible has been terminated, I never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. Then it was Hillary--there was nothing but emails about yoga classes and the wedding, I was never informed, mistakes were made but those people are no longer with us, what do you mean wipe, like with a rag, it's a nothingburger. Now its officials from the Obama administration--We believe Page is a Russian agent, Steele is a credible source, any of these could be construed as obstruction, Comey was responsible.

I think you have the wrong party trowing out lies.

J

 

[rah]

but he was a model of cooperation.

The model of cooperation would have openly testified and not whined about it. Since he didn't, I don't think it's fair to claim that.