Postmortem on Mueller

[Tristan_C]

That's just a ridiculous assertion by mueller, since his job was to determine if there was enough evidence to support indictment, not be judge and jury for alleged crimes. Way overstepping.

Things could be worse, though. If there were no counter-investigation and no talk of one, the special counsel would have utilized Cohen to generate any amount of false testimony, to any desired effect, for Congress' and the media's use in impeachment. If that were feasible at all, Weismann would have insisted and gone ahead with it. It's in his resume. It's probably why he remained on the team for the two years during which they never had a collusion story.

Mueller's office could also have issued the false charges itself, despite him saying in this press conference that it is unconstitutional. That is not an effective barrier against political backing, and they have plenty of political backing. The press shills for them and they know it.

 

[Lexicus]

That's just a ridiculous assertion by mueller, since his job was to determine if there was enough evidence to support indictment, not be judge and jury for alleged crimes. Way overstepping.

It seems perfectly reasonable thing for him to say given the certainty that his report would be intentionally misrepresented by the usual suspects as an exoneration of Trump.

Mueller's job was not "to determine if there was enough evidence to support indictment", incidentally, because it is the policy of the Justice Department not to indict a sitting President.

 

[Berzerker]

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

 

[Lexicus]

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?

So here we go again, I do have to say I am not sure at what point the "libertarians" decided en masse that the President can end any investigation or proceedings against his own administration if the investigation or proceedings might cause him political trouble.

 

[Berzerker]

Amash is a libertarian and I decided that when I found out the Steele dossier was the basis for a warrant to spy on Page.

If the shoe was on the other foot and Trump was sending gossip on Hillary to the FBI before an election to trigger an investigation and succeeded do you think that investigation should go forward?

 

[rah]

Mueller: 'If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

Fact

 

[civvver]

How do you prove someone did not do something? You can't prove he did it, the logical conclusion is to say he didn't do it. Proving the absence of something is very difficult.

 

[Berzerker]

fact: we're not sure Trump didn't commit a crime

are you not sure he did?

 

[Lexicus]

are you sure he did?

Wrt conspiracy with the Russians to influence the election? No. I am sure he committed obstruction of justice, I am sure he is violating his oath of office (though I don't know if that technically counts as a crime), and I am sure he is violating international law and the Constitution.

 

[rah]

It took 22 months and they still couldn't prove he was innocent. Granted, while it's suspicious (if you read the report) you can hardly say it was a witch hunt, since a witch hunt would imply that it was totally made up and there was nothing there. If nothing else, there was obviously more than enough to justify a closer look.
Anyone that sees this as vindication has really low standards. But we already knew that.

 

[Berzerker]

Wrt conspiracy with the Russians to influence the election? No. I am sure he committed obstruction of justice, I am sure he is violating his oath of office (though I don't know if that technically counts as a crime), and I am sure he is violating international law and the Constitution.

But wasn't that conspiracy the reason for the investigation? What justice did he obstruct then? From a moral perspective should wild goose chases be allowed to continue? No... I know Trump acted out of self interest too, but I can see why he's mad. I thought he was just acting but I'd be mad too if my opponent sent self serving rumors and gossip to the FBI to spy on me and my family and friends and lock them up for lying about personal indiscretions. You argued libertarians should support that abuse of the judicial system as a matter of principle?

What Presidents dont violate their oaths? Hell, Bush lied us into a war in Iraq and Obama lied us into a war in Syria and you're upset by Trump because he tried to end a politically driven investigation hurting his family and friends while trying to upend the 2016 election. I'm more angry with the Democrats and the FBI turning the DoJUSTICE into a political hit squad. And then the Democrats turn around and accuse Trump of running a banana republic for 'lock her up' chants while Democrats were behind locking up Trump's people.

 

[rah]

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

And Trump's people were guilty. (guilty enough to take plea agreements anyway)
Lock her up are still unproven charges. Where despite my doubt, years of investigations failed to produce anything.

Yeah Trump should be pissed. He could be looking at considerable jail time once his term is over.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm more angry with the Democrats and the FBI turning the DoJUSTICE into a political hit squad.

Yeah. Like I said. Fascism. You guys can't keep up the "anti-government" pose when you believe the President should not be subject to the law.

 

[civvver]

I disapprove of a lot of the things trump is doing. This investigation and possible obstruction is not one of them.

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah. Like I said. Fascism. You guys can't keep up the "anti-government" pose when you believe the President should not be subject to the law.

Is there some law that says your political enemies can send the FBI a bunch of BS about you so they can grab power? And you're the fascist...and they're Antifa ofc. If a politician took a dislike to your criticisms and got the FBI to spy on you, who is the fascist?

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

And Trump's people were guilty. (guilty enough to take plea agreements anyway)
Lock her up are still unproven charges. Where despite my doubt, years of investigations failed to produce anything.

Yeah Trump should be pissed. He could be looking at considerable jail time once his term is over.

Plea agreements are a whole nuther hornets nest given innocent people take them too, but the rationale for spying was unproven charges. The severity of obstructing justice depends on the existence and nature of a crime. There was no crime and the pursuit of justice derived from the machinations of political opponents. For all the talk I hear of Trump weaponizing information it was the Clinton campaign and possibly the Obama administration doing it. They turned opposition research into a FISA warrant on their enemies.

 

[rah]

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

Actually no.

Someone obstructs justice when that person has a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, that person must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but that person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a connection between the endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the person must have knowledge of this connection.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal administrative agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.

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.

 

[Lexicus]

Is there some law that says your political enemies can send the FBI a bunch of BS about you so they can grab power?

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

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I disapprove of a lot of the things trump is doing. This investigation and possible obstruction is not one of them.

You're fine with obstruction? Cool beans then

 

[Estebonrober]

Amash is a libertarian and I decided that when I found out the Steele dossier was the basis for a warrant to spy on Page.

If the shoe was on the other foot and Trump was sending gossip on Hillary to the FBI before an election to trigger an investigation and succeeded do you think that investigation should go forward?

Yes it is at least worth investigating. The crime being so ******* serious.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Fox articles show up in my news feed from time to time and at least they are carrying Chris Christie's statements on Mueller's briefing. He pointed out the AGs statements were contradicted by Meuller. Bret Bauer also has a piece out critical of the NO OBSTRUCTION NO COLLUSION narrative.