Postmortem on Mueller

[Berzerker]

No. It means that he can't exonerate Trump because Trump is a suspected perpetrator of a crime. Mueller is prevented both from saying that he committed a crime, and charging him with a crime by the DOJ.

Note the special emphasis on saying that he committed a crime. Mueller is effectively muzzled by the DOJ, and because the report is in the hands of a traitor like Barr and heavily redacted, Mueller can't speak to the specifics of the report because it hasn't been, and most likely, will never be fully released until Trump is safely out of office. If even then.

But hey, your mileage may vary in your little corner of the world.

"In the report, Mueller said he found no evidence the Trump campaign coordinated with Russian officials to win the 2016 presidential election but he declined to make a decision on whether there was enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. Mueller said Wednesday that Justice Department policy barred his team from considering charges against a sitting president."

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/r...ince-end-russia-probe/RKPNFVRTHCXywLkpkJPrbI/

If he found evidence of coordination couldn't he say so? This isn't about Mueller indicting or charging the President, its about him identifying crimes and determining if the evidence can support charges. I was under the impression Kenneth Starr identified several felonies committed by Bill Clinton and he was found guilty of some and punished by the courts in addition to impeachment.

Mueller identified a dozen or so instances of possible obstruction. Were these cases of Trump telling people to shut down the investigation or to get rid of certain people involved with the investigation? The former 'might' be obstruction, the latter could be the actions of an innocent man making sure the investigators were fair. Actually an innocent man would have been justified in shutting it down too, this was clearly an abuse of the FISA system by political operatives.

So what did Mueller say about the coordination/conspiracy? He found no evidence. Then what was Trump obstructing? His motive for obstruction evaporates without a crime to cover up. So what other motive could he have? Like I said, he was paranoid about the people investigating him and he had good reason. He knew the conspiracy charge built around Steele's dossier was bogus and somehow became a FISA warrant. He undoubtedly thought the fix was in, even the FBI and FISA court was out to get him. Thats why he was so mad Sessions recused himself, Trump was counting on him making sure the Obama DoJ didn't railroad him.

 

[Arakhor]

You will have zealots all over the country looking thru tax returns to identify their enemies.

If that's your argument to attempt to excuse why it's fine for Trump not to release his tax returns, I should point out that it's Norway (I think) where everyone's income is a matter of public record and they haven't collapsed into a dystopian hellhole of recrimination just yet.

 

[Estebonrober]

Normally means how you treat people whose politics are unknown. If you want to know who is donating to whom, should voting still be secret? Here is what I see happening if tax returns are public, the country will become even more polarized as people move based on ideology, a kind of political cleansing evolves as liberals and conservatives seek safety in numbers. People self segregate, publishing tax returns will encourage it even more.

Well I think this viewpoint is insanely pessimistic. Also this solution provides for other possibilities as well since it would allow for proper negotiating with employers, being into view the actual disparity between wealthy and poor, and dramatically reduce financial crimes such as embezzlement and laundering.

 

[rah]

Actually an innocent man would have been justified in shutting it down too

Actually not. It's still obstruction of justice. We keep saying this but you keep repeating it.

 

[Arakhor]

Actually not. It's still obstruction of justice. We keep saying this but you keep repeating it.

Well, obviously. Anyone with any personal interest in any investigation should automatically recuse themselves from any sort of authority over the matter, so no, not even an innocent person would be justified in shutting it down, as an honourable person would already have recused themselves before then.

 

[Old Hippy]

Well, obviously. Anyone with any personal interest in any investigation should automatically recuse themselves from any sort of authority over the matter, so no, not even an innocent person would be justified in shutting it down, as an honourable person would already have recused themselves before then.

when was it shut down...

 

[rah]

If you read the report you see that seems to have been attempted. It doesn't have to succeed to be considered OOJ.

 

[Old Hippy]

If you read the report you see that seems to have been attempted. It doesn't have to succeed to be considered OOJ.

I did it seems mueller did not recommend charges or make a recommendation on that... I waited a whole two years and Mueller can not even run a which hunt properly...

 

[Arakhor]

And you know exactly why he didn't recommend charges. Besides, he certainly wasn't running a which hunt.

 

[rah]

The why doesn't matter to his apologists. Why is Trump calling his Mueller a Trump Hater if he clearly didn't recommend charges? Obviously Trump thinks Mueller leveled an accusation or he would still be Trumps friend for exonerating him. You don't get it both ways.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I did it seems mueller did not recommend charges or make a recommendation on that... I waited a whole two years and Mueller can not even run a which hunt properly...

He used a bit of circular logic to justify not taking a stance and even Barr is frustrated with Mueller's approach.

His reasoning went that there is a memo from the Department of Justice (drafted by a Nixon stooge) which states that a President can't be indicted. Mueller stated he followed that memo and since he can't indict the President, he doesn't think it's fair to even say the President committed crimes because he won't have a day in court to clear his name.

Really it's quite bizarre. I can't figure out why he'd do this other than being afraid of the controversy.

 

[Old Hippy]

And you know exactly why he didn't recommend charges. Besides, he certainly wasn't running a which hunt.

because he did not find the evidence as he said in volume one... and if he did not find the evidence... Trump under the premise no one is above the law... or as I like say everyone should be equal under the law... was well within his rights to draw attention to the 'hunt' that has been going on since before he was elected... you are probably thinking... which hunt...and you would be right...

@hobbsyoyo

He used a bit of circular logic to justify not taking a stance and even Barr is frustrated with Mueller's approach.

you should read the joint statement put out by mueller's office and Barr's office within 24 hours of mueller's press conference...

 

[Arakhor]

The Mueller investigation started in May 2017, according to the Internet. Now, whether you call it a which hunt or witch hunt, that was after he was elected.

 

[rah]

Facts mean nothing to his apologists.

 

[Old Hippy]

Facts mean nothing to his apologists.

talking about Mueller...
"The pot calling the kettle black" is a proverbial idiom that may be of Spanish origin of which English versions began to appear in the first half of the 17th century.

The Mueller investigation started in May 2017, according to the Internet. Now, whether you call it a which hunt or witch hunt, that was after he was elected.

the IG referred complaints of misconduct to the DOJ about FISA... way back in 2015... Comey made findings about Hillary before Trump took office... Trump run on a witch hunt promise...

 

[innonimatu]

He used a bit of circular logic to justify not taking a stance and even Barr is frustrated with Mueller's approach.

His reasoning went that there is a memo from the Department of Justice (drafted by a Nixon stooge) which states that a President can't be indicted. Mueller stated he followed that memo and since he can't indict the President, he doesn't think it's fair to even say the President committed crimes because he won't have a day in court to clear his name.

Really it's quite bizarre. I can't figure out why he'd do this other than being afraid of the controversy.

He did this because he failed to deliver what he had been commissioned to. Remember Comey and how he played both sides and ended up hated by both. Mueller comes from the same bag.

Mueller's purpose in this was always political, to hobble Trump, ideally to open the way to overthrow him. But he just couldn't deliver because while he could produce the "paperwork" necessary as an excuse for political coup (merely by claiming that collusion or obstruction was proven and launching an accusation), that coup couldn't succeed. He would be laughed out of court if any of his accusations of coordination with russians were put to the test, and the far more important political court cannot impeach Trump because he remains too popular with the population still. We saw this crap done in Brazil, if you had paid attention you'd know how it works, and how it can fail.

Unable to be on there winning side according to plan, but needing some kind of protection from those who ordered the job because he correctly fears that there is payback coming, Mueller has been trying to appease both sides in the end to be let out quietly.

The people who do not understand the way this has progressed and the current events are those still unable to either see or admit the obvious: that this was a political process based on false accusations from the start, a failed coup against the result of the election. Whatever you think of Trump, whether you like him or oppose him or despise him, that should not change your analysis of the facts around this particular dirty episode of american politics. That top people at some intelligence agencies took upon themselves to participate in an attempted coup against the elected president should be the thing worrying you. You need a new Church Committee.

 

[Arakhor]

the IG referred complaints of misconduct to the DOJ about FISA... way back in 2015... Comey made findings about Hillary before Trump took office... Trump run on a witch hunt promise...

This is a thread about Mueller's report, not Comey, Clinton or Trump's wild statements prior to his election. Forgive me for focussing on the thread topic.

 

[Estebonrober]

The people who do not understand the way this has progressed and the current events are those still unable to either see or admit the obvious: that this was a political process based on false accusations from the start, a failed coup against the result of the election. Whatever you think of Trump, whether you like him or oppose him or despise him, that should not change your analysis of the facts around this particular dirty episode of american politics. That top people at some intelligence agencies took upon themselves to participate in an attempted coup against the elected president should be the thing worrying you. You need a new Church Committee.

We have an IG investigating this now. Calm yourself. The entire first part of your statement is rubbish as I consider him guilty still of being a patsy for Russia. . .to this very day. So I obviously believe our intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies would have been guilty of dereliction of duty had they not started this investigation. My only complaint is that it took so long.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Forgive me for focussing on the thread topic.

We cannot. Focusing on the thread topic is unforgivable. This is the Off-Topic forum. On-topic posts are strictly forbidden!

 

[Berzerker]

If that's your argument to attempt to excuse why it's fine for Trump not to release his tax returns, I should point out that it's Norway (I think) where everyone's income is a matter of public record and they haven't collapsed into a dystopian hellhole of recrimination just yet.

Este and I were discussing his idea of publishing everyone's taxes, my argument was handing out that information will result in more self segregation as liberals and conservatives move away from potential nearby criminals targeting them for their political views. If you lived in Norway and your taxes identified you as a supporter of Jewish causes wouldn't you feel unsafe if your neighbors were anti-semitic? If money was the only thing being reported I'd still oppose his idea, how much I make or dont make is not my neighbor's business.

As Mueller said both in his report and live, he was not permitted by DOJ policy to make a decision about obstruction. He clearly stated that the policy only allowed him to present the evidence and that [congress] would have to decide what to do with it. On the conspiracy/collusion issue he said that there was not sufficient evidence. The underlying thread seemed to be that the campaign was too inept to actually conspire. The obstruction issue is simple: trying to interfere with an federal investigation is obstruction. end of story. Trump is now trying to say that because i think that the investigation was wrong/misguided/politically motivated etc. I can't have obstructed it. to have any chance of making that stick, he will need convince somebody (I don't know who) that was the case. I think that Trump is just trying to convince his base and give Republicans cover to keep supporting him. Obstruction is very narrowly defined: doing things to impede an investigation. Mueller found ten instances of that. Trump wants to redefine obstruction to somehow make the charges not stick.Typically, he is trying to blame Hillary because his base likes that. To blame Hillary he has to make the dossier the most important element of launching the investigation. Which it wasn't. This is classic Trump: try to rewrite the public narrative to suit his purposes and truth doesn't matter.

Okay, so the 10 instances was his evidence of obstruction but he wouldn't call it criminal. The dossier was the most important element of the FISA warrant on Page. Throughout this time Trump attacked the investigation as a witch hunt, a hoax. He was right. Mueller cleared him of conspiracy. So we're left with obstructing a crime that didn't happen. Yes I know obstruction doesn't need a crime, but it does require intent. Right?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/31/18645173/mueller-report-barr-trump-obstruction
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/18514290/mueller-report-findings-trump-obstruction-justice

There's a couple of good articles about what Mueller could have done, I think he could have done more than leave everyone arguing about what he thought of impeachment. Starr did much more, he found evidence of felonies and provided the details to the courts and Clinton was charged. From what I understand Mueller's report is limited to identifying actions by Trump that could be interpreted as obstruction or oversight. The reason obstruction runs into trouble is Trump never ordered anyone to stop the investigation. But he did exercise oversight and bias was exposed in both the justification for the spying and the ensuing investigation by Mueller.