Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

[ExpandMyMind]

10 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

It was a very stupid analogy.

This doesn't count for much, considering your record of never understanding an analogy that's presented to you by anyone, ever. It's just another one that you couldn't process, even, apparently, after it has been broken down for you.

11 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I didn't say it was right, I said firing Mueller was legal.

The action of firing Mueller may have been legal, but doing so to end an in investigation is obstruction of justice. Again, see Watergate - on their own, the actions of the criminals would not have been illegal if they were not trying to interfere in the process of an investigation. If they weren't committing obstruction it would have been fine.

14 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Obstruction would have to be proved since the investigation could continue regardless of whether Mueller was in charge or not, just like it continued just fine when Comey was fired.  Your hysteria aside, it would be legal.

In your opinion. Quite a strange opinion as well since we know that Trump was trying to end or control the investigation, not simply trying to fire Mueller.

16 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

No you think you know the reason

Yes, because Trump told us the reason.

All this is forgetting the Trump Tower meeting and, more importantly, the letter that Trump created to shield his son. The Trump Tower meeting was 100% a crime, as stated by the Mueller report. The only reason that Jr was not charged was because Mueller thought it would be difficult to prove that Jr knew it was a crime, and apparently intent  would be required for a conviction. But Trump didn't know this when he wrote that letter, so when he did so he was actively trying to cover up a crime. And unlike Jr, Trump would no doubt have had the counsel of his lawyers to tell him that Jr had indeed likely committed a crime, so he can't even claim stupidity like his son. More obstruction.

Seriously, Merc, the case for obstruction is overwhelming. There are just so many clear examples of it having taken place. 

[+DieChecker]

14 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Just stop. The Mueller report did nothing but vindicate everyone who said an investigation was necessary.

The Mueller Report Shows Why the Trump Campaign Was Such an Easy Target for Russia

The Attorney General Said There Was 'No Collusion.' But Trump Associates Still Interacted With Russians More Than 100 Times

 

Considering Russia's efforts during that election, and the team Trump denials, those contacts needed to be investigated and you damn well know you would crawl naked through a mile of broken glass to see an investigation into anyone without an R next to their name who behaved in the same manner.

 

I think what it showed is how bad the DNC was at protecting their email. If Dems had secure email, the hacks wouldn't have happened and "collusion" would never have required a Mueller Report. The FBI would have investigated the people it was already investigating, and the people charged likely would have been charged anyway.

Edited April 23, 2019 by DieChecker

[Merc14]

Alan Dershowitz explains why Mueler got obstruction completely wrong:

[+DieChecker]

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

@Farmer77   It's amazing how they can railroad/frame an innocent man and and yet it is HE that is portrayed as the devil himself.  That requires an awful lot of smoke.  [cough]

Guilty till proven innocent.

He prevented HILLARY from becoming presudent!!! Unforgivable! It was her turn!

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Seriously, Merc, the case for obstruction is overwhelming.

The case is soooooooooo overwhelming that after 2.5 years of investigation, the case of obstruction was never recommended to go forth by Mueller,   Uh huh.  

EMM,  if there was ever a post you made in here that best demonstrated your Trump Derangement Syndrome, this is it.

[+DieChecker]

4 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Alan Dershowitz explains why Mueler got obstruction completely wrong:

The left hates Dershowitz now. Consider him a sell out. Not for being a Constitutional expert, but for daring to speak about it, when it prevents vilifying Trump.

[ExpandMyMind]

Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The case is soooooooooo overwhelming that after 2.5 years of investigation, the case of obstruction was never recommended to go forth by Mueller,   Uh huh.  

EMM,  if there was ever a post you made in here that best demonstrated your Trump Derangement Syndrome, this is it.

That's literally the opposite of reality. Mueller referred the case of obstruction to Congress for them to make a decision. The Special Counsel basically created a roadmap for impeachment, which numerous politicians have not failed to notice.

[ExpandMyMind]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The left hates Dershowitz now. Consider him a sell out. Not for being a Constitutional expert, but for daring to speak about it, when it prevents vilifying Trump.

I knew he was a shill years before I even knew he was a "Democrat". 

[+DieChecker]

17 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Seriously, Merc, the case for obstruction is overwhelming. There are just so many clear examples of it having taken place. 

I think the problem is that there was intent, nothing he wanted ever was implemented, other then firing Comey. And Comey had it coming regardless.

Without a actual thing obstructed. Intent isn't necessarily a crime. That's why presidents have advisors. All he has to say is he was bounding ideas of his advisors, and he's off the hook. 

Very hard to prove intent and a consequence.

 

[+DieChecker]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

That's literally the opposite of reality. Mueller referred the case of obstruction to Congress for them to make a decision. The Special Counsel basically created a roadmap for impeachment, which numerous politicians have not failed to notice.

No he didn't. He simply stated he wouldn't/couldn't make a decision on obstruction.

Do you want the quote?

[+DieChecker]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I knew he was a shill years before I even knew he was a "Democrat". 

A Consitutionally correct shill. 100% correct.

[+DieChecker]

14 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

No he didn't. He simply stated he wouldn't/couldn't make a decision on obstruction.

Do you want the quote?

@ExpandMyMind. The text of Mueller's conclusion regarding obstruction. Please point where it says Congress decides anything.

Quote

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, 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, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

It does not say anything about who does get to decide. Or even if someone else should. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by DieChecker

[ian hacktorp]

20 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Mueller referred the case of obstruction to Congress for them to make a decision. The Special Counsel basically created a roadmap for impeachment, which numerous politicians have not failed to notice.

Wrong again.  At this point, you're batting way below the Medoza line.  Even the screaming Lefty media can't agree on this one:

The Mueller report is not an impeachment referral - The Washington Post

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../04/.../mueller-report-is-not-an-impeachment-referral...

3 days ago - A federal prosecutor charged with investigating possible crimes would recognize that telling Congress what to do is not his role.

The Mueller Report Is an Impeachment Referral - The Atlantic

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/mueller-report...referral/587509/

1.  

5 days ago - Only Congress can now resolve the allegations...

 

Mueller can't make such a referral to congress.  That's outside his scope of work.

You whiff again.

Edited April 23, 2019 by hacktorp

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

17 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Very hard to prove intent and a consequence.

Not for a liberal  

[Tiggs]

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Do you want the quote?

Quoting stuff sounds like a good idea. The DOJ changed the PDF file in the OP yesterday, so that the text can now be selected, for quoting purposes.

Anyone fancy a drink, since I'm here?

[ExpandMyMind]

15 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think the problem is that there was intent, nothing he wanted ever was implemented, other then firing Comey. And Comey had it coming regardless.

Without a actual thing obstructed. Intent isn't necessarily a crime. That's why presidents have advisors. All he has to say is he was bounding ideas of his advisors, and he's off the hook. 

Very hard to prove intent and a consequence.

 

What are you on about, mate? Intent is everything and his intent was to end the investigation. This is why a housewife can be prosecuted for hiring a 'hitman' to kill her husband, even if that hitman turns out to be an undercover officer. Intent. It's the reason Jr wasn't prosecuted for the Trump Tower meeting - lack of provable intent. 

If he had ordered Sessions to rob a bank but Sessions refused, would he be off the hook in that hypothetical? He still ordered him to commit a crime. There is no defence that doesn't require some Olympic-level mental gymnastics in order to be swallowed.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Anyone fancy a drink, since I'm here?

Where the heck ya been, Tiggs?   Anyway, Gray Goose and tonic. Ya.

[+DieChecker]

3 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Quoting stuff sounds like a good idea. The DOJ changed the PDF file in the OP yesterday, so that the text can now be selected, for quoting purposes.

Anyone fancy a drink, since I'm here?

I quoted it above. No mention of AG making such a decision, or Congress. Only that the Report wasn't making a decision.

[+DieChecker]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

What are you on about, mate? Intent is everything and his intent was to end the investigation. This is why a housewife can be prosecuted for hiring a 'hitman' to kill her husband, even if that hitman turns out to be an undercover officer. Intent. It's the reason Jr wasn't prosecuted for the Trump Tower meeting - lack of provable intent. 

If he had ordered Sessions to rob a bank but Sessions refused, would he be off the hook in that hypothetical? He still ordered him to commit a crime. There is no defence that doesn't require some Olympic-level mental gymnastics in order to be swallowed.

So what hitman was hired? Or did the housewife tell the neighbor, and the neighbor said it wasn't a good idea. Is that still a crime?

AFAIK, there has to be intent and something illegal done. Intent alone is not prosecutable. What actions did Trump actually make happen? Comey is the only thing I can think of. And his firing is problematic for a number of reasons.

Yes, if Sessions was ordered to rob a bank and didn't, that isn't necessarily a crime. There are crimes where Premeditating the crime is a crime, like in Murder. But, I don't think that applies to something like obstruction, though I could be wrong. But... I've not read anyone saying this is so, and I think they would have by now to try to firm up support for impeachment. The fact such hasn't happened probably means it isn't going to happen.

Edited April 23, 2019 by DieChecker

[ExpandMyMind]

22 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

No he didn't. He simply stated he wouldn't/couldn't make a decision on obstruction.

Do you want the quote?

What do you think Mueller stating outright that if he could show that Trump did not commit a crime he would have done so means? Before going on to state:

Quote

"Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice," ... "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of his office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

It was basically: 'I don't have the authority to prosecute, here's the evidence and now it's up to you elected officials to do your constitutional duty.'

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Democrats lose the 2.5 year campaign for "collusion" and in  3.2 milliseconds they move the goalpost to "obstruction"  and taxes.

Talk about 'Hos   

Edited April 23, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[ExpandMyMind]

15 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The text of Mueller's conclusion regarding obstruction. Please point where it says Congress decides anything.

 

Dude, the reason was given in literally the first sentence of your quote.

Quote

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment

Like I said. 'It's not our job to decide whether the President committed a crime. Here's the mountain of evidence that shows he did commit a crime along with a friendly little reminder that it is the constitutional duty of elected officials to make sure he doesn't get away with it'. A roadmap to impeachment.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

12 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Quoting stuff sounds like a good idea. The DOJ changed the PDF file in the OP yesterday, so that the text can now be selected, for quoting purposes.

Anyone fancy a drink, since I'm here?

I'd order a Russian Collusion but all I'd get would be an empty glass.

[Kismit]

10 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Quoting stuff sounds like a good idea. The DOJ changed the PDF file in the OP yesterday, so that the text can now be selected, for quoting purposes.

Anyone fancy a drink, since I'm here?

Excellent that means people can now quote the report and discuss that, as opposed to discussions on mental capacity or assumptions of motivation.

Just a water and lime for me Tigg’s, It’s 6.30am here

[+DieChecker]

5 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

What do you think Mueller stating outright that if he could show that Trump did not commit a crime he would have done so means? Before going on to state:

Quote

"Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice," ... "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of his office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

It was basically: 'I don't have the authority to prosecute, here's the evidence and now it's up to you elected officials to do your constitutional duty.'

Hummm... Yes,  I thought that is where you were going.

Basically Mueller's team did say (in establishing constitutional/congressional applicability on obstruction) that IF THERE IS Obstruction, that Congress can punish the President. But... Mueller didn't say there was obstruction, he said he wouldn't decide on that. So if Congress wants to read the report and THEY DECIDE there is obstruction, then they can follow up. But Mueller said no such thing that it was up to Congress. He said he would not decide.

He had the authority, he simply didn't think the instances were prosecuable. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by DieChecker