Mueller Report Finally Released...

[Chop]

You are right. The House gets to determine the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. The House knows impeachment doesn't get them what they want, so they instead use the Mueller report to twist its findings as far as possible in preparation for the 2020 election. I think it is the right decision, honestly.

If Democrats impeach and then the Senate votes to keep Trump in office, the Democrats lose a big political defeat right before the election. They may try to impeach if Trump wins in 2020 just to keep Trump off balance.

Yep. Former President Gerald Ford gave a realistic assessment of impeachment, opining that impeachment is a political act that could be done for just about anything the House wants to impeach for. That's to be expected when the House gets to define what high crimes and misdemeanors mean.

Impeachment without conviction (the only kind we've had for presidents so far) operates something like a mere censure or vote of no confidence.

Federal judges have been impeached and removed from the bench, usually for corruption, bribery, etc.

 

[bystander]

Yep. Former President Gerald Ford gave a realistic assessment of impeachment, opining that impeachment is a political act that could be done for just about anything the House wants to impeach for. That's to be expected when the House gets to define what high crimes and misdemeanors mean.

Impeachment without conviction (the only kind we've had for presidents so far) operates something like a mere censure or vote of no confidence.

Federal judges have been impeached and removed from the bench, usually for corruption, bribery, etc.

That's what it looks like to me. I see no braking mechanism other than political backlash by the governed to a partisan house deciding to railroad the President. It's a flawed system in my view.

 

[OUBubba]

Barry,

That isn't how the system works. The absence of innocence (or evidence of innocence) doesn't equate guilt, and frankly, if we were talking about anybody but Trump, people would horrified at this kind of standard. It essentially nullifies the prosecutor's burden of proof.

People talk about the Whitewater investigation and say the Clinton's were exonerated. Was their innocence proven? No. The matter was closed for lack of evidence - after a potential witness died, another went to the slammer for refusing to testify, and several documents were destroyed). Furthermore, several people who were close to the Clintons (much closer than Manafort was to Trump) went the slammer for the actual crime under investigation. Despite that, it's treated as an exoneration, and many treated the Clintons as victims of an unfair investigation.

The purpose of the Mueller investigation (which I supported) was to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election and make affirmative findings of what happened, who made them happen, and to prosecute where appropriate. The inability to indict the President isn't a reason to shift the burden of proof. He can still recommend prosecution after he leaves office by his term expiring or by the impeachment and removal process and lay out his evidence.

But Mueller can't [or recommend that Barr] indict Trump. Correct?

 

[Garmel]

But Mueller can't [or recommend that Barr] indict Trump. Correct?

He can recommend but can't indict.

 

[LongestHorn]

Justice Department policy forbids the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” Because Mueller was acting as a special prosecutor within the Justice Department, he said he had to follow this policy. This suggests Mueller believed that no matter what the evidence showed, he did not have the authority to charge the president with a crime.

 

[Mr. Deez]

But Mueller can't [or recommend that Barr] indict Trump. Correct?

He can't recommend it now (because of DoJ guidelines that I don't entirely but we'll assume their legitimacy for now), but he can recommend it when he leaves office.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Justice Department policy forbids the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” Because Mueller was acting as a special prosecutor within the Justice Department, he said he had to follow this policy. This suggests Mueller believed that no matter what the evidence showed, he did not have the authority to charge the president with a crime.

That's a cop-out. He can't indict now. He can recommend prosecution at a later date and lay out the case for that. The reason nobody is pushing to indict and that the Democratic leadership isn't pushing to impeach based on obstruction is that such an effort would fall apart if subjected to any serious legal scrutiny. Basically, so long as Trump didn't hire Michael Cohen again, he'd beat the rap every time.

 

[OUBubba]

That's a cop-out. He can't indict now. He can recommend prosecution at a later date and lay out the case for that. The reason nobody is pushing to indict and that the Democratic leadership isn't pushing to impeach based on obstruction is that such an effort would fall apart if subjected to any serious legal scrutiny. Basically, so long as Trump didn't hire Michael Cohen again, he'd beat the rap every time.

He could literally shoot someone on 5th avenue and the Senate would not vote to impeach. So, the only benefit of any impeachment operation would be to gain access to information that the white house is pushing back on. And, just so we can gain some perspective here, the house under Newt had 140 hours of hearings related to Clinton's Christmas Card list. I'd say having a look at the President's tax returns to determine who owns him is much more reasonable. Especially given that he's the self appointed "king of debt" and yet he's been operating in a cash setting since 2006. Seems a little curious, no?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Barry,

That isn't how the system works. The absence of innocence (or evidence of innocence) doesn't equate guilt, and frankly, if we were talking about anybody but Trump, people would horrified at this kind of standard. It essentially nullifies the prosecutor's burden of proof.

People talk about the Whitewater investigation and say the Clinton's were exonerated. Was their innocence proven? No. The matter was closed for lack of evidence - after a potential witness died, another went to the slammer for refusing to testify, and several documents were destroyed). Furthermore, several people who were close to the Clintons (much closer than Manafort was to Trump) went the slammer for the actual crime under investigation. Despite that, it's treated as an exoneration, and many treated the Clintons as victims of an unfair investigation.

The purpose of the Mueller investigation (which I supported) was to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election and make affirmative findings of what happened, who made them happen, and to prosecute where appropriate. The inability to indict the President isn't a reason to shift the burden of proof. He can still recommend prosecution after he leaves office by his term expiring or by the impeachment and removal process and lay out his evidence.

Isn't the POTUS unique compared to typical cases? The DOJ says a sitting POTUS can't be indicted. This conflicts with the DOJ policy that you can't infer guilt without charging because the accused doesn't have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. This latter point was used against Jim Comey in the HRC fiasco.

So by following the DOJ guidance, he wasn't allowed to indict or even allege guilt. With these things in mind his "but we can't exonerate" approach was appropriate because absent that you essentially grant POTUS full immunity from EVERYTHING from DOJ current guidance.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's a cop-out. He can't indict now. He can recommend prosecution at a later date and lay out the case for that. The reason nobody is pushing to indict and that the Democratic leadership isn't pushing to impeach based on obstruction is that such an effort would fall apart if subjected to any serious legal scrutiny.

Legal scrutiny or the Senate. I'd ague vociferously for the latter.

For that reason continue the Constitutionally supported committee investigations and the Dems should work to win in 2020.

 

[Mr. Deez]

He could literally shoot someone on 5th avenue and the Senate would not vote to impeach.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Robert Mueller or anything he does. By the way, I don't think what you're saying is necessarily true. Trump probably has a weaker grip on his congressional allies than most presidents do.

So, the only benefit of any impeachment operation would be to gain access to information that the white house is pushing back on. And, just so we can gain some perspective here, the house under Newt had 140 hours of hearings related to Clinton's Christmas Card list. I'd say having a look at the President's tax returns to determine who owns him is much more reasonable. Especially given that he's the self appointed "king of debt" and yet he's been operating in a cash setting since 2006. Seems a little curious, no?

Then hold hearings, launch impeachment inquiries, etc. If Democrats want to go there, they have that right. There's a reason why they aren't doing it, and it's not because of what would happen in the Senate. I also don't particularly care if they get Trump's tax returns. If they think they have a legal basis to subpoena his returns, then go for it.

But again, none of this is relevant to Mueller.

 

[mchammer]

He could literally shoot someone on 5th avenue and the Senate would not vote to impeach. So, the only benefit of any impeachment operation would be to gain access to information that the white house is pushing back on. And, just so we can gain some perspective here, the house under Newt had 140 hours of hearings related to Clinton's Christmas Card list. I'd say having a look at the President's tax returns to determine who owns him is much more reasonable. Especially given that he's the self appointed "king of debt" and yet he's been operating in a cash setting since 2006. Seems a little curious, no?

The reason Mueller stopped where he did was that any further analysis would have shown that a conviction was not possible. Prosecutors don’t indict someone whom they know will win the case. As such, Mueller let Rosenstein and Barr make that determination. It had nothing to do with OIG policy. He wanted to leave something for the Dems to carry forward. Had he done the analysis, he probably couldn’t escape DC alive.

 

[Chop]

A few pertinent and interesting things to ponder:

- Co-equal branches of gov't. Trying a sitting President (other than by impeachment followed by trial in the Senate as explicitly set forth in the Constitution) would offend the concept that the 3 branches are co-equal. Since they're co-equal, why should the Judiciary get to convict and/or jail the Executive. Taken a step or two further, why does the supposedly co-equal Judiciary get to tell the co-equal Executive what to do at all (any more than the Executive getting to tell the co-equal Judiciary what to do)? Former AG Ed Meese spoke and wrote about this sort of thing.*

- A Unitary executive -- Once considered an arcane, and even radical, theory propounded only by Scalia and a few other Federalist Society intellectuals, this has slowly worked its way into a place not far from the mainstream. The Constitution vests executive power in one person--the President. The DOJ is under the Executive Branch, so Trump is their boss. The underling cannot trump (pun fully intended) the boss, no servant is greater than his master, etc... +

- Raw power politics by the Chief Executive. Nixon put an end to this sort of thing by having Bork execute the Saturday Night Massacre and fire the special prosecutor pursuing Nixon. However, Nixon was so unpopular after this, his own party urged him to step down to avoid impeachment AND probable conviction.

I don't claim to have all the answers to these often-complex issues, but the above are worth considering.

*yes I've read Marbury v Madison. Look up E. Meese's writings on this, and consider whether Marbury may have been over-read to say much more than J. Marshall actually wrote.

+if this idea, plus a more robust understanding of the separation of powers, captures the mainstream, it could wreak havoc (for better or worse) on the alphabet soup of federal agencies. By the way, such agencies are nowhere in the Constitution and often appear to function as mini-legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Hence, the unitary executive theory is much feared.

 

[OUBubba]

A few pertinent and interesting things to ponder:

- Co-equal branches of gov't. Trying a sitting President (other than by the impeachment followed by trial in Senate process explicitly set forth in the Constitution) would offend the concept that the 3 branches are co-equal. Since they're co-equal, why should the Judiciary get to convict and/or jail the Executive. Taken a step or two further, why does the supposedly co-equal Judiciary get to tell the co-equal Executive what to do at all (any more than the Executive getting to tell the co-equal Judiciary what to do)? Former AG Ed Meese spoke and wrote about this sort of thing.

- A Unitary executive -- Once considered an arcane, and even radical, theory propounded only by Scalia and a few other Federalist Society intellectuals, this has slowly worked its way into a place not far from the mainstream. The Constitution vests executive power in one person--the President. The DOJ is under the Executive Branch, so Trump is their boss. The underling cannot trump (pun fully intended) the boss, no servant is greater than his master, etc...

- Raw power politics by the Chief Executive. Nixon put an end to this sort of thing by having Bork execute the Saturday Night Massacre and fire the special prosecutor pursuing Nixon. However, Nixon was so unpopular after this, his own party urged him to step down to avoid impeachment AND probable conviction.

I don't claim to have all the answers to these often-complex issues, but the above are worth considering.

Nixon as compared to Trump...to quote the good sheriff Buford T. Justice, bankrobbing's baby **** alongside what this dude's been doin'.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Isn't the POTUS unique compared to typical cases? The DOJ says a sitting POTUS can't be indicted. This conflicts with the DOJ policy that you can't infer guilt without charging because the accused doesn't have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. This latter point was used against Jim Comey in the HRC fiasco.

So by following the DOJ guidance, he wasn't allowed to indict or even allege guilt. With these things in mind his "but we can't exonerate" approach was appropriate because absent that you essentially grant POTUS full immunity from EVERYTHING from DOJ current guidance.

There's a big difference between HRC's situation and Trump's. There was no question that HRC could have been indicted. She wasn't the President of the United States. And of course, Comey was a cop. He was doing the job a prosecutor should have been doing.

Here's the problem I have. A sitting POTUS can't be indicted. (By the way, I disagree with this regulation, but that's another discussion.) However, Trump won't always be President. He'll be gone in 2021 or 2025 and can be prosecuted at that time. There's no reason why Mueller couldn't make the case and call for his prosecution when he leaves. Let's put it this way. If we're going to interpret the regulations as Mueller (supposedly) is, then it begs the question of why he should have been pursuing Trump in the first place.

In addition, he has effectively inferred guilt anyway, and Democrats are running with that. The exact reason for the regulation has effectively been nullified. He just hasn't made an evidentiary case to support it.

To be honest, there will always be tension on this, because everybody is sorta half-assing it. If DoJ can't make a move on the President, then Congress must. Ultimately, they are derelict more than Mueller is.

 

[mchammer]

Mueller is a bully when he has the power of government behind him, and likely a coward in personal life (and yes I know he served in Vietnam with distinction but there have been a lot of war heroes with tarnished reputations when they returned to normal life). This is nothing but chickenshit.

John Dowd Blasts Mueller Over Selective Quotes In Russia Report

 

[Garmel]

Mueller is a bully when he has the power of government behind him, and likely a coward in personal life (and yes I know he served in Vietnam with distinction but there have been a lot of war heroes with tarnished reputations when they returned to normal life). This is nothing but chickenshit.

John Dowd Blasts Mueller Over Selective Quotes In Russia Report

Mueller is a dishonest sleazebag. How many more lies/selective editing will be found in this report?

 

[OUBubba]

Mueller is a bully when he has the power of government behind him, and likely a coward in personal life (and yes I know he served in Vietnam with distinction but there have been a lot of war heroes with tarnished reputations when they returned to normal life). This is nothing but chickenshit.

John Dowd Blasts Mueller Over Selective Quotes In Russia Report

Those two things don't say anything different.

 

[Garmel]

Another error in the Mueller report. Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Maybe they should investigate which parts of the Mueller report are NOT slanted, deceptive, and essentially hogwash. Granted, it would be a much tougher task to find those parts.

 

[mchammer]

Maybe they should investigate which parts of the Mueller report are NOT slanted, deceptive, and essentially hogwash. Granted, it would be a much tougher task to find those parts.

People who read the Mueller report regarding possible Obstruction don’t realize that is only half the story. It doesn’t contain Trump’s view. For example, Trump denies he asked McGahn to fire Mueller, and that McGahn took his words wrong.

 

[mchammer]

Here is a US representative basically saying Papadopoulos is innocent yet FBI went after him anyway. Papadopoulos in hindsight never should have said anything to the FBI and let the FBI prove he conspired with Russians. Another case of Mueller abusing his power for self-enrichment and virtue signaling to the dc swamp.

Mark Meadows: FBI Knew ‘Within 60 Days’ That Russia Probe Was ‘Built On A Foundation Of Sand’

 

[Clean]

This is funny.

House Democrats couldn’t get President Donald Trump’s White House counsel to testify about Robert Mueller’s special counsel report. So they’re calling in President Richard Nixon’s instead.


Former White House counsel John Dean will testify before the House Judiciary Committee on June 10, committee chair Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Monday. The hearing, titled “Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes,” will also feature former U.S. attorneys and legal experts.

Dems bringing in John Dean, the convicted felon/debarred lawyer who headed the spying and the cover up for Nixon and then flipped over to testify against his former co conspirators They must be desperate.

https://www.trumperyresistance.com/democrats-bringing-in-nixon-lawyer-john-dean-to-talk-about-the-mueller-report-trumperyresistance/

 

[Horn6721]

John Dean also called for impeachment of W

Does anyone on here think he could have anything intelligent or relevant?
Does anyone on here think this is anything but a desperate attempt to keep negative media coverage on Trump.

 

[I35]

So literally the libs believe that Trump should be impeached for interfering with the FBI’s attempt to frame him.

 

[mchammer]

FBI Tragedy: Elites above the Law | National Review

“When it is established beyond a doubt that foreign surveillance of and contact with George Papadopoulos was used to entrap a minor Trump aide as a means of providing an ex post facto justification for the earlier illegal FBI and CIA surveillance of the Trump campaign, and when it is shown without doubt that Steele had little if any corroborating evidence for his dirty dossier, Mueller’s reputation unfortunately will be further eroded.”

In short, TAINT!!!

 

[Phil Elliott]

and when it is shown without doubt that Steele had little if any corroborating evidence for his dirty dossier, Mueller’s reputation unfortunately will be further eroded.”

Well I would not have used the word "unfortunately". "Deservedly" would be more apt.

 

[mchammer]

Flynn hiring a new lawyer before sentencing. Get this quote:

Powell is the author of the New York Times best seller and tell-all book Licensed To Lie,which exposed the corruption within the justice system. The book is based on the case Powell won against prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, when he was deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force.

Weissmann served as Mueller’s second in command for the special counsel investigation into the Trump campaign, despite the fact that his tactics have been highly criticized by both judges and colleagues. He was called unscrupulous and has had several significant issues raised about how he operated during the Mueller inquiry into Trump campaign officials, including Flynn.

He prosecuted the accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP, which ended in the collapse of the firm and 85,000 jobs lost world wide. Maureen Mahoney took the case to the Supreme Court, and Powell consulted. Mahoney overturned Weissmann’s conviction and the decision was reversed unanimously by the court.

Powell has openly stated in columns and on cable networks that Weissmann’s dirty tactics of withholding exculpatory evidence and threatening witnesses to garner prosecutions should have had him disbarred long ago.

Flynn Hires Sidney Powell - Mueller's "Pit Bull" Meets His Match, Again

 

[LongestHorn]

And it looks like we are about to see if his new attorney is any better than his last.
House Intelligence Committee Issues Subpoenas to Rick Gates and Michael Flynn

 

[mchammer]

Whistle blowers coming forward in Justice Department :

Rep. Meadows: "Indictments Are On Their Way"; Whistleblowers Coming Forward