Mueller Report Imminent

[RockyTop85]

Might explain the current panic, and Trump's obstruction of congressional subpoenas.

I don’t think the two are related. I’m saying that they weren’t prohibited from reaching the conclusion by DOJ guidelines.

If you get convicted at trial by a jury, it’s really hard to overcome that on appeal. We value the trial process and it would be cheapened by some judge or panel of judges regularly relitigating the facts.

Similarly, if you get elected by a majority of voters electoral college, you shouldn’t be effectively removed by one court or prosecutor acting unilaterally. While the constitution doesn’t explicitly prohibit this, it obviously lays out a method for removal of a sitting president.

Mueller basically agreed with DOJ guidelines that he couldn’t bring charges and because he couldn’t bring charges it would be unfair to make an accusation. Basically he didn’t want to be government Jacob Wohl.

In short, he’s not ever going to walk in there and say “yeah, I think the president obstructed justice.”

 

[lawgator1]

Why bother - start the impeachment. After all you claimed that Mueller specifically left this to Congress to decide.

Because he might say "no" and have a good enough reason that it would persuade me it is unjustified. As of right now, all i have is Mueller recounting numerous episodes of what appears to me to obviously be attempted obstruction of the investigation by Trump -- I mean, just flagrantly so -- but the conclusion is that nothing can be done about it by DOJ because of the rule, so it has to be Congress that handles it.

Then we have some gobbledy gook reasoning from Barr and the Administration that no, Barr gets to decide it. And they contradict themselves and make no sense promoting that bizzar-o theory.

So let's hear from Mueller. If Trump were not currently President, would you have charged him? Pretty simple.

 

[hog88]

Because he might say "no" and have a good enough reason that it would persuade me it is unjustified. As of right now, all i have is Mueller recounting numerous episodes of what appears to me to obviously be attempted obstruction of the investigation by Trump -- I mean, just flagrantly so -- but the conclusion is that nothing can be done about it by DOJ because of the rule, so it has to be Congress that handles it.

Then we have some gobbledy gook reasoning from Barr and the Administration that no, Barr gets to decide it. And they contradict themselves and make no sense promoting that bizzar-o theory.

So let's hear from Mueller. If Trump were not currently President, would you have charged him? Pretty simple.

The house could start impeachment hearings and call the Muell as a witness.

 

[Stew Cook]

I don’t think the two are related. I’m saying that they weren’t prohibited from reaching the conclusion by DOJ guidelines.

If you get convicted at trial by a jury, it’s really hard to overcome that on appeal. We value the trial process and it would be cheapened by some judge or panel of judges regularly relitigating the facts.

Similarly, if you get elected by a majority of voters electoral college, you shouldn’t be effectively removed by one court or prosecutor acting unilaterally. While the constitution doesn’t explicitly prohibit this, it obviously lays out a method for removal of a sitting president.

Mueller basically agreed with DOJ guidelines that he couldn’t bring charges and because he couldn’t bring charges it would be unfair to make an accusation. Basically he didn’t want to be government Jacob Wohl.

In short, he’s not ever going to walk in there and say “yeah, I think the president obstructed justice.”

That's where I thought Barr contradicted the DOJ policy. Maybe there will be some clarity.

 

[RockyTop85]

Unfair.......no.....They felt, they know, it would be ignorant to throw out an outright accusation with little to no proof of said accusation....

Nope. Try reading the report. It was on page 2 of Volume 2 in the highlighted portion below.

@Stew Cook same portion is relevant to our conversation :

Barr is saying “DOJ policy doesn’t prohibit concluding that a crime occurred.”

Mueller wrote “DOJ policy does not prohibit concluding that a crime occurred. However, I could not bring charges, so it would have been unfair to conclude that a crime had occurred because there would be no mechanism for the accused to attempt to clear his name.”

He wasn’t constrained by guidelines, he declined to make an ultimate conclusion due to personal ethics. Makes sense why nobody in Washington understands this.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Because he might say "no" and have a good enough reason that it would persuade me it is unjustified. As of right now, all i have is Mueller recounting numerous episodes of what appears to me to obviously be attempted obstruction of the investigation by Trump -- I mean, just flagrantly so -- but the conclusion is that nothing can be done about it by DOJ because of the rule, so it has to be Congress that handles it.

Then we have some gobbledy gook reasoning from Barr and the Administration that no, Barr gets to decide it. And they contradict themselves and make no sense promoting that bizzar-o theory.

So let's hear from Mueller. If Trump were not currently President, would you have charged him? Pretty simple.

All the house and senate panels have to do is subpoena him if he won’t show on his own. Barr has stated he isn’t against Mueller speaking to congress

 

[hog88]

Nope. Try reading the report. It was on page 7 of Volume 2 in the highlighted portion below.

That was a cop-out by the Muell, he could have made a conclusion and Trump would have been afforded the process of impeachment to clear his name should the conclusion been he did obstruct.

 

[BigOrangeD]

It's heating up:

 

[RockyTop85]

That was a cop-out by the Muell, he could have made a conclusion and Trump would have been afforded the process of impeachment to clear his name should the conclusion been he did obstruct.

We’ve been over this before. If he had declared him guilty, democrats would have absolutely 0 incentive to hold impeachment proceedings where he is assured to be acquitted by a Republican Senate majority. They would have what they want politically.

The report gives them the same incentive to impeach (the rule of law) without giving them any political gain in the event that they shirk their duties.

The continued clamor by the left to have Mueller waltz in and declare Trump guilty proves I was and still am right.

 

[volinbham]

Because he might say "no" and have a good enough reason that it would persuade me it is unjustified. As of right now, all i have is Mueller recounting numerous episodes of what appears to me to obviously be attempted obstruction of the investigation by Trump -- I mean, just flagrantly so -- but the conclusion is that nothing can be done about it by DOJ because of the rule, so it has to be Congress that handles it.

Then we have some gobbledy gook reasoning from Barr and the Administration that no, Barr gets to decide it. And they contradict themselves and make no sense promoting that bizzar-o theory.

So let's hear from Mueller. If Trump were not currently President, would you have charged him? Pretty simple.

You are exaggerating the conclusion.

 

[DC_Vol]

You guys keep trotting out the same mouthpieces who pushed the TrumPutingate fable.

You had to be pretty slow to bite the first time around but you get moron status if you’re still posting tweets from these guys with the expectation they are credible.

 

[NorthDallas40]

We’ve been over this before. If he had declared him guilty, democrats would have absolutely 0 incentive to hold impeachment proceedings where he is assured to be acquitted by a Republican Senate majority. They would have what they want politically.

The report gives them the same incentive to impeach (the rule of law) without giving them any political gain in the event that they shirk their duties.

The continued clamor by the left to have Mueller waltz in and declare Trump guilty proves I was and still am right.

So the DOJ can’t indict a sitting president yet they conducted a special prosecutor investigation to see if congress could impeach? Thus if Mueller has found evidence of “high crimes and treason” why wouldn’t he have recommended the House pursue impeachment which is the formal process of indictment for a sitting president?

 

[hog88]

We’ve been over this before. If he had declared him guilty, democrats would have absolutely 0 incentive to hold impeachment proceedings where he is assured to be acquitted by a Republican Senate majority. They would have what they want politically.

The report gives them the same incentive to impeach (the rule of law) without giving them any political gain in the event that they shirk their duties.

The continued clamor by the left to have Mueller waltz in and declare Trump guilty proves I was and still am right.

The Muell did not have to "declare him guilty" if he felt that Trump obstructed justice he could have lined out his reasoning as to why and let congress decide. A SP should not (as you are accusing him of) taking politics into account. I tend to think he did consider politics in the way he wrote his report and should be skewered for it. The Muell should have stated an opinion, if that was obstruction did occur the explain it with evidence and if it was it didn't then this whole thing could have been put to bed.

The Muell wanted exactly what is going on now.

 

[RockyTop85]

he could have lined out his reasoning as to why and let congress decide.

You apparently still haven’t read it.

 

[hog88]

So the DOJ can’t indict a sitting president yet they conducted a special prosecutor investigation to see if congress could impeach? Thus if Mueller has found evidence of “high crimes and treason” why wouldn’t he have recommended the House pursue impeachment which is the formal process of indictment for a sitting president?

It isn't the Muels job to recommend impeachment, it was his job to determine who if anyone committed a crime and bring them to justice. In the case of a sitting president that justice would be the impeachment process instead of a grand jury. The Muell would present his evidence and opinions and the house would decide if there was sufficient evidence to "indict".

He decided to punt knowing the turmoil that would ensue and that was his goal once he realized he wasn't going to make history as the man who brought down a president.

 

[hog88]

You apparently still haven’t read it.

WTF does that have to do with this particular discussion?

 

[volfanjustin]

 

[NorthDallas40]

It isn't the Muels job to recommend impeachment, it was his job to determine who if anyone committed a crime and bring them to justice. In the case of a sitting president that justice would be the impeachment process instead of a grand jury. The Muell would present his evidence and opinions and the house would decide if there was sufficient evidence to "indict".

He decided to punt knowing the turmoil that would ensue and that was his goal once he realized he wasn't going to make history as the man who brought down a president.

So that’s really where I was headed. He abdicated his responsibility which supposedly really pissed Barr off. But since he abdicated or if you like it better leveled no evidence or recommendation to the House for impeachment isn’t that it? It’s over. In his investigation he found no evidence rising to the level of impeachment simply because he abdicated/leveled no charges take your pick. Everything else after that simple fact is personal inference or theatre

 

[RockyTop85]

So the DOJ can’t indict a sitting president yet they conducted a special prosecutor investigation to see if congress could impeach? Thus if Mueller has found evidence of “high crimes and treason” why wouldn’t he have recommended the House pursue impeachment which is the formal process of indictment for a sitting president?

He goes through at the end of each section and and lays out the elements of obstruction and lays out the facts that he feels pertain to each element.

Why does he then need to give his opinion if he’s given the reader the appropriate tools to form their own opinion? His conclusion would only have been used as political fodder to undermine his impartiality and undermine “the integrity of the criminal justice system,” that he says he’s trying to preserve? We already same democrats doing that before the report was released and saw republicans doing it while the investigation was ongoing.

He’d have to be blind not to see what’s going on and how people, including the president, refer to him. By not drawing a conclusion everybody should have had to read the report and decide for themselves but it can’t be said that his ultimate conclusion is evidence of his bias if there’s no ultimate conclusion.

 

[RockyTop85]

WTF does that have to do with this particular discussion?

You making arguments that Mueller should have done things,

which he actually did,

but you don’t know that he did,

because you didn’t read the report before criticizing it

Is not a “discussion.”

 

[C-south]

The Muell did not have to "declare him guilty" if he felt that Trump obstructed justice he could have lined out his reasoning as to why and let congress decide. A SP should not (as you are accusing him of) taking politics into account. I tend to think he did consider politics in the way he wrote his report and should be skewered for it. The Muell should have stated an opinion, if that was obstruction did occur the explain it with evidence and if it was it didn't then this whole thing could have been put to bed.

The Muell wanted exactly what is going on now.

It’s almost like he was kinda told to leave it vague.

 

[NorthDallas40]

He goes through at the end of each section and and lays out the elements of obstruction and lays out the facts that he feels pertain to each element.

Why does he then need to give his opinion if he’s given the reader the appropriate tools to form their own opinion? His conclusion would only have been used as political fodder to undermine his impartiality and undermine “the integrity of the criminal justice system,” that he says he’s trying to preserve? We already same democrats doing that before the report was released and saw republicans doing it while the investigation was ongoing.

He’d have to be blind not to see what’s going on and how people, including the president, refer to him. By not drawing a conclusion everybody should have had to read the report and decide for themselves but it can’t be said that his ultimate conclusion is evidence of his bias if there’s no ultimate conclusion.

So are you saying he was not tasked to investigate whether Trumps conduct rose to the level of obstruction or not? If not then what the hell was he doing for two years? If the end product wasn’t actionable on its own merit why generate the information?

And isn’t your whole last paragraph a tacit description of him abdicating his responsibility?

 

[volfanjustin]

It's heating up:

Certainly hope he sticks to his guns

 

[hog88]

So that’s really where I was headed. He abdicated his responsibility which supposedly really pissed Barr off. But since he abdicated or if you like it better leveled no evidence or recommendation to the House for impeachment isn’t that it? It’s over. In his investigation he found no evidence rising to the level of impeachment simply because he abdicated/leveled no charges take your pick. Everything else after that simple fact is personal inference or theatre

Nah, the house can still hold impeachment hearings.

 

[hog88]

You making arguments that Mueller should have done things,

which he actually did,

but you don’t know that he did,

because you didn’t read the report before criticizing it

Is not a “discussion.”

The Muell did or did not come to a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice?