Mueller Report Imminent

[luthervol]

Missed it by that much.

Maybe the fallout will be enough.

 

[Stew Cook]

Yeah me especially. I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016. I’m definitely voting for him in 2020

Well, I cancel your vote.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Well, I cancel your vote.

Nah my socialist wife cancels mine go find your own red hat lady to cancel yours.

 

[AM64]

Maybe the fallout will be enough.

So you're saying there's still hope for your side? Not really beating a dead horse ... just doing CPR?

 

[Stew Cook]

Nah my socialist wife cancels mine go find your own red hat lady to cancel yours.

OK, I will apply my vote canceling to someone else's. And that way, I don't have to move to Tejas, or wherever.

 

[vols4sure]

(nevermind think i misinterpreted the quote)

 

[NorthDallas40]

OK, I will apply my vote canceling to someone else's. And that way, I don't have to move to Tejas, or wherever.

Oh by all means please do move to Tejas and vote for the Dimocratic nominee for POTUS...

 

[Stew Cook]

Oh by all means please do move to Tejas and vote for the Dimocratic nominee for POTUS...

I gotta stick with Joe. I'm not so sure how the caravan will vote... I'm thinking Castro?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I gotta stick with Joe. I'm not so sure how the caravan will vote... I'm thinking Castro?

Nah they’re gonna write in Maduro. He’s gonna need a new gig soon

 

[luthervol]

So you're saying there's still hope for your side? Not really beating a dead horse ... just doing CPR?

Of course there is hope.

 

[Coug]

Then why didn’t Mueller reach that conclusion? I think you’ve even said you wouldn’t pursue it? Now you’re saying you would?

He did, the problem is you can't indict a sitting president so he couldn't write "the president is guilty of obstruction of justice".

 

[RockyTop85]

Then why didn’t Mueller reach that conclusion? I think you’ve even said you wouldn’t pursue it? Now you’re saying you would?

I absolutely think there’s evidence of obstruction in Volume II. Whether it’s worth impeachment...

I thought Clinton should have been removed but in a world where he wasn’t, this probably isn’t worth it.

Volume I was more concerning from a national security standpoint but it doesn’t have evidence that Trump or his campaign committed a crime. I do think something should be done about Russian meddling and it’s troubling that we don’t know of anything having been done.

Well I guess I’d call that a laughable conclusion for a special prosecutor to reach after the resources expended? I think it’s likely one definable definition of “a bad thing”.

I don’t think an exoneration conclusion was available, given the facts.

I didn’t find Barr’s explanation about “no collusion = no obstruction” to be anything more than political cover for senate republicans. Trump’s efforts to obstruct ramped up after he found out he was being personally investigated, and after McGahn told him he might face exposure because of his conversations with Comey. If that kind of behavior isn’t criminal, then he got off on a technicality.

Therefore, the only option left, if he had to make a binary choice, would be that a crime was committed. If he had said “The Special Counsel Concludes that the President’s actions meet the definition of obstruction of Justice” then Trump would have gone through the roof calling him biased and said that the investigation was rigged. The same people would still eat it up and the same people would still be calling for Trump to be executed at high noon.

 

[AM64]

Know how to play the game? The rule “don’t commit a crime” seems pretty intuitive.

Do those same people usually come in and draft resignation letters and pack up their offices and tell co-workers that the new guy “asked them to do crazy ****?”

A little question ... with a neutral topic.

Gavin Williamson has been sacked as defence secretary following an inquiry into a leak from a top-level National Security Council meeting.

Downing Street said the PM had "lost confidence in his ability to serve" and Penny Mordaunt will take on the role.

Is firing the guy obstruction if his decision process perhaps deviated from the intended path or is it a failure to do his duty (keeping state secrets secret)? Would you decide a lengthy investigation was necessary to determine if he (or someone under his direction) actually screwed up ... or if he maybe just didn't intend to screw up? Is the fact that he "served at someone's pleasure" and he lost her confidence adequate? Or is it just a "crime" to hold someone accountable ... bearing in mind that you, I, and someone else could have different levels of and definitions for "accountability"?

 

[RockyTop85]

Well, now, that gets to the definition of "crime". In business if someone isn't getting the job done, he/she gets replaced, fired, shoved aside. In the military the current trend is to summarily fire the commander if something happens ... even if there's been no investigation linking him/her to any part of the "failure". I understand lawyers love billable hours and expend lots of time accruing them, but to somebody with a business background that wouldn't be acceptable. You are asking that we accept DC with warts and all ... keep the status quo, when we specifically hired an outsider to shake up the place. Sorry if that intrudes on your sense of how things work, but it doesn't mean wanting to fire someone for not getting the job done is a criminal act.

You still didn’t address why McGahn would threaten to quit over being asked to do “crazy ****” in the middle of an ongoing investigation rather than fire a guy who “just wasn’t getting the job done,” (which is a totally made up fact, unless we’re talking about different instances of conduct).

 

[RockyTop85]

A little question ... with a neutral topic.



Is firing the guy obstruction if his decision process perhaps deviated from the intended path or is it a failure to do his duty (keeping state secrets secret)? Would you decide a lengthy investigation was necessary to determine if he (or someone under his direction) actually screwed up ... or if he maybe just didn't intend to screw up? Is the fact that he "served at someone's pleasure" and he lost her confidence adequate? Or is it just a "crime" to hold someone accountable ... bearing in mind that you, I, and someone else could have different levels of and definitions for "accountability"?

3 elements of obstruction:
1 obstructive act.
2 nexus to an ongoing investigation
3 intent

So regarding nexus:
1. was there an ongoing investigation into the PM?
Regarding intent:
2. Was she aware of said investigation?
3. Had she been made aware that it might carry exposure for her?
4. Had she been advised by counsel to stop contacting the individuals involved in the firing decision and instead share her complaints with her own attorney?
5. Did the person ordered to carry out the firing threaten to quit because they felt the idea of firing this man was “crazy ****” that would get them in trouble?

Regarding the obstructive act:
6. Was this man involved in the investigation?

 

[NorthDallas40]

He did, the problem is you can't indict a sitting president so he couldn't write "the president is guilty of obstruction of justice".

He did no such thing. He punted that decision to AG Barr knowingly and willfully and abdicated his charter.

 

[hog88]

What part of perjury do you not understand? On April 9th, Attorney General William Barr committed it with his answer to Sen. Christ .... BIG TIME.

 

[AM64]

You still didn’t address why McGahn would threaten to quit over being asked to do “crazy ****” in the middle of an ongoing investigation rather than fire a guy who “just wasn’t getting the job done,” (which is a totally made up fact, unless we’re talking about different instances of conduct).

You've never had to work for a guy you couldn't stand? I remember that very discussion from a long ago management training course because of a funny quote that went something like "remember when there's no solution to working for someone you hate, 'Where there's death, there's hope.'"

Again “crazy ****”" frequently changes from arena to arena. Politics is all about perception rather than having anything to do with reality or performance. Perception has everything to do with the viewer and his/her reality ... in politics that boils down to money, power, and electability (and those are generally never independent factors).

 

[hog88]

"I suspect" ? He didn't have to "suspect" anything. He had a letter from Robert Mueller. He knew how Mueller felt about what he had written. Barr never mentioned the Mueller letter.

Did you even read the letter?

You are completely mischaracterizing it if you have.

 

[luthervol]

He did no such thing. He punted that decision to AG Barr knowingly and willfully and abdicated his charter.

And Barr just said he did not exonerate Trump. He said it is in the hands of the American people (congress).

 

[T-TownVol]

Good God, let it go.

 

[hog88]

I am not sure who you mean by "they."

If you mean Mueller and his team, they did not make a decision to indict the President. Therefore, there has not been a determination by anyone (a judge or jury) as to whether or not Trump is guilty (or innocent for that matter) of the acts set forth in the Mueller Report. As it stands, the public is discussing the evidence contained in the Mueller Report. But whether or not obstruction has been proven, is a question for a court of competent jurisdiction.

If you mean the democrats, then I don't consider it to be a "last straw." I don't think it can be questioned that Trump made orders that, if they had been carried out by his subordinate (McGahn), could have amounted to obstruction. McGahn appears to have saved Trump by disobeying his orders. Based on that scenario, it looks like Trump had the intent, but not the act sufficient to create a legal case for obstruction of justice. While this might not be enough for a prosecutor to act on, it could certainly be enough for our legislature to act on.

Enough of this complete bull.

No, the Muell could not indict the president through a grand jury but the house impeachment hearings are effectively the same thing as a grand jury. So the Muell could if he thought Trump had committed a crime submit those findings in his report and just like a grand jury the house would decide if there was enough to indict (impeach).

 

[NorthDallas40]

I absolutely think there’s evidence of obstruction in Volume II. Whether it’s worth impeachment...

I thought Clinton should have been removed but in a world where he wasn’t, this probably isn’t worth it.

Volume I was more concerning from a national security standpoint but it doesn’t have evidence that Trump or his campaign committed a crime. I do think something should be done about Russian meddling and it’s troubling that we don’t know of anything having been done.


I don’t think an exoneration conclusion was available, given the facts.

I didn’t find Barr’s explanation about “no collusion = no obstruction” to be anything more than political cover for senate republicans. Trump’s efforts to obstruct ramped up after he found out he was being personally investigated, and after McGahn told him he might face exposure because of his conversations with Comey. If that kind of behavior isn’t criminal, then he got off on a technicality.

Therefore, the only option left, if he had to make a binary choice, would be that a crime was committed. If he had said “The Special Counsel Concludes that the President’s actions meet the definition of obstruction of Justice” then Trump would have gone through the roof calling him biased and said that the investigation was rigged. The same people would still eat it up and the same people would still be calling for Trump to be executed at high noon.

Fair enough.

I don’t think there is anything in there rising to the level of impeachment and I didn’t really see it on Clinton either. The Senate made the right choice, I’d say it was a very clear cut case on Clinton however I don’t believe it rose to the bar of removal worthy.

Has Barr actually said or even heavily implied “no collusion = no obstruction”? I thought he kept the topics separate? I may have missed any strong statement he actually made on that? (In fact a CNN banner came flying past while I typed that) And I don’t blame Trump or his supporters making that statement. I’d dare say you or I would too. He isn’t charged so he’s at will to offer his view on why as is his supporters.

Your last paragraph just reads like a rationalization on why Mueller chose not to do his job. He let consequences drive his reasoning for findings of evidence? Really?

 

[AM64]

3 elements of obstruction:
1 obstructive act.
2 nexus to an ongoing investigation
3 intent

So regarding nexus:
1. was there an ongoing investigation into the PM?
Regarding intent:
2. Was she aware of said investigation?
3. Had she been made aware that it might carry exposure for her?
4. Had she been advised by counsel to stop contacting the individuals involved in the firing decision and instead share her complaints with her own attorney?
5. Did the person ordered to carry out the firing threaten to quit because they felt the idea of firing this man was “crazy ****” that would get them in trouble?

Regarding the obstructive act:
6. Was this man involved in the investigation?

So if a bridge was in sight, I had gasoline, a match, and a desire to burn the bridge, but I simply turned and walked away, did I commit arson or any other crime? What if a good natured passer by or a friend said, "you really don't want to do that" and changed my mind? Are we really talking thoughts or deeds? If thoughts are criminal acts ... even to the point of expressing them, my guess is we are all in serious trouble. Don't forget the he said she said aspect of things, too.

 

[luthervol]

Enough of this complete bull.

No, the Muell could not indict the president through a grand jury but the house impeachment hearings are effectively the same thing as a grand jury. So the Muell could if he thought Trump had committed a crime submit those findings in his report and just like a grand jury the house would decide if there was enough to indict (impeach).

Isn't that what he did?