The Mueller Report 2.0

[emperus]

Another Episode in the weakness of the Democratic Party. In the Republicans eyes the whole committee is already politicized. They've already branded the Republicans on the comittee Democrats.

 

[HomerJS]

Another Episode in the weakness of the Democratic Party. In the Republicans eyes the whole committee is already politicized. They've already branded the Republicans on the comittee Democrats.

Republicans were offered the chance of a joint committee with power sharing. They turned it down

 

[brycejones]

That is an interesting take on investigating Trump-Russia collusion. As long as we turn a profit, it's ok to run shame investigations.

Youi have a chosen a really odd straw person to beat on.

 

[emperus]

Republicans were offered the chance of a joint committee with power sharing. They turned it down

That's my point. Reality doesn't matter. So Dems should stop worrying about what Republicans will say.

 

[interchange]

That is an interesting take on investigating Trump-Russia collusion. As long as we turn a profit, it's ok to run shame investigations.

Have you read the Mueller report?

 

[iRONic]

DO YOUR JOB!!! Uphold the oath you took!!!

JFC…

 

[interchange]

I think they will end up making a referral but you’re right, Mueller shows why this sort of dancing doesn’t work. Mueller clearly believed Trump had committed one or more crimes but by refusing to say so for the sake of appearances allowed dishonest people to claim otherwise.

Keep it simple. If you think he committed a crime, say so.

From the Mueller report itself:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

It's sound legal reasoning, and precedent dictates that impeachment is the method of addressing presidential misconduct.

The reality is Mueller was blindsided by Bill Barr and Republican enablers used it as an excuse to not even read the report that was written as a result of the investigation.

 

[fskimospy]

From the Mueller report itself:


It's sound legal reasoning, and precedent dictates that impeachment is the method of addressing presidential misconduct.

The reality is Mueller was blindsided by Bill Barr and Republican enablers used it as an excuse to not even read the report that was written as a result of the investigation.

I don't agree for a few reasons.

1) The sole source of legal authority for the idea that the executive cannot be prosecuted while in office is from the executive branch itself. There has never been any external validation for this idea and it runs contrary to the rule of law. As I've mentioned before if this the case and the president saw Congress was going to impeach and convict him, why not have them killed? No one could arrest the president for doing it and he could pardon anyone who actually did the killing for him.

2) The idea that when you uncover that the president has committed a crime you should not say so because the public being made aware of this would impair the criminal president's ability to carry out his duties is risible nonsense. It basically goes like this - because the president has unilaterally declared presidents can't be prosecuted we shouldn't say we would otherwise prosecute him because it would impair his duties. Well, if the president is so concerned about their ability to do the job being impaired they are free to drop that immunity at any time and clear their names through the courts.

3) It would not in any way preempt other constitutional processes. Congress can and has impeached and convicted people currently under indictment. In fact, it's one of the big reasons people get impeached!

 

[ivwshane]

Guy who totally doesn't consume conservative media trots out tired old conservative media talking points that dishonestly frame what was in the Mueller report.

He’s done it every time the report comes up, despite having been told repeatedly how he is wrong.

 

[Pens1566]

That is an interesting take on investigating Trump-Russia collusion. As long as we turn a profit, it's ok to run shame investigations.

It's not a "take". It's a counter to the mindless talking point about spending "millions of taxpayer dollars investigating " ... and, uh, they were found guilty so not exactly a "shame investigation".

 

[sportage]

All of the above assumptions are wrong.
This simply has everything to do with never eating their own. They never want to do that. Face it, Trump is indeed part of the inner circle of privileged politicians and as much as they might try to deny it, Trump is part of the good ole establishment as well. Trump knows this as well as does Pelosi and McConnell, the Clinton's, the Cheney's, the Bush's, they are all in this political muck together. That Washington insider's good ole boys club.

This committee will never actually haul Donald Trump's ass into court for one reason and one reason only.... democrats do not want republicans to do the same to Hillary, in the future, should republicans take back congress in the midterms. Call it insurance that if Trump is allowed a free pass, then Hillary will be allowed her free pass. And so on and so on.

Don't you see? Its all a big power game to score political capital thru humiliation. Not thru litigation, but thru humiliation. Democrats nor republicans in congress can afford the legal litigation. Nancy Pelosi knew that impeachment would never remove Donald Trump from office, however... Pelosi hoped that impeachment would humiliate Donald Trump and hopefully enough to lose an election.

And republicans yelling LOCK HER UP, LOCK HER UP was as far as Donald Trump and congressional republicans ever intended to go when it came to Hillary Clinton. Believe me, despite the rhetoric from Trump during his rally's with lock her up, Trump had and has no intention of ever locking up Hillary Clinton. Just ain't gonna happen. And democrats will never go after Donald Trump outside of a few failed impeachment proceedings and maybe a little committee investigation here and there.

Trump is going nowhere. Hillary will never be "locked-up". They both are part of the same club and that club has their asses covered. They need not fear one another. Its all for show and chalking up a few political brownie points, nothing more nothing less.
The real fools in all of this are the general public in thinking justice will be done. It will not, not even for the crime of insurrection. You got my back and I got yours, even though I still hate your stinking rotten guts.

 

[hal2kilo]

Jan. 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending (Published 2022)

Despite concluding that it has enough evidence, the committee is concerned that making a referral to the Justice Department would backfire by politicizing the investigation into the Capitol riot.

www.nytimes.com

Evidence is there.
But optics.
And gaming.
And scheming.

What about duty? And not reinforcing what everyone already knows, that rule of law is for thee.

I think this is actually a move to let the DOJ handle it without an obvious partisan push IMHO.

 

[hal2kilo]

So Mueller spent a couple of years time and millions of taxpayer dollars investigating Trumps crimes then decided to leave critical information out of his report?

Still haven't read it yet huh?

 

[Greenman]

Nope, it's all in the report. Mueller repeatedly details how Trump fulfilled all the necessary elements for indictment on multiple crimes.

If you're interested in an in-depth legal analysis of the statements in the report it's here:

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter

www.lawfareblog.com

Essentially any time you see three red boxes that means sufficient evidence for indictment. When you see something less than that it gets a little fuzzier.

All of the "actionable" items relate to Trump trying to stop the investigation. None of them are related to the original investigation into collusion with Russia. Textbook case of stepping on one's own dick.

 

[fskimospy]

All of the "actionable" items relate to Trump trying to stop the investigation. None of them are related to the original investigation into collusion with Russia. Textbook case of stepping on one's own dick.

You do realize why obstruction of justice is a crime, right?

If the CEO of a criminal company shreds all the incriminating documents it’s very plausible you can’t convict them of the crime they did. That’s why you convict them of obstruction of justice.

Like…why do you think he was trying to stop the investigation?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So Mueller spent a couple of years time and millions of taxpayer dollars investigating Trumps crimes then decided to leave critical information out of his report?

Actually with the fines and tax evasions that were uncovered *I believe* Mueller made a profit however I am not certain a profit was made but I do know the cost of his investigation was far below Ben-Fucking-Ghazi and he at least recovered some monies due.