Mueller Report Next Week?

[rogue06]

So you respond to the fact that Trump has surrounded himself with criminals by pointing to another president who did so? And this makes it right or a good thing?

For the record, I find Trump and found/find Clinton to be poor moral leaders and sad examples of presidents. I agreed with more of Clinton's political initiatives than Trumps, but disagreed with several. I don't find "but he was worse" a very compelling argument.

Did you read the last paragraph before the footnote? I'll assume not.

[Cow Poke]

No collusion. No obstruction. Give it up, carpe, it's over.

I haven't heard the rotund female person vocalize yet.

[rogue06]

Good thing they're mostly anti-gun!

You might be surprised how many of them are "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" about this. From the celebutards that surround themselves with gun-toting bodyguards to folks like the late Carl Rowan.

[Cow Poke]

Considering the level and scope of the scrutinization I'm actually somewhat surprised at how few indictments there were. Compare it, for example to Bill Clinton.

Here is a list of 40 Clinton associates who were convicted of various crimes. One of the highlights (or maybe lowlights) Bill Clinton’s Whitewater business partners Jim and Susan McDougal and former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker were convicted for conspiracy and fraud. And they weren't process crimes.

James McDougal was convicted of 18 felonies and died in prison. Before his death he turned on Clinton who he previously staunchly defended^[1]

Susan McDougal served 18 months for refusing to answer questions for a grand jury, on whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial and immediately afterwards began a two year sentence for four counts of fraud and conspiracy relating to the Whitewater scandal but was later pardoned by Bill Clinton (a reward for keeping her mouth shut?).

Jim Guy Tucker was convicted of one count of conspiracy and one count of mail fraud and forced to resign as Governor. He was given a lenient sentence of four years' probation and house detention because of his poor health (a month after his conviction he received a liver transplant).

And then there was Hillary's law partner Webster Hubbell, who Bill appointed Associate Attorney General, who pled guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of tax fraud and sentenced to 21 months. Later he entered a plea bargain agreement where he pled guilty to one charge of failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest in exchange for having all charges dropped against his his wife, his lawyer, his accountant and got probation.

What makes Hubbell especially interesting is what he said while in prison during a phone call to his wife (all calls from prisoners are recorded)

Source: Jail Tapes Portray Hubbell As Clinton Loyalist

Talking to his wife in 1996 while in a federal prison serving out his sentence for embezzling from his former clients and partners at Little Rock's Rose Law Firm, Hubbell repeatedly expressed concern for one of those former partners: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"I will not raise those allegations that might open it up to Hillary," Hubbell told his wife Suzanna in one phone call, responding to a White House friend's fear that his dispute with the law firm could create problems for the first lady. "So I need to roll over one more time."


Source

© Copyright Original Source

"So I need to roll over one more time."

And of course there were also those associated with all of the money funneled from China to the Clinton-Gore campaign through Buddhist monasteries and other means -- the one where FBI agents came forward at the time (unheard of back then) to publicly complain that Clinton's DoJ interfered with the investigation and folks like "Charlie" Trie, John Huang, James Riady, and Maria Hsia were convicted of various crimes.

This isn't to excuse having a number of associates with shady behavior but rather to note that it isn't anything new, especially if the president is being heavily investigated.






1.

Source: James McDougal's Last Word Is A Tell-All Book

McDougal alleged that in the 1980s, he and a longtime businessman at McDougal's S&L, Henry Hamilton, "developed a system to pass money to Clinton," then governor of Arkansas. "I considered it just another way of helping to take care of Bill.

"A contractor agreed to pad my monthly construction bill by $2,000," McDougal wrote. "The contractor put the figure on his invoice as a cost for gravel or culvert work. After I paid the full amount ... the contractor reimbursed me the $2,000. I turned the money over to Henry to give to Clinton."

Hamilton is dead.

"Once, after I handed Henry his latest consignment of 20 hundred-dollar bills to relay to the governor's office, he turned the bills over and over in one hand, like a magician," McDougal said. "Henry grinned. `You know,' he said, `Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First had Cromwell. Clinton could profit from these examples if he crosses us.'"


Source

© Copyright Original Source

How to end our national nightmare — probe Hillary Clinton again

Now that special counsel Robert Mueller has completed his investigation, it is tempting to breathe a sigh of relief and assume that our long national nightmare is over. Resist the temptation, the assumption is false.

We are not close to the end. Not by a long shot.

In fact, I believe the last two years, as traumatic as they were, will prove to be the easier part of the nightmare, because Mueller dealt only with whether Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign conspired with Russia to swing the election. Based on what we know so far, especially that no more indictments are coming, it appears that Mueller’s answer is no, there was no collusion or obstruction of justice.

If true, this is an enormous vindication for Trump, who insisted all along that he had done nothing wrong. Supporters were understandably in a celebratory mood, with some saying on Twitter that it felt like 2016 election night all over again.

Meanwhile, Trump’s vindication is a devastating rebuke to Democrats and their media handmaidens, all of whom insisted his guilt was guaranteed. Their legacy is that they ruined their own credibility, and their continuing efforts to destroy him by innuendo and investigation can only add to their disgrace.

For them, too, Friday night was like a repeat of Trump’s election victory.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall at Hillary Clinton’s house......

[Cow Poke]

You might be surprised how many of them are "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" about this. From the celebutards that surround themselves with gun-toting bodyguards to folks like the late Carl Rowan.

OK, PUBLICLY they're anti-gun..... just like PUBLICLY AOC and AlGore are green.

[tabibito]

Their legacy is that they ruined their own credibility, and their continuing efforts to destroy him by innuendo and investigation can only add to their disgrace.

Jenny, Jenny, Dreams are ten-a-penny.

[Cow Poke]

Their legacy is that they ruined their own credibility, and their continuing efforts to destroy him by innuendo and investigation can only add to their disgrace.

Jenny, Jenny, Dreams are ten-a-penny.

Translation, please?

[Cow Poke]

Their legacy is that they ruined their own credibility, and their continuing efforts to destroy him by innuendo and investigation can only add to their disgrace.

Jenny, Jenny, Dreams are ten-a-penny.

Is that anything like "you can wish in one hand and spit in the other, and see which fills up first"?

[carpedm9587]

Did you read the last paragraph before the footnote? I'll assume not.

Then you assume incorrectly.

[tabibito]

Is that anything like "you can wish in one hand and spit in the other, and see which fills up first"?

I meant that the idea that MSM has destroyed its credibility is wishful thinking. If that were possible, it would have been done long since.

[Cow Poke]

I meant that the idea that MSM has destroyed its credibility is wishful thinking. If that were possible, it would have been done long since.

[Tassman]

No collusion. No obstruction. Give it up, carpe, it's over.

Don't break out the champagne just yet.

The letter from Barr revealed Mueller was unable to draw a conclusion “one way or the other” on whether Trump or anyone in the White House obstructed justice during the investigation. Barr quoted directly from Mueller’s report which states, with regards to obstruction: “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Plus, we still have the certainty of US Intel that Russia meddled in the election, the slew of indited Trump associates with Russian connections and a raft of investigations being conducted by the NY Southern District Court.

[Mountain Man]

Don't break out the champagne just yet.

The letter from Barr revealed Mueller was unable to draw a conclusion “one way or the other” on whether Trump or anyone in the White House obstructed justice during the investigation. Barr quoted directly from Mueller’s report which states, with regards to obstruction: “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Plus, we still have the certainty of US Intel that Russia meddled in the election, the slew of indited Trump associates with Russian connections and a raft of investigations being conducted by the NY Southern District Court.

From the other thread:

Some Democrats are making noise about the wording in the report that Mueller did not "exonerate" Trump of the obstruction of justice charge. Former New Jersey governor and federal prosecutor Chris Christie sets the matter straight:

On the charge of obstruction of justice, Bob Mueller’s report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime”. That’s an important finding because that is what prosecutors do—they prosecute, they do not exonerate. Why? Because we all enjoy the presumption of innocence.

We are all presumed innocent under our constitution whether you are President or any other citizen. Prosecutors don’t exonerate folks because that’s not their job—they either prosecute or they don’t. When they don’t, no other exoneration is needed-we are innocent under our laws.

https://twitter.com/GovChristie/stat...ommit-crime%2F

https://twitter.com/GovChristie/stat...ommit-crime%2F

In other words, if you're never charged with a crime then there's nothing to be exonerated from.

As for the SDNY, they're under the purview of AG Barr, and he's not going to simply let them pick up the investigation where Mueller left off.

Give it up, Tass, it's over. Trump won bigly.

[tabibito]

Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University
This report indicates that the president did not conspire with the Russians and did not obstruct justice — or at least that obstruction would be difficult legally and factually to prove.

Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School
vindication on both major questions Mueller was investigating.
It’s important to remember that it’s a high bar to charge obstruction of justice, and in particular it’s difficult to prove corrupt intent, but this likely isn’t what the public will remember. The public will remember that Trump will not be charged with either collusion or obstruction of justice.

Diane Marie Amann, law professor, University of Georgia
the “‘report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,’” as Barr writes, quoting Mueller, “‘it also does not exonerate him.’” … prosecutors could (not) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump’s actions, in their words, “had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent.” …
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is indeed the standard of proof for conviction in a federal criminal court. But the same is not true for … a trial in the Senate — a trial that cannot take place unless the House of Representatives votes to send to the Senate articles of impeachment. Thus the ball now lies in Congress’s court.
… the special counsel’s “‘investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities’”— the obstruction-of-justice ball well may languish there.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, law professor, Stetson University
Barr’s characterization* of the Mueller report is that no one in the Trump campaign came to an agreement with the Russian government to conspire with the Russian interference in the 2016 election.
In other words, while Barr has exonerated the president on the question of obstruction of justice, the question of whether the president violated campaign finance laws could remain a live issue for SDNY.
*This and other comments don’t lead to confidence in Spelliscy’s impartiality.

Christopher Slobogin, law professor, Vanderbilt University
If the summary is correct that the special counsel found no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian attempt to influence our electoral process, then the claim that Trump obstructed the investigation into that attempt is significantly undercut. It is difficult to show a corrupt motive to obstruct an investigation into a crime that did not occur.

Miriam Baer, law professor, Brooklyn Law School
Mueller declined to say, one way or the other, whether President Trump obstructed justice.
The attorney general and Rosenstein … conclusion that the facts laid out in the report fail to establish a “nexus” between Trump’s behavior and any specific “proceeding.”
… that report fails to establish evidence of “corrupt intent.” … the evidence fails to establish that Trump himself conspired with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
Many observers will question … conclusions … The nexus element … is contingent on the specific factual conclusions contained in the special counsel’s report.
… because the underlying facts potentially indicate behavior warranting impeachment, many members of Congress are sure to demand a recitation of the Mueller report’s facts and its underlying documents.
Trump may say he feels vindicated by this report, but the summary itself falls far short of exonerating him*.
*. Impartial? It doesn’t seem so on first face.

Keith Whittington, politics professor, Princeton University
The letter is notable in several aspects. It is significant in stating clearly that all indictments from the special counsel’s office have already been publicly disclosed and that no new indictments are recommended.
That does not preclude the possibility of further indictments arising from related investigations by either federal or state prosecutors, but those will presumably not focus on either Russian activities relating to the 2016 election or possible obstruction of justice.
The letter is clear that the special counsel found no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian actors to interfere with the 2016 election. …
no obstruction charge would be appropriate.
It would seem that both the attorney general and the special counsel are leaning heavily on the notion that the president could not have been acting with corrupt intent if there was no underlying crime for the president to attempt to cover-up*.
the president and his associates are not entirely out of the legal woods, but the Russian collusion angle is at least done. … this will presumably take the steam out of the sails of an impeachment effort based on Russian collusion or obstruction of justice.
*. Much as Slobogin’s assessment.
** Between the lines indicates little confidence that impeachment attempts (with different lines of approach) won’t continue.

Robert Weisberg, law professor, Stanford University
if Trump didn’t conspire, he’d lack the motive to obstruct.
I suppose that is a legitimate evidentiary factor, but Barr may be imputing more thoughtfulness or awareness to Trump than is warranted. Further, Barr’s ultimate conclusion treats obstructive conduct and corrupt intent as if they are separate elements. Anyone who tries to make sense of the clotted and obtuse language of the obstruction statutes and the utterly unhelpful court interpretations* — especially the Aguilar case—would realize that it is a little disingenuous to label these as separate elements.
In any event, it would (will) help if Barr explained what he thinks the notoriously vague term “corruptly” means. Obviously, we look to appellate opinions, not prosecutorial decimations, to help us understand criminal statutes — but Barr owes us some explanation of how he understands these laws.
*. What’s he saying here? Don’t expect common sense to affect legal opinion and response? Who would?

Jimmy Gurulé, law professor, Notre Dame
(Summarising) Meuller failed to fulfil his mandate

Stephen Legomsky, law professor, Washington University
(Summarising) the Mueller report, while critical, will prove to be just one piece in the larger investigation.

Frances Hill, law professor, University of Miami
questions will linger and while they should continue to be investigated … such efforts are now likely to be seen as either not constructive or excessive.
It is possible to conclude that Mueller in fact wrote a report that left the issues in this matter in the hands of the American people in the 2020 election.
It becomes now particularly important to … counter ongoing efforts of the Russians and others to wage cyberwar against the voters. It is also important to counteract efforts by domestic political actors to selectively suppress the right of all Americans to vote*.
*. I can’t see this a relevant – but it certainly seems imperative – and more important than continuing to conduct investigations that have already and repeatedly turned up nothing.

Ilya Somin, law professor, George Mason University
Barr’s summary states that the special counsel did not find that Trump or members of his campaign colluded with Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential campaign. This crucial finding appears to exonerate Trump on the crucial issue of “collusion” with Russia.
On the question of obstruction of justice, … evidence “is not sufficient” to conclude that Trump committed obstruction of justice.
The equivocal nature of the obstruction finding emphasizes the importance of publicly revealing as much of the report as possible
Unlike a criminal trial, impeachment does not necessarily require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the view of most legal scholars across the political spectrum, impeachment is also possible in cases of illegal conduct or abuse of power that are not crimes.
Today’s revelations were beneficial to Trump’s cause. But he is not out of the woods yet. Multiple state and federal investigations into possible lawbreaking on his part are still ongoing. Congress would also do well to further investigate such technically non-criminal abuses of power

Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University
Barr (not Mueller) made the determination not to indict the president for obstruction of justice. there was enough evidence to warrant a prosecution of the president for obstruction.
Barr states … that his decision not to pursue an obstruction charge was based, in part, on the absence of evidence that Trump committed a crime related to Russian election interference.
Trump could still have a “corrupt intent” even if he didn’t personally conspire with the Russians, but nonetheless wanted to shut down an investigation that was threatening his close aides and associates —
We’ll have to see if Congress is willing to rectify Barr’s legal error.

Ric Simmons, law professor, Ohio State University
the Mueller report is a complete exoneration of President Trump from any criminal activity regarding collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice. Robert Mueller has an unassailable reputation as a non-partisan professional law enforcement officer of the highest caliber, and he conducted an exhaustive, comprehensive investigation, …, ultimately concluding that there was no coordination or collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Mueller did not explicitly exonerate the president on the obstruction of justice charges, …, the fact that there is no evidence of collusion on the part of the president makes it very unlikely that the president did in fact obstruct justice in this matter. …, it would be nearly impossible to legally prove that Trump obstructed justice, …, and it would be paradoxical to argue that the president intentionally obstructed justice when he was factually innocent of the underlying charge.

Peter Margulies, law professor, Roger Williams University School of Law
… Barr ranked his view of the presidency as an institution over the unprecedented conduct of the White House’s current occupant. …, Barr had to weigh the disruption to the Russia probe caused by Comey’s dismissal against the president’s power to fire political appointees.
Barr and … Rosenstein apparently were concerned that criminalizing the Comey firing and other Trump actions … would displace presidential accountability from the electoral and political realm to the courtroom. … Barr worried that this shift in accountability (from public arena to the court) might chill future presidents’ ability to make difficult decisions about policy and personnel.
… Mueller’s statement that his report does not “exonerate” the President should give pause to Congress and to all citizens. ... Mueller’s refusal to give the President that clean bill of health should spur further inquiry by Congress about the contents of Mueller’s report and the conduct of this particular president.




In my opinion, of the 15 assessments provided – Sonin and Margulies provide the most compelling.

[Cow Poke]

Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University
This report indicates that the president did not conspire with the Russians and did not obstruct justice — or at least that obstruction would be difficult legally and factually to prove.

That's a whole lot stronger than Comey's laying out a solid case for convicting Hillary, then choking and declaring 'no reasonable prosecutor' would take the case.