No Collusion!

[Cow Poke]

In the case concerning the POTUS it is not the (special) prosecutors job to prove his guilt either, it's to investigate, gather the facts and present them to the Congress. Learn it, love it.

So, you were really hacked when Comey laid out a very clear case for the indictment of Hillary, then made the decision on his own with that "no reasonable prosecutor" crap. You were OUTRAGED, right?

[The Pendragon]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement over this, so I dug up the actual letter where Rosenstein, indeed, appointed Mueller "Special Counsel". That doesn't actually benefit Jimmy's nutty arguments, however, because he still gets confused over impeachment and indictment.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36898[/ATTACH]

I was wrong with my first statement, but is still does not change the scope or what Mueller was tasked to do.

Thank You, Cow Poke for the correction and the Citation.

JimL where I the letter does it say that Mueller reports to Congress?

Since Rosenstein appointed Mueller, means Mueller reports to Rosenstein, since Barr is Rosenstein's boss and has not recued himself than Mueller reports to Barr. The next level of Management is Trump but since Trump is a subject he is out of the loop for conflict of interests. I don't seem to see Congress in this chain.

[Cow Poke]

I was wrong with my first statement, but is still does not change the scope or what Mueller was tasked to do.

Agreed - it's pretty much semantics* - what does the "Special Counsel" do? He looks for actionable evidence for prosecution. For all intents and purposes - a prosecutor. Even Jimmy calls him that.



*unlike Jimmy's claim that "law" and "policy" are the same thing.

[Mountain Man]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement over this, so I dug up the actual letter where Rosenstein, indeed, appointed Mueller "Special Counsel". That doesn't actually benefit Jimmy's nutty arguments, however, because he still gets confused over impeachment and indictment.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36898[/ATTACH]

As far as I know, there is no difference between a special prosecutor and a special counselor. Regardless of label, the job description is the same: investigate, gather evidence, and present recommendations to the Attorney General.

[Cow Poke]

As far as I know, there is no difference between a special prosecutor and a special counselor. Regardless of label, the job description is the same: investigate, gather evidence, and present recommendations to the Attorney General.

I think this is a pretty good summary of what the differences is. (little to none)

So what is a special counsel? And what is the difference between a special counsel, a special prosecutor, and an independent counsel? The terms are largely interchangeable to refer to someone appointed to investigate allegations that could involve a conflict of interest within the Department of Justice. But the manner in which they are appointed and why has changed over time.

The president has always had the authority to name a special prosecutor. After the crisis brought on by the Watergate scandal, Congress passed a law creating an "independent counsel" who could be appointed by a three-judge panel. After the experiences of the Iran-Contra investigation and the probe into the Clinton's Whitewater land deal, there was bipartisan support to abandon that law. Now, the attorney general, in addition to the president, has the power to appoint a special counsel.

The statute regarding the grounds for appointing a special counsel says the attorney general, or acting attorney general in cases where the attorney general is recused, can appoint a special counsel when a case presents a "conflict of interest" for the Justice Department, or "other extraordinary circumstances." In this case, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was able to appoint Mueller because Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself.

[firstfloor]

Actually, his title was "Special Counsel" - A special counsel is a government prosecutor who has been appointed to oversee a criminal investigation where the Justice Department has a conflict of interest or under certain circumstances where it would be "in the public interest" to appoint a investigator outside the department.

Citation, please.

I am not too sure what the issue is but it may be helpful to recognize the difference between investigation and prosecution. A person is not being prosecuted until legal proceedings are initiated. Until that point a person may simply be assisting the investigation. We already know that Mueller had enough evidence to indict Trump and it is very likely that he would have done so, had he not taken seriously the department’s prohibition regarding the POTUS.

I think we will hear about it when he gives evidence to congress.

At this stage, Watergate still had a year to go and Trump really just wants to get to the next election, perhaps with a war in progress, when he hopes the country will get behind the troops.

[One Bad Pig]

I am not too sure what the issue is but it may be helpful to recognize the difference between investigation and prosecution. A person is not being prosecuted until legal proceedings are initiated. Until that point a person may simply be assisting the investigation. We already know that Mueller had enough evidence to indict Trump and it is very likely that he would have done so, had he not taken seriously the department’s prohibition regarding the POTUS.

I think we will hear about it when he gives evidence to congress.

At this stage, Watergate still had a year to go and Trump really just wants to get to the next election, perhaps with a war in progress, when he hopes the country will get behind the troops.

What if they threw a war, and nobody came?

[Mountain Man]

We already know that Mueller had enough evidence to indict Trump...

Fake news. The dirty cop himself said he couldn't conclude that the President had committed a crime.

[Mountain Man]

Let's put it this way, if a prosecutor says, "Based on the evidence, I can't conclude that the accused committed a crime, but I can't exonerate him, either," you know what the judge will say?

"Not guilty."

[firstfloor]

Let's put it this way, if a prosecutor says, "Based on the evidence, I can't conclude that the accused committed a crime, but I can't exonerate him, either," you know what the judge will say?

"Not guilty."

Not so. Mueller had already explained why he was unable, regardless of the evidence, to conclude that a crime had been committed. All he has done is preserve evidence and pass the buck. You may have to read or listen to the introduction to Vol. II a few times before it makes sense to you.

[Cow Poke]

I am not too sure what the issue is but it may be helpful to recognize the difference between investigation and prosecution. A person is not being prosecuted until legal proceedings are initiated.

And, in this case, the proceedings were initiated on fake news.

The FBI’s Trump-Russia Investigation Was Formally Opened on False Pretenses

Chicanery was the force behind the formal opening of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. There was a false premise, namely: The Trump campaign must have known that Russia possessed emails related to Hillary Clinton. From there, through either intentional deception or incompetence, the foreign ministries of Australia and the United States erected a fraudulent story tying the Trump campaign’s purported knowledge to the publication of hacked Democratic National Committee emails.

That is what we learn from the saga of George Papadopoulos, as fleshed out by the Mueller report.

The investigative theory on which the FBI formally opened the foreign-counterintelligence probe code-named “Crossfire Hurricane” on July 31, 2016, held that the Trump campaign knew about, and was potentially complicit in, Russia’s possession of hacked emails that would compromise Hillary Clinton; and that, in order to help Donald Trump, the Kremlin planned to disseminate these emails anonymously (through a third party) at a time maximally damaging to Clinton’s campaign.

[Mountain Man]

Not so. Mueller had already explained why he was unable, regardless of the evidence, to conclude that a crime had been committed. All he has done is preserve evidence and pass the buck. You may have to read or listen to the introduction to Vol. II a few times before it makes sense to you.

Please quote from the report where you think Mueller made this declaration.

Or don't. Barr, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials confirmed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a corruption charge, so it's a moot point.

[The Pendragon]

I am not too sure what the issue is but it may be helpful to recognize the difference between investigation and prosecution. A person is not being prosecuted until legal proceedings are initiated. Until that point a person may simply be assisting the investigation. We already know that Mueller had enough evidence to indict Trump and it is very likely that he would have done so, had he not taken seriously the department’s prohibition regarding the POTUS.

I think we will hear about it when he gives evidence to congress.

At this stage, Watergate still had a year to go and Trump really just wants to get to the next election, perhaps with a war in progress, when he hopes the country will get behind the troops.

Ok, I'll play tour game. If I intend to commit a crime but the crime never happens am I guilty of a crime? A person can't be convicted of a crime that never happens, this is not the minority report.

So can you cite from the Mueller report where Trump of one of his team actually "Obstructed Justus". And if you are citing a witness convicted lying to the FBI or Congress, please provide supporting evidence to prove the veracity of the witness, because the witness is compromised. If there is no crime, there can be no guilt.

On top of that give me the citation where Mueller tells Barr that he feels that the issue should be handled by Congress.

The report was not written for Congress (As JimL keeps asserting), the report is written for AG Barr, so that Barr can make a decision on how to proceed. If Mueller felt that this should be taken up by Congress it should be plainly written down in the Report, Not a history lessen in the preamble to a section of the report. Without an actual recommendation by Mueller, He leave that decision up to Barr. AG Barr's decision "No Obstruction of Justus" stands.

I think this is what firstfloor is using.

The closest he gets is his preamble to Volume 2 of the report where he says, "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law." Of course this puts the cart before the horse because in the following pages, Mueller utterly failed to make the case that Trump acted with corrupt intent.

[The Pendragon]

Congres, (a co-equal branch) has oversight responsibility and so it is the job of Congress to examine the evidence and come to it's conclusion based on the evidence gathered by the special prosecutor. According to OLC policy, "The special prosecutor can not indict." a sitting president. A fact you continue to ignore! It seems what you want is a president who is above the law.

Congress does not have the right to uses it's 'Oversight' responsibility to go on a fishing expedition into the executive branch. Endless investigations with out end, investigating the same thing over and over again because they did not get the result they wanted the first 4 times. Asking for all the documents that are ever written. What would you say if a republican Congress asked for every email, all finical records, interviewed any lawyer, and, any confidence communication; of any thing the President or his family ever did. All in the name of "Oversight". You would cry Harassment.

[Mountain Man]

Congress does not have the right to uses it's 'Oversight' responsibility to go on a fishing expedition into the executive branch. Endless investigations with out end, investigating the same thing over and over again because they did not get the result they wanted the first 4 times. Asking for all the documents that are ever written. What would you say if a republican Congress asked for every email, all finical records, interviewed any lawyer, and, any confidence communication; of any thing the President or his family ever did. All in the name of "Oversight". You would cry Harassment.

Case in point, liberals howled with outrage over the Benghazi investigation, blasting it as a witchhunt despite the fact that Hillary's negligence actually contributed to the deaths of American citizens.