The Mueller Report

[Bill the Cat]

Do these idiots really believe that if Mueller found that Trump colluded he wouldn't have recommended indictment, never mind for obstructed of justice?

They must think Barr has Mueller in a dark back room tied up with zip ties and a doppelganger has taken his place so as not to correct Barr's summary.

[carpedm9587]

For all the low-info morons insisting that Mueller didn't indict Trump simply because he wasn't allowed to by DOJ rules...

Source: CNN’s Chris Cuomo Made 11 Misleading Statements About the Mueller Report

Cuomo is hoping to deliberately mislead his audience into believing the only reason Mueller did not indict Trump for obstruction was because he could not legally indict a sitting president due to Justice Department guidelines.

This is not even close to true.

To begin with, the Mueller Report clearly states “a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible” and “that a President does not have immunity once he leaves office.”

What’s more, there was nothing stopping the report from concluding Trump had obstructed justice but that he could not be indicted as president. Instead the report declaratively says — and this is important because it is the bottom line Cuomo wants to hide from his audience — “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime” regarding obstruction.

The Special Counsel found not crime, therefore it is not the OLC stopping Mueller from recommending an indictment, it is the fact that NO CRIME WAS FOUND.

You need a crime in order to indict.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...ueller-report/

© Copyright Original Source

Also, it's not ultimately up to a special counsel whether or not to indict. He can only issue a recommendation which is then decided by the Attorney General, so there were no department rules that would have prevented Mueller as special counsel from making a clear recommendation to indict the President for obstruction. I suspect the only reason he didn't is because he knew he didn't have a legal leg to stand on and that Barr would have rejected the recommendation and clearly explained why.

There is a difference between "no crime found" and "inadequate evidence found to indict."

My reading of the Meuller report (those parts I have read) indicate that:

Collusion: Russia made several outreaches, and were not rebuffed by the campaign, but there is inadequate evidence to suggest that they knowingly, intentionally colluded with knowledge of the legal consequences (which I have to admit seems to fly in the face of "ignorance of the law is not an excuse")

Obstruction: Trump made several attempts to obstruct, but the combination of ineptitude and the mutiny of staff led to none of them being successful. There is also the odd notion that if the obstruction is "public" it is somehow less "obstruction," which I have to admit I do not understand. Mueller explicitly says that if they could establish he did NOT obstruct, they would have said so explicitly - and they did not.

As for the parts I don't understand, I trust Mueller. So if he did not recommend an indictment, then I trust his legal chops and his integrity. The political fall-out is another question. Trump has shown himself, at virtually every turn, not truly interested in MAGA. I frankly never bought the MAGA hype. America has been some combination of good and bad throughout its history. I don't see it as any more (or less) great now than at any time in its history. We are better in some ways, and worse in others. For Trump, MAGA has always been MTGA. For most of the population, MAGA has always been MAGFMA.


MAGA: Make America Great Again
MTGA: Make Trump Great Again
MAGFMA: Make America Great For Me Again

[Bill the Cat]

There is a difference between "no crime found" and "inadequate evidence found to indict."

Legally, no there isn't. And that's why there should be no impeachment. Having not been charged with any "high crimes and misdemeanors", Congress has no grounds to impeach. But, don't tell Auntie Maxine that...

[Mountain Man]

There is a difference between "no crime found" and "inadequate evidence found to indict."

Perhaps, but it's irrelevant, because Mueller did not issue a finding of "inadequate evidence to indict". Rather, he unambiguously said "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime". The 10 instances of "maybe possibly under the right circumstances but not actually obstruction" that Mueller detailed in his report are legally irrelevant since they do not singularly or collectively add up to a crime. It's like a cop pulling you over and saying, "You were awfully close to speeding there, son," and you say, "But I wasn't speeding," and he says, "Just a few miles per hour more and you would have been!"

Either someone has broken the law, or they haven't. As the saying goes, legal matters are not like horseshoes or hand grenades -- "close enough" doesn't count -- and prosecutors don't get points for arguing that someone could have committed a crime if only the circumstances were just slightly different.

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps, but it's irrelevant, because Mueller did not issue a finding of "inadequate evidence to indict". Rather, he unambiguously said "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".

Basic logic, MM. "I am not not claiming that X did Y" is not the same as "X did not do Y."

The 10 instances of "maybe possibly under the right circumstances but not actually obstruction" that Mueller detailed in his report are legally irrelevant since they do not singularly or collectively add up to a crime. It's like a cop pulling you over and saying, "You were awfully close to speeding there, son," and you say, "But I wasn't speeding," and he says, "Just a few miles per hour more and you would have been!"

No - bad analogy. It's like a cop pulling someone over and saying, "your driving is suspect, but I didn't have my radar on, so I can't prove you were speeding and I can't issue you a ticket."

Either someone has broken the law, or they haven't.

No - again, bad limiting. The complete profile is:

1) Break the law and leave adequate evidence to indict
2) Break the law and leave inadequate evidence to indict
3) Not break the law

Mueller pretty regularly says 2).

As the saying goes, legal matters are not like horseshoes or hand grenades -- "close enough" doesn't count -- and prosecutors don't get points for arguing that someone could have committed a crime if only the circumstances were just slightly different.

Again - you are conflating "committing the crime" with "being able to prove you committed the crime." In the U.S., a person is legally innocent until proven guilty. So legally, Mueller has said "not indictable" in several places (although he actually says a lot more than that which is largely ignored by the right) which makes the president "legally innocent." That doesn't make him innocent.

And I find it odd that the approach is so diametrically opposed to the approach taken to Clinton, where "not indictable" was repeatedly the conclusion, yet, "lock her up" was the chant from the right. I have no idea if you personally were inconsistent in this, but there are a lot of public figures who are pretty solidly on the record as being VERY inconsistent - on both sides.

[rogue06]

Super Bowl 50: Broncos 24, Panthers 10
The Panthers had more passing and rushing yards. They had 10 more first downs. They were the better team and still managed to lose by 14 points.

If they were liberals that would be enough for them to declare that the Panthers won and cry about how the Broncos "aren't my Super Bowl champions"

[carpedm9587]

Legally, no there isn't. And that's why there should be no impeachment. Having not been charged with any "high crimes and misdemeanors", Congress has no grounds to impeach. But, don't tell Auntie Maxine that...

Personally, I think it would be a horrible mistake for the Dems to impeach. As with the Kavanaugh hearings, it will seriously rally the right, and turn Trump into a martyr - and for no achievable result: he cannot be convicted, AFAICT. So impeachment plays right into Trump's hand, keeping the attention firmly on Trump. I personally think the Dems should continue investigations as a background activity, highlighting every obstruction and every attempt to hide information that the Trump administration will inevitably initiate.

Every day spent debating impeachment is another day not spent looking at healthcare, taxation, climate, debt, education, immigration, balancing nationalism with globalism, and all of the other issues that matter to so many of us.

[oxmixmudd]

Considering your words are just mud slinging and virtue signaling...

That may be how you perceive them. That is not what they are.

No. your continued insistence that anyone who defends him against false accusations is somehow just as bad an amoral pig as Trump and not behaving like a Christian.

Never implied or said that. I have said those that defend or otherwise support trump's every immoral act are compromising themselves immensely.

Trump is recorded in this report clearly asking others to do what they understood to be breaking the law, of such concern they refused to follow his orders. Yet you justify him. Giuilanni gas come out saying 'what is wrong with accepting help from the russians.' Kushner has tried to pretend the russian meddling in our election was no big deal, of far less consequence than the mueller investigation???

And on and on. The erosion of fact, the dismissal of clear and present danger, the complete disrespect for the law. All to support or cover for Donald Trump.

And here you guys are, all for it and mocking and debasing those that dare call attention to it.

You would never allow nor engage in such low standards for anyone except Donald Trump. Just a few years ago not one of you would have signed on to supporting a candidate whose actions could have produced the content of this report. You would have had none of it, and you would never have believed such a person could lead the republican party.

Now you stand behind him no matter what he does and you try to crucify people saying what you yourselves would have said about such a politician just a few years ago.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

Personally, I think it would be a horrible mistake for the Dems to impeach. As with the Kavanaugh hearings, it will seriously rally the right, and turn Trump into a martyr - and for no achievable result: he cannot be convicted, AFAICT. So impeachment plays right into Trump's hand, keeping the attention firmly on Trump. I personally think the Dems should continue investigations as a background activity, highlighting every obstruction and every attempt to hide information that the Trump administration will inevitably initiate.

Every day spent debating impeachment is another day not spent looking at healthcare, taxation, climate, debt, education, immigration, balancing nationalism with globalism, and all of the other issues that matter to so many of us.

Hush! Let them rattle the sabers!

[Bill the Cat]

That may be how you perceive them. That is not what they are.

Then you stink at showing your intentions.

Never implied or said that.

Uh, yeah you have.

I have said those that defend or otherwise support trump's every immoral act are compromising themselves immensely.

And we've stated repeatedly that 1) no one here is excusing his immoral behavior, and 2) Some things he does aren't immoral, but you claim they are. See below.

Trump is recorded in this report clearly asking others to do what they understood to be breaking the law, of such concern they refused to follow his orders.

And this is a matter of legal disagreement, not an immoral action. Constitutional scholars know that he was perfectly within his authority to fire Mueller if he thought it was necessary.

Yet you justify him.

Wrong. I repeat the facts of the matter. He was within his legal ability to fire Mueller. He was NOT in a position legally to terminate the investigation. Firing Mueller would not have stopped the investigation, only prompted a new SP to be named. This is one shining example where you virtue signal like his wanting Mueller fired needed justification. It didn't.

Giuilanni gas come out saying 'what is wrong with accepting help from the Russians.'

NEVER quote Rudy.

Kushner has tried to pretend the russian meddling in our election was no big deal, of far less consequence than the mueller investigation???

Considering there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the Russians actually changed a single vote, Kushner is correct. That you allow your hatred for Trump to cloud your judgment on this basic fact is your burden to bear, not mine. I've given you the facts of the matter.

And on and on.

How about providing some of that "on and on" since you are Oh fer so far...

The erosion of fact,

Virtue signaling

the dismissal of clear and present danger,

virtue signaling

the complete disrespect for the law.

The law is on Trump's side, as is the Mueller report's legal conclusions. There was no chargeable evidence of any crime, and the only debate is on interpretations of the overly-vague obstruction law.

All to support or cover for Donald Trump.

Wrong. To support the facts.

And here you guys are, all for it and mocking and debasing those that dare call attention to it.

Once you left factual discussion behind and moved to virtue signaling and back-handed insults to our Christian walk, you deserve to be mocked.

You would never allow nor engage in such low standards for anyone except Donald Trump.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Just a few years ago not one of you would have signed on to supporting a candidate whose actions could have produced the content of this report.

The content of the report shows a man who lies, like most every politician. It also shows no actionable criminal activity. And in this country, whether you like it or not, he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So suck it up, buttercup. So, unless you want to throw due process out the window and show you're no friend of justice, you should reconsider your retort.

You would have had none of it, and you would never have believed such a person could lead the republican party.

The only one who could righteously lead the Republican Party would be Jesus... not that He would lead any political party... any other person is a flawed sinner just like you and me.

Now you stand behind him no matter what he does

That's a blatant lie.

and you try to crucify people saying what you yourselves would have said about such a politician just a few years ago.

And you suck at mind reading.

[Mountain Man]

Basic logic, MM. "I am not not claiming that X did Y" is not the same as "X did not do Y."



No - bad analogy. It's like a cop pulling someone over and saying, "your driving is suspect, but I didn't have my radar on, so I can't prove you were speeding and I can't issue you a ticket."



No - again, bad limiting. The complete profile is:

1) Break the law and leave adequate evidence to indict
2) Break the law and leave inadequate evidence to indict
3) Not break the law

Mueller pretty regularly says 2).



Again - you are conflating "committing the crime" with "being able to prove you committed the crime." In the U.S., a person is legally innocent until proven guilty. So legally, Mueller has said "not indictable" in several places (although he actually says a lot more than that which is largely ignored by the right) which makes the president "legally innocent." That doesn't make him innocent.

And I find it odd that the approach is so diametrically opposed to the approach taken to Clinton, where "not indictable" was repeatedly the conclusion, yet, "lock her up" was the chant from the right. I have no idea if you personally were inconsistent in this, but there are a lot of public figures who are pretty solidly on the record as being VERY inconsistent - on both sides.

Lots of bobbing and weaving to get around the fact that Mueller unambiguously said "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime". This isn't even a matter of reasonable doubt. There was no indictment because there was no crime. It's as simple as that.

[carpedm9587]

Lots of bobbing and weaving to get around the fact that Mueller unambiguously said "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime". This isn't even a matter of reasonable doubt. There was no indictment because there was no crime. It's as simple as that.

Wow. An amazing hand-waving demonstration. You have effectively demonstrated how to misrepresent an argument, ignore what you cannot (apparently) respond to, and declare victory.

I'll assume you had no response to the points made, since you basically didn't respond to any of them. And Mueller did NOT say that (the highlighted part), which is not the same as what Mueller DID say. But if it makes you feel better to think so...

[carpedm9587]

And Trump seems chronically unable to understand the government of which he is a member: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmCoG9Bma7c

If the Dems are foolish enough to impeach, Trump has zero recourse to SCOTUS, AFAICT. The constitution clearly says impeachment requires a simple majority of the House and can be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The language is vague, and covers a range of ills. Trump seems to think he could just skip the trial and get SCOTUS to give him a pass. If he's impeached, the trial will go to the Senate and he will (most likely) win. That is, unless there really IS dirt that an impeachment trial uncovers and it is significant enough for the Reps to be unable to ignore it (which seems unlikely) - in which case we would get Pence.

I cannot even begin to imagine the basis for filing a suit, or a basis for SCOTUS to accept hearing it.

[Cow Poke]

And Trump seems chronically unable to understand the government of which he is a member: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmCoG9Bma7c

If the Dems are foolish enough to impeach, Trump has zero recourse to SCOTUS, AFAICT. The constitution clearly says impeachment requires a simple majority of the House and can be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The language is vague, and covers a range of ills. Trump seems to think he could just skip the trial and get SCOTUS to give him a pass. If he's impeached, the trial will go to the Senate and he will (most likely) win. That is, unless there really IS dirt that an impeachment trial uncovers and it is significant enough for the Reps to be unable to ignore it (which seems unlikely) - in which case we would get Pence.

I cannot even begin to imagine the basis for filing a suit, or a basis for SCOTUS to accept hearing it.

Many people still seem incapable of understanding that Bill Clinton was, indeed, impeached. As you obviously are aware, he was not removed by the Senate, and most pundits believe it really hurt the Republicans. Like you say, unless there's something really substantial, it's likely that an impeachment would move to the Senate where removal would fail. Trump could use that as political leverage.

It amazes me how he so consistently demonstrates that he is his own worst enemy!

[Mountain Man]

Wow. An amazing hand-waving demonstration. You have effectively demonstrated how to misrepresent an argument, ignore what you cannot (apparently) respond to, and declare victory.

I'll assume you had no response to the points made, since you basically didn't respond to any of them. And Mueller did NOT say that (the highlighted part), which is not the same as what Mueller DID say. But if it makes you feel better to think so...

So directly quoting Mueller (something I notice you didn't do) and stating basic facts (something else you didn't do) is now considered "hand-waving".

Yeah, OK.