The Mueller Report

[seer]

Mueller didn't indict because in his opinion you can't indict a sitting President. That's why he left it up to Congress and there is plenty of evidence to prove, as far as I'm concerned, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the President is guilty of obstruction and that ties right in to the collusion aspect. The President is a scoundrel who thought he was above the law, and the only reason he has any chance of surviving this is because the many advisers that he ordered to commit obstruction refused to do so.

That is silly Jim, Mueller certainly could have recommended to indict. Whether now (in office) or after he got out of office. And the fact is the Dems won't impeach, the will is not there. So you lose on both counts.

[Mountain Man]

That is silly Jim, Mueller certainly could have recommended to indict. Whether now (in office) or after he got out of office.

Or even if he didn't want to address the question of indictment, he could have said in no uncertain terms "The president obstructed justice" rather than the weaselly way he put it saying "We can not say the president didn't obstruct justice", which turns the whole notion of innocent until proven guilty on its head.

[Cow Poke]

Or even if he didn't want to address the question of indictment, he could have said in no uncertain terms "The president obstructed justice" rather than the weaselly way he put it saying "We can not say the president didn't obstruct justice", which turns the whole notion of innocent until proven guilty on its head.

And if there hadn't been this bogus and maniacal rush to judgment on collusion (based on lies) would there have even been a reason for the "obstruction" to be an issue?

[firstfloor]

But he doesn't come to a conclusion, and he could have.

Unfortunately, Mueller did not ask for your guidance in the matter.

[Cow Poke]

Unfortunately, Mueller did not ask for your guidance in the matter.

He would have been much better served do have had yours!

[Mountain Man]

Source: To Understand Mueller Report, Ignore Talking Heads And Read It

In seeking answers from the report’s own words, it is worth revisiting that exoneration never happens in law, if defined by the proof of innocence. “Guilty” and “not guilty” are the jury verdicts of record, and the prosecutorial (or investigative) process focuses on a similar binary matter: Did behavior occur which meets the level of a crime?

The Mueller report’s answer to that is no, on both collusion and obstruction.

Some are saying wait: Mueller left obstruction as a nebulous open matter, to be decided by others. This invites a question: Why? The wandering language of the conclusion resembles a concerted attempt to avoid saying no to that key question: “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct,” it begins.

What? Why have we spent two years and millions of dollars if not to come away with some semblance of definitive Mueller wisdom on the President’s conduct?

It continues: “The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”

What a jumble. Yes or no—did the President or his administration engage in behavior that strikes the Mueller team as the legal definition of obstruction of justice? That answer is no. So why the contortions? It comes off as: “We found things but it wasn’t really a ‘prosecutorial judgment,’ so we’ll just say we don’t really see evidence of obstruction but nor do we see proof that he didn’t do anything wrong, so let’s just say that if we had found evidence that he did nothing, we would have said so, but we didn’t, so we won’t really say anything about that.”

The money we have spent and the rigors we have endured positively require them to say something about that. And it deserves more than the waffle of the report’s final sentence: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment [of no obstruction]. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

This is wholly unacceptable.

On the question of obstruction, if the Mueller team found a hint of it but short of the evidentiary bar, the answer is no. If they found wide smatterings that resemble obstruction but do not meet its legal definition, the answer is no.

We did not ask Robert Mueller for loose opinions over coffee about how things looked to him. We asked for a cold, clear-eyed legal opinion. The report’s conclusion denies us this, but its pages provide the answer that fuels the Trump mantra: “no collusion, no obstruction.”

The Mueller team has no aversion to clarity on collusion, as early as page 2: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Now we’re getting somewhere.

And from page 181: “The investigation did not establish that the [Russian] contacts described in Volume I… amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law, including foreign influence and campaign finance laws.”

Was that so hard? The Trump campaign met with various Russian folks scores of times, but when the firm question of collusion is asked—Did the President or his associates collaborate to compromise actual election results?—that answer is no.

That is the obstruction answer as well. Mueller is slated for some congressional testimony within weeks; perhaps someone might inquire why lack of sufficient evidence led to a firm answer on collusion but a convoluted muddle on obstruction.

https://townhall.com/columnists/mark...ad-it-n2545052

© Copyright Original Source

[oxmixmudd]

And he made it clear that there was not sufficient evidence to charge him with obstruction. Legally, that exonerates him. Politically, he can be impeached by Congress, that is true, and has never been questioned by any of us.

No, mueller specifically said he could NOT exonerate Trump because the evidence did not support that action. There are many reasons he might have chosen not to indict on obstruction. Whatever they were, in this case mueller made clear Trump being exonerated was not one of them.

So you cant say trump is exonerared (and be truthful) All you can say is that he wasnt charged.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Imagine you're standing before a judge. The judge asks the prosecutor, "What evidence do you have to prove the defendant's guilt?" The prosecutor says, "Well, your honor, we can't actually prove his guilt, but we can't prove his innocence, either." Do you know what the judge's next words will be? It's very simple:

"Not guilty."

[Cow Poke]

No, mueller specifically said he could NOT exonerate Trump because the evidence did not support that action. There are many reasons he might have chosen not to indict on obstruction. Whatever they were, in this case mueller made clear Trump being exonerated was not one of them.

So you cant say trump is exonerared (and be truthful) All you can say is that he wasnt charged.

Jim

A) Note that we have entirely abandoned "collusion", which was the big screamer for the past 2 years
2) Investigators and prosecutors don't "exonerate" - they either indict or not
C) Grand Jury testimony was involved - Grand Juries either "indict" or "no bill"
IV) While it's true that "exonerate" is not an applicable word here, the case now moves to the entirely political spectrum of the possibility of impeachment

And it will be interesting to see if "obstruction" charges can stick, given that the base charges (collusion) have been abandoned.

[oxmixmudd]

Imagine you're standing before a judge. The judge asks the prosecutor, "What evidence do you have to prove the defendant's guilt?" The prosecutor says, "Well, your honor, we can't actually prove his guilt, but we can't prove his innocence, either." Do you know what the judge's next words will be? It's very simple:

"Not guilty."

This is not that scenario. They didnt go to trial. The fellow could be guilty as he can be, but the evidence isnt strong enough to convict, so they dont go to trial. In this case there are reasons other than the strength of the evidence, including the doj policy not to indict. So it is now up to congress to decide if the evidence is sufficient, or if it is worth it to pursue impeachment.

This line that he's innocent or exonerated is a lie. He tried to get people to do that which would have gotten him impeached or indicted, but they refused. In this case, so far, he's only surviving because there were enough people around him with enough guts to tell him no.

Jim

[rogue06]

A) Note that we have entirely abandoned "collusion", which was the big screamer for the past 2 years

And you have the Washington Post correspondent Philip Bump now bizarrely proclaiming in a Tweet that

bump.jpg

Mueller's Report "makes clear that the vast amount of reporting by the mainstream outlets about Trump and Russia was on the mark"??? Not. Even. Remotely. Close. It was by and large diametrically opposed to reality with two full years of unremitting hysteria about collusion that simply never existed. "Bombshells" that consistently turned out to be fake. And speculation that was utterly baseless.

Just what color is the sky in this clown's world?

And he was hardly alone. Over on CNN (which featured panel after panel of scowling, angry "experts" who got everything wrong over the past couple of years), former Obama crony turned faux reporter (chief national security correspondent no less), Jim Sciutto boasted that the Mueller Report in some strange way "debunked all of Donald Trump's unfair attacks on the media." Really? I would love to hear him defend that remark.

[Mountain Man]

This is not that scenario. They didnt go to trial. The fellow could be guilty as he can be, but the evidence isnt strong enough to convict, so they dont go to trial. In this case there are reasons other than the strength of the evidence, including the doj policy not to indict. So it is now up to congress to decide if the evidence is sufficient, or if it is worth it to oursue impeachment.

This line that he's innocent or exonerated is a lie. He tried to get people to do that which would have gotten him impeached or indicted, but they refused. In this case, so far, he's only surviving because there were enough people around him with enough guts to tell him no.

Remember, in our legal system, everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. And Mueller could have still recommended indictment, or unambiguously said that the President had broken the law without addressing the issue of whether or not a President can be indicted, but he didn't. In fact, he even went so far as to plainly state that "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" with regards to obstruction.

And while I'm sure that the Democrats would love to go down the impeachment rabbit trail, I'm not sure if they have the stomach for it. I mean, for 2+ years it has been nothing but "RUSSIAN COLLUSION RUSSIAN COLLUSION RUSSIAN COLLUSION!" and now all of a sudden they're saying, "Oh, wait, obstruction... "

The fact is that the President is not guilty of any underlying crime -- Mueller made this clear in his report -- and so we are obligated to see the President's conduct as that of a wrongfully accused man doing nothing more than protesting his own innocence. To put the report into its correct perspective, I suggest that any time it references Trump, you mentally replace it with the phrase "innocent man" so that it reads like this:

"The [innocent man] had been assured that the FBI had not opened an investigation of him personally. The [innocent man] deemed it critically important to make public that he was not under investigation, and he included that information in his termination letter to Comey after other efforts to have that information disclosed were unsuccessful.

"Soon after he fired Comey, however, the [innocent man] became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. [...] The [innocent man] launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the [innocent man], while in private, the [innocent man] engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the [innocent man] attempted to remove the Special Counsel; [the innocent man] sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation [...] [the innocent man] used public forums to attack potential witnesses..."

[JimL]

That is silly Jim, Mueller certainly could have recommended to indict. Whether now (in office) or after he got out of office. And the fact is the Dems won't impeach, the will is not there. So you lose on both counts.

Actually seer, Mueller did not indict for the very reason stated. There is a law that implies that you can not indict a sitting president, and since you can not indict it would be unfair to charge, since the accused would not be able to defend himself. Mueller left it to Congress because in his interpretation of that law only Congress can decide weather or not to hold the president accountable by way of impeachment proceedings. The Dems may or may not decide to go the impeachment route for various reasons, including the unethical character of the republican majority in the Senate, in my opinion they should do it immediately before he does more damage to our democratic institutions. When the people vote the scoundrel out, he has many more criminal charges to face than the collusion and obstruction charges put forth in the Mueller report. That you guys still can't see, or refuse to see, what a autocratic scoundrel this guy is, is a reflection on you. Sad!

[rogue06]

Actually seer, Mueller did not indict for the very reason stated. There is a law that implies that you can not indict a sitting president, and since you can not indict it would be unfair to charge, since the accused would not be able to defend himself. Mueller left it to Congress because in his interpretation of that law only Congress can decide weather or not to hold the president accountable by way of impeachment proceedings. The Dems may or may not decide to go the impeachment route for various reasons, including the unethical character of the republican majority in the Senate, in my opinion they should do it immediately before he does more damage to our democratic institutions. When the people vote the scoundrel out, he has many more criminal charges to face than the collusion and obstruction charges put forth in the Mueller report. That you guys still can't see, or refuse to see, what a autocratic scoundrel this guy is, is a reflection on you. Sad!

Actually he left it to the Attorney General, not Congress, because that was who he was beholden to despite your incessant erroneous bleatings to the contrary.

Nevertheless even if what you claim is true (even a stopped clock is occasionally though rarely right), nothing was stopping Mueller from recommending indicting Trump the moment he is out of office. So why do you suppose he didn't do that?

[JimL]

Or even if he didn't want to address the question of indictment, he could have said in no uncertain terms "The president obstructed justice" rather than the weaselly way he put it saying "We can not say the president didn't obstruct justice", which turns the whole notion of innocent until proven guilty on its head.

As I pointed out to seer, since Mueller believed that he could not indict, many disagree with that assessment, then he also believed that he could not charge, since the accused would not be able to defend himself. He left it to Congress and to Congress it will go, regardless of his unelected toadie, Atty Gen Barr's lie, that there was absolutely no evidence of collusion or obstruction. That was a flat out lie, and the report itself establishes that fact.