Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

[bhsmte]

I wish there was more cherry-picking...many people are just making up conclusions from thin air...

One issue causing problems, is mueller did not "conclude" on obstruction. He laid out what his investigation discovered, but has no "conclusion" on whether obstruction happened that warrant charges.

 

[bhsmte]

For the umpteenth time, he doesn’t. And he doesn’t, as he very comprehensively explains, because it would be unfair to do so. If you can’t bring a charge, you shouldn’t even suggest that one is warranted, because the referred party has no opportunity to defend themself at court.

That doesnt fly.

 

[Allandavid]

Well all I can say is we'll see. From what I am seeing the real issue for the president is the attempted firing of Mueller. I don't see an issue at all with Comey due to the fact he serves ONLY at the president's discretion and can be fired for any or no reason. Asking Session not to recuse himself is just asking the AG to do his job.

Trying to get Meuller fired is more problematic. Whether or not it rises to actual obstruction or attempted will be a matter for the lawyers to decide.

Mueller listed all of those as obstructive behaviours...

 

[Allandavid]

That doesnt fly.

In what way...?

 

[Speedwell]

Well all I can say is we'll see. From what I am seeing the real issue for the president is the attempted firing of Mueller. I don't see an issue at all with Comey due to the fact he serves ONLY at the president's discretion and can be fired for any or no reason.

He should have kept his mouth shut and not given a reason.

 

[childeye 2]

My original question stands; where did mueller go on the record, that obstruction HAPPENED.

I gave you where he said that obstruction happened in post #349. In that post, everything is from the Mueller report except the first sentence.

 

[FreeinChrist]

All correct. But, where did he state, in his personal conclusion, obstruction charges are warranted?

It was already explained to you why he did not state his personal conclusion. Read post #360.

Why did the investigators and Mueller include the following?:

“Mueller added that the President "does not have immunity after he leaves office" and that his team "conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."”


After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.​

"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General 's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example , the President 's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation."

"Many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view. While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President's power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system's integrity is equally threatened."

"The President 's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."


“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,”
​

and a big ones:

"Under OLC's analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions." Page 382

"With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice." ​

 

[Always in His Presence]

Please show where Mueller states that he “did not have enough evidence” to support a charge of obstruction.

That’s ok....I’ll wait...

Oh, he did find substantive evidence of obstruction and stated it was.

Please show me that statement

That’s ok.... I’ll wait...

 

[Allandavid]

Oh, he did find substantive evidence of obstruction and stated it was.

Please show me that statement

That’s ok.... I’ll wait...

No,no...YOU made the claim...YOU support it..!

 

[Pommer]

One issue causing problems, is mueller did not "conclude" on obstruction. He laid out what his investigation discovered, but has no "conclusion" on whether obstruction happened that warrant charges.

Because those determinations would be up to the United States House of Representatives to make (or not), and will do so, (or not) after extensive hearings with witnesses from the Administration invoking their Fifth Amendment Rights against self-incrimination.

 

[bhsmte]

It was already explained to you why he did not state his personal conclusion. Read post #360.

Why did the investigators and Mueller include the following?:

“Mueller added that the President "does not have immunity after he leaves office" and that his team "conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."”


After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.​

"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General 's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example , the President 's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation."

"Many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view. While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President's power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system's integrity is equally threatened."

"The President 's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."


“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,”
​

and a big ones:

"Under OLC's analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions." Page 382

"With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice." ​

Do you think mueller will answer as to whether enough evidence exists for an obstruction charge, when he is called to testify? Since he did the investigation, i would think that would be important to find out.

But, irregardless, of whether he would say yes, no, or i decline to answer, it would still be one legal experts opinion of the evidence. Some others will agree and others will not.

I really dont see impeachment removing trump from office on obstruction claims. What i could see, is the investigation that is ongoing into his financial situation, maybe producing something that may compel enough republicans to jump onboard though.

 

[bhsmte]

Because those determinations would be up to the United States House of Representatives to make (or not), and will do so, (or not) after extensive hearings with witnesses from the Administration invoking their Fifth Amendment Rights against self-incrimination.

What do you think the house will do?

 

[childeye 2]

That doesnt fly.

I respectfully disagree. We must consider that we're talking about the the Presidency of the entire country, entrusted to ensure that justice is implemented at the highest seat of political power. If any and every President were allowed to be charged with crimes, then political rivals could essentially keep a President busy in court defending every allegation of every action he takes throughout his term. Hence the OLC exists for that purpose.

 

[Speedwell]

What do you think the house will do?

Continue with their various oversight investigations as they are supposed to do. Pelosi is against impeachment, so it probably won't happen unless something new and startling emerges.

 

[bhsmte]

I respectfully disagree. We must consider that we're talking about the the Presidency of the entire country, entrusted to ensure that justice is implemented at the highest seat of political power. If any and every President were be allowed to be charged with crimes, then political rivals could essentially keep a President busy in court defending every allegation of every action he takes throughout his term. Hence the OLC exists for that purpose.

What do you think should happen?

 

[bhsmte]

Continue with their various oversight investigations as they are supposed to do. Pelosi is against impeachment, so it probably won't happen unless something new and startling emerges.

I would agree, that is likely.

And again, IMO, if anything sinks trump, it will be financially related, not obstruction.

 

[childeye 2]

Do you think mueller will answer as to whether enough evidence exists for an obstruction charge, when he is called to testify? Since he did the investigation, i would think that would be important to find out.

But, irregardless, of whether he would say yes, no, or i decline to answer, it would still be one legal experts opinion of the evidence. Some others will agree and others will not.

I really dont see impeachment removing trump from office on obstruction claims. What i could see, is the investigation that is ongoing into his financial situation, maybe producing something that may compel enough republicans to jump onboard though.

It's the seat of the President where the power is entrusted over all matters of justice and even the power to pardon. That's why dishonest people who are thieves, cheaters and liars should not get elected.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Do you think mueller will answer as to whether enough evidence exists for an obstruction charge, when he is called to testify? Since he did the investigation, i would think that would be important to find out.

But, irregardless, of whether he would say yes, no, or i decline to answer, it would still be one legal experts opinion of the evidence. Some others will agree and others will not.

I really dont see impeachment removing trump from office on obstruction claims. What i could see, is the investigation that is ongoing into his financial situation, maybe producing something that may compel enough republicans to jump onboard though.

There are more ongoing investigations. There are 12 where we don't even know who is being investigated. I believe the congress needs to continue to investigate, including Trump's tax returns and financials. Before impeachment, they need to know more.

 

[childeye 2]

What do you think should happen?

What is most alarming to me is that this man has the complete support of a significant portion of the electorate who are in my view diehard followers. If Trump says that the investigation is a hoax, they believe him. If Trump tweets that we should investigate the investigators, these followers become outraged at dedicated public servants for simply doing their job. So I seriously think that because of this fanaticism the President is a very dangerous person and should be removed immediately.

 

[Pommer]

What do you think the house will do?

Oh, there’s all manner of “oversight” that can be brought to bear...investigating how people with no chance at getting a Security Clearence get a Security Clearence; asking Don McGhan whether he felt that the President asked him to do something that would implicate the both of them in an obstruction of justice charge; hear evidence against the President regarding his keeping the lease on the old Post Office Hotel, possibly violating the Emoluments Clause; etc..