"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[LostMarbels]

The Russians interfered in the USA 2016 election. It is not a false narrative at all.

Why do people always forget to mention that for almost 4 years we were told that Trump helped with that? That is the false narrative. The collusion part.

t's quite a conspiracy, to think that all news media outlets are out to get Trump and to do it by inventing a narrative, this conspiracy then claims that the FBI, CIA and all are also out to get Trump. It claims that Mueller is now suddenly a leftie, that Comey is now suddenly a leftie, that the judges giving warrants must be lefties.

It's one hell of a conspiracy.

It is quite a conspiracy, and a scary one at that. I agree. Don't forget to mention social media, hollywood, and the music industry, as well.

 

[bhsmte]

He could have, but he didn't. It wasn't his job, and that conclusion would hold zero weight if he did.

I really don't get this obsession. What would be different if he came out and said that he was confident Trump was guilty of obstruction? Trump still couldn't be charged, it would still have to go to the House for an impeachment vote and trial, and so on. I simply can't understand why anyone would keep coming back to this talking point rather than focusing on the actual substance of the Mueller report. It feels like it is supposed to imply something about something, but no one can seem to identify what either of the things are.

Why appoint a special council, if he isnt going to reach a conclusion? He reached a conclusion on conspiracy, so he is capable of doing so.

The guy needs to be put under oath and face questions as barr did. He owes that to the tax payers who flipped the bill.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why appoint a special council, if he isnt going to reach a conclusion?

In this case, to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election. The memo appointing him is available to the public, you know.

I'll add that none of this actually answers why it is so important to get one individual's (not Individual 1's) personal take on whether he could do something he couldn't do.

He reached a conclusion on conspiracy, so he is capable of doing so.

The guy needs to be put under oath and face questions as barr did.

I don't think there would be any reason to ask him why he lied under oath about memos written by himself like they did for Barr, so I think they'd probably need to ask some other questions. Which ones did you have in mind?

He owes that to the tax payers who flipped the bill.

Also, you might want to avoid the whole "look how expensive this was" right wing talking point. Manafort's assets paid for it, not the taxpayers.

 

[Hank77]

Why appoint a special council, if he isnt going to reach a conclusion? He reached a conclusion on conspiracy, so he is capable of doing so.

The guy needs to be put under oath and face questions as barr did. He owes that to the tax payers who flipped the bill.

I want to know if Mueller asked Rosenstein to allow him to pursue an indictment. Mueller doesn't have the authority to do so on his own, when it comes to a sitting president according to the olc rules written in 1998-99.

It would have been highly disruptive and unethical to accuse a sitting President of a crime without a trial where he could defend himself against the allegations.

 

[bhsmte]

I want to know if Mueller asked Rosenstein to allow him to pursue an indictment. Mueller doesn't have the authority to do so on his own, when it comes to a sitting president according to the olc rules written in 1998-99.

It would have been highly disruptive and unethical to accuse a sitting President of a crime without a trial where he could defend himself against the allegations.

I disagree with this, because by laying out 10 circumstances, he basically is accusing him of a crime, without giving his conclusion.

I really, really want to hear mueller respond to a host of questions, as any investigator would need to do. I also want to find out, the contradictions from barr's statement on the olc not impacting muellers refusal to conclude and muellers statement that contradicts the same. Someone is lying and barr said he had several people with him, when they said they asked mueller this question 3 times.

 

[USincognito]

August 6th he was indicted.

He was NOT indicted.

 

[Pommer]

The policy in question:
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf

 

[SimplyMe]

I dont get how you do not understand what I'm saying. They want Trump impeached so they can prosecute him by their accusations. There is no crime. Ever part of the impeachment was planned and set in motion. They want to remove him from office. That is all this is.

Except there are crimes, despite your wish to handwave them away -- you seem to finally be admitting that Trump did obstruct. And there has been little support, ever, in Congress to actually impeach Trump. Yes, there was a Congressperson who drafted articles of impeachment, just as Republicans threatened to impeach Obama, just as Democrats threatened to impeach Bush, just as Republicans actually did impeach Clinton.

Or, beyond that, just how many investigations were there of Clinton. For all the Republican's claims of wrongdoing with things like Bengazi (I think it was something like 17 separate Congressional investigations, none of which found any evidence of wrongdoing), Uranium One (again, multiple investigations but no evidence of wrongdoing), etc.

There has been no impeachment planned, much less set in motion -- just as there was no Republican plan to impeach Obama or to set it in motion, despite numerous threats and I believe a bill even filed in Congress.

Trump is merely being treated like every president has over the last 20 years -- since the "blueprint" was laid out with Clinton. The only difference is that Trump appears to have a "thin skin" and loves conspiracy theories (such as the Obama Birth Certificate); so of course he weaves this into some giant conspiracy. Yet, the fact remains, the entire Mueller Report was directly caused by the number of his campaign operatives, who on appointment to White House positions, lied (or "forgot") their contact with Russian agents. If Sessions had offered up his contacts with the Russian ambassador, rather than seemingly trying to hide it, he (as head of the Justice Department) would have headed up the entire Russia investigation.

Trump is someone who can dish it out but can't seem to take it, rather he's decided it has to be some giant conspiracy against him, rather than just what we now do to any president. In Trump's case, what has made it worse is the hiding of things that look bad -- such as people not reporting their Russian contacts, trying to hide the Trump Tower meeting, and this directly ties to Trump's attempts to obstruct justice -- which includes reports (in the Mueller Report) of Trump telling his subordinates to lie about things he has said and done. The fact is, Nixon resigned, and would have been impeached, for exactly the same things Trump (per the Report) appears to have done.

 

[stevil]

Why do people always forget to mention that for almost 4 years we were told that Trump helped with that? That is the false narrative. The collusion part.

It wasn't about Trump.
Due to all the communications and meetings between Trump Campaign members and Russians it was deemed necessary to investigate. The investigation only started focusing on Donald Trump once the obstruction was happening.

It is quite a conspiracy, and a scary one at that. I agree. Don't forget to mention social media, hollywood, and the music industry, as well.

And all the scientists, remember, they are trying to trick us with global warming which is a Chinese conspiracy, and also the scientists are tricking us that vaccinations aren't causing Autism, and not to mention the old Evolution scam. Tricksy scientists.

Like Trump said, don't believe what you read and hear. Don't watch any of those other channels, just stick to Fox and Brietbart and the messages coming from Trump and his administration.

 

[Hank77]

The policy in question:
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf

This document from 2000 is helpful. This is what is being talked about in the video I posted.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf
I found the above document here.
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

 

[LostMarbels]

He was NOT indicted.

You are wrong.

Nixon was brought up on charges, resigned, then was pardoned to keep those charges from sticking.

 

[LostMarbels]

There has been no impeachment planned, much less set in motion

I think both of our views are so diametrically opposed we will not agree.

Or, beyond that, just how many investigations were there of Clinton. For all the Republican's claims of wrongdoing with things like Bengazi (I think it was something like 17 separate Congressional investigations, none of which found any evidence of wrongdoing), Uranium One (again, multiple investigations but no evidence of wrongdoing), etc.

Still ongoing.

 

[LostMarbels]

And all the scientists, remember, they are trying to trick us with global warming which is a Chinese conspiracy, and also the scientists are tricking us that vaccinations aren't causing Autism, and not to mention the old Evolution scam. Tricksy scientists.

I never bought any of those up.

Like Trump said, don't believe what you read and hear. Don't watch any of those other channels, just stick to Fox and Brietbart and the messages coming from Trump and his administration.

All news in current society is scripted. All if it, including conservative outlets.

The ONLY way you will find ANY individual or independent thought is from independent media and independent research. All news is staged, and scripted.

 

[SimplyMe]

I think both of our views are so diametrically opposed we will not agree.



Still ongoing.

Yes, and if we applied the same theory about Clinton as you (and others here) claim about Trump, of course if you keep investigating a person over and over and over your going to find something they did wrong. Again, there have been easily more than 25 investigations done by Republicans into Clinton where nothing illegal was ever found. The closest is with her personal server by the FBI, and even there they felt that it didn't rise to the level of prosecution.

In fact, it seems far more obvious there has been a conspiracy to destroy Hillary's reputation, to keep her from winning the Presidency, then anything close to what Trump has been through. Not just the 25+ investigations done by Republicans, but also the "email chains," such as all the "murders" the Clinton's allegedly committed, despite there being no real evidence to support any of it.

It is quite a double standard.

 

[LostMarbels]

Yes, and if we applied the same theory about Clinton as you (and others here) claim about Trump, of course if you keep investigating a person over and over and over your going to find something they did wrong. Again, there have been easily more than 25 investigations done by Republicans into Clinton where nothing illegal was ever found. The closest is with her personal server by the FBI, and even there they felt that it didn't rise to the level of prosecution.

In fact, it seems far more obvious there has been a conspiracy to destroy Hillary's reputation, to keep her from winning the Presidency, then anything close to what Trump has been through. Not just the 25+ investigations done by Republicans, but also the "email chains," such as all the "murders" the Clinton's allegedly committed, despite there being no real evidence to support any of it.

It is quite a double standard.

I think many are not willing to believe that our system is just so corrupt that anyone that tries to fix that system is attacked. Some just cannot accept that evil exists. To say no real evidence exists is just crazy. Everything you just brought up is currently being investigated. And cases to be brought to trial are forming. There are going to be prosecutions over these topics involving the people you mentioned.

Liberals have this false sense about them that everything is going just as they planned. They are winning. Trump is getting nothing done. However in just one example, there are several ongoing and 3 possible investigations into former high level FBI officials concerning of "unauthorised leaks of information" and the 'midyear exam'. From what I can garner 'crossfire hurricane' is being investigated by a team put together by Barr.


https://gallery.mailchimp.com/02753...il&utm_term=0_ff92df788e-e10a33a38e-168924225

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/02753...il&utm_term=0_ff92df788e-e10a33a38e-168924225

 

[stevil]

All news in current society is scripted. All if it, including conservative outlets.

There is a significant difference between journalistic news and opinion pieces.
Hannity, Carlson, Pirro, etc are opinion pieces. They are akin to WWE for wrestling. It is dressed up to look like the real thing, but it isn't, it's way over the top, gets the audience super hyped but is several margins of error away from reality. They don't do journalism, they don't research their information, they don't assess it for integrity.

Chris Wallace and Shep Smith are journalists. Journalistic integrity is their bread and butter.
You will never get Chris or Shep up on front stage at a Campaign styled rally, supporting one candidate, like what we saw in the mid terms with Hannity and Pirro.

My favourites at the moment are Wallace, Smith, Cuomo, Rachel Maddow. They offer informative, balanced and fact based information. I also like to hear Judge Napolitano's legal opinion on issues.

Many of the talking points being brought up in this thread, by people criticising Mueller and supporting Trump, appear to be talking points of the Fox opinion hosts, but not at all, talking points of real serious journalists.

Arguing about whether someone can be guilty of obstructing an investigation in to a "non-crime" is a poor argument. The answer is yes, obstructing an investigation is obstruction of justice.
Arguing about the origins of the investigation (as if it is based on the Dossier) is a completely debunked argument.
Arguing that there is a Deep State of secret Obama operatives trying to keep Conservatives from power is utter nonsense.
Arguing that Hollywood, music industry and mainstream media are all out to get Trump is ridiculous.

I live in a part of the world that isn't USA.
In my country people aren't so politically divided. Our news channels aren't politically affiliated. So I find it quite difficult to understand what is going on in USA. When I watch Fox opinion shows, I am gob smacked by it all. When I hear the prominent opinion folk and many public calling Obama a Muslim or a Kenyan, I just find it incredibly weird and completely oblivious to reality.
USA is a very different beast to the rest of the world.

I'm wondering how people over there can get along when they are so divided and dis-trustful of each other. Your policies completely flip flop when you change governing parties.
When House, or Senate is different party from the White house, then you achieve virtually nothing. Just look what happened to Obama in his last 6 years in office and now Trump once the Democrats took over the house.

 

[stevil]

From what I can garner 'crossfire hurricane' is being investigated by a team put together by Barr.

The thing about Barr is that he has lost all credibility since he mis-characterised the SC report, and lied about his conversations with, and his understanding of Mueller's position (even under oath).
Also with his use of words such as "spying" without any supporting evidence in the report. And his insistence that Trump has been fully transparent (even though Trump has been trying to obstruct and has been telling people not to assist in the investigation and has now been instructing people to defy subpoenas.)
Also with Barr falsely insisting that Trump can't have obstructed justice when no crime was found on "conspiracy".

Barr's integrity is completely shot.

 

[LostMarbels]

I'm wondering how people over there can get along when they are so divided and dis-trustful of each other.

We get along by a dress code, some societal norms, and by our speech. Don't: wear a read hat, be born as a white male, be heterosexual, or speak against the narrative, and you don't get beat in the streets. Can't you feel the tolerance and love?

Your policies completely flip flop when you change governing parties.
When House, or Senate is different party from the White house, then you achieve virtually nothing. Just look what happened to Obama in his last 6 years in office and now Trump once the Democrats took over the house.

This country has become so corrupt it is not even the same country I was born into.

Barr's integrity is completely shot.

That is a matter of perspective and opinion.

Arguing about whether someone can be guilty of obstructing an investigation in to a "non-crime" is a poor argument.

Even if it is a sain one? There was no crime committed to cause the anxiety to need to shut down the investigation.There was nothing to hide. He did not attempt to obstruct because there was no crime to hide.

 

[LostMarbels]

Arguing that Hollywood, music industry and mainstream media are all out to get Trump is ridiculous.

Can you name any actor or singer, that still has a job, that are Trump supporters?

 

[stevil]

That is a matter of perspective and opinion.

No, not just a matter of opinion.
It is a demonstrable fact that Barr is behaving in a partisan rather than professional and objective manner

He did not attempt to obstruct because there was no crime to hide.

He appears to have interfered and obstructed with the investigation regardless of whether there was a crime to hide or not.

Here is a segment from Volume II of the SC report
"Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

So here he is saying that it is possible to obstruct justice even though there isn't evidence of an underlying crime. In this instance Mueller is saying that the absence of underlying evidence does effect the analysis of intent.

another part of the report
"Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. The likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same."

I would think, being in public view, this allows some folk in Congress to consider if the President is obstructing justice, and would not need them to wait for the SC report to be delivered.

and another part of the report
"Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation."