Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That's what it means to me too. Which is why I asked NotreDame why he thinks Mueller believes there isn't enough evidence. The way I'm reading it, Mueller clearly does think there's enough evidence.

Mueller certainly seems to be indicating that, but he’s also a traditionalist when it comes to DOJ policy...ie, a sitting president shouldn’t/can’t be indicted.

Which is why he has left the ball in the politicians’ court...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JosephZ
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
WHY TRUMP WANTED TO CLOSE DOWN MUELLER

We have wonder this for 2 year, haven't we? Democrats assumed that Trump was hiding collusion with the Russians, and therefore lied and would almost anything to close down Mueller.

It turns out that there was no collusion. Trump was afraid that Mueller and the FBI would find out about the shady activities of Trump, of his family, of his company, and those in his campaign.

Trump was right. Many have pled guilty or are facing trial. There are still 12 continuing cases that came out of Mueller's investigations, and many others that have started in VA and NY even without Mueller. For example, Trump's sister retired from the bench when they started to investigate her financial dealings.

These investigations will continue for many years.
I have only started looking into this report but appreciate your input here.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Either arrest him or he's exonerated, you can't have it both ways.
It's not over because the special investigator decided not to indict, he has differed further investigation to the Congress. This is due to the balance of powers, not a lack of evidence. Trump did try to have Mueller fired, whether or not that is obstruction is still kind of fuzzy but none of this is cut and dried. The policy of the DOJ is not to indict a sitting President and Mueller is obviously following the rules. Saying this is a complete exoneration flies in the face of the seriousness of the subject matter.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JosephZ
Upvote 0

Vega1

Active Member
Apr 16, 2019
60
40
NA
✟9,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It's not over because the special investigator decided not to indict, he has differed further investigation to the Congress. This is due to the balance of powers, not a lack of evidence. Trump did try to have Mueller fired, whether or not that is obstruction is still kind of fuzzy but none of this is cut and dried. The policy of the DOJ is not to indict a sitting President and Mueller is obviously following the rules. Saying this is a complete exoneration flies in the face of the seriousness of the subject matter.

He didn't fire Mueller. It wouldn't have been a smart political move if he did though, it would've ended badly.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
He didn't fire Mueller. It wouldn't have been a smart political move if he did though, it would've ended badly.
It goes to intent, whether or not it was successful is beside the point. This is now a political question, the legal questions won't be cleared up entirely until he leaves office. I think it's clear that Congress will continue to investigate this and even that will probably end in a stalemate. I see the makings of an October surprise in 2020, this was always going to be settled in the political arena. Make no mistake, something like this doesn't just go away, dealing with the implications sooner rather then later is the only strategy that makes any sense.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
That's what it means to me too. Which is why I asked NotreDame why he thinks Mueller believes there isn't enough evidence. The way I'm reading it, Mueller clearly does think there's enough evidence.
Right...but Mueller’s view is as I’ve stated, “use the Constitutional remedy we already have in place!”*

*rhetorical, not an actual quote from Mueller.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Why do you assume that there are only 2 “ways”...?

Mueller report ~~~ 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

The report absolutely does not exonerate Trump!
 
Upvote 0

SinoBen

Active Member
May 23, 2018
249
103
Brisbane
✟21,698.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Collusion! Collusion! Collusion! so the cry for the past 2 years.... finding: No Collusion
Obstruction! Obstruction! Obstruction! so the cry for the next 2 years.... finding: No Obstruction (my prediction).

The charge is Obstruction of Justice of an investigation that has been completed and concludes Zero Collusion.

I reckon all the enemies of USA are laughing their a's off. Putin definitely. I wonder how much this will encourage them to do more of the same in future.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
He didn't fire Mueller. It wouldn't have been a smart political move if he did though, it would've ended badly.

Trump "endeavored to obstruct justice" by ordering the firing of Mueller. If Trump were out of office now, these actions (this one plus the 9 or more others) are all indictable offenses. Trump did this many times. Each time his subordinate refused to commit an illegal act. Trump had already done so. Mueller couldn't prosecute him, so he laid out the case so that Congress could act, or a future court could do so.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Trump "endeavored to obstruct justice" by ordering the firing of Mueller. If Trump were out of office now, these actions (this one plus the 9 or more others) are all indictable offenses. Trump did this many times. Each time his subordinate refused to commit an illegal act. Trump had already done so. Mueller couldn't prosecute him, so he laid out the case so that Congress could act, or a future court could do so.

Trump has suggested illegal acts on a number of occasions. The most recent was at the Mexican border when he suggested that he would pardon border agents who did so. I also recall that during the campaign he suggested that he would pay for the legal defense of people who physically attacked those who disrupted his speeches. These are the actions of a person who either has a low regard for the law or who is actually ignorant of the law. Knowing as well how his companies treat suppliers and contractors I have to conclude that because of his wealth he thinks he is above the law.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, Trump believes that he is above the law. While he is president, Trump actually is above the law, the only remedy being impeachment.

Of course, the Mueller probe did exactly what Trump feared. It opened a can of worms. No collusion, but there are lots and lots of other crimes being investigated other that collusion and obstruction, just not by Mueller.

Trump has suggested illegal acts on a number of occasions. The most recent was at the Mexican border when he suggested that he would pardon border agents who did so. I also recall that during the campaign he suggested that he would pay for the legal defense of people who physically attacked those who disrupted his speeches. These are the actions of a person who either has a low regard for the law or who is actually ignorant of the law. Knowing as well how his companies treat suppliers and contractors I have to conclude that because of his wealth he thinks he is above the law.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not interested in debating this one, but can I trouble you to reference a point in the document that indicates such or can you expound on your thinking a bit? I haven't read all of Volume 2 yet, but the Volume 2 Executive Summary conclusion on page 8 seems pretty explicit about Mueller's intent to avoid the type of determination that you've stated:

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. 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.

Just as a beginning point, the excerpt you cited doesn’t come close to contradicting my statement. Neither is the except inconsistent with my statement. To the contrary, my statement IS consistent with the excerpt.

The excerpt you cited is stating 1.) they declined to make a prosecutorial judgment, which is to say they are declining to say they believe Trump obstructed justice or attempted to obstruct justice and 2.) the phrase “we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct” is a restatement of number one, and/or a corollary of number one. That’s logical since, if they had made “ultimate conclusions” about Trump’s conduct, then rationally they could and should have reached a prosecutorial judgment and 3.) “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,” yeah, but this does not suggest there is not some evidence of obstruction. Mueller is very clear the evidence is problematic because SOME of the evidence is innocent, some of the evidence is incriminating, and taking into consideration the applicable legal standards for obstruction of justice, the evidence just does not confidently support obstruction.

The problem of conflicting evidence, and the evidence not satisfactorily supporting obstruction, is compounded by the ambiguity of where the line is drawn between Article 2 power to govern executive branch agencies and when that power constitutes obstruction.

Furthermore, AG Barr said the OLC/DOJ guideline did not and was not the basis in which Mueller declined to make a prosecutorial judgment regarding obstruction of justice. As AG Barr said, it was not a “but for” the OLC/DOJ guideline, then Mueller would have made a prosecutorial judgment. In other words, Mueller chose not to say Trump obstructed justice, translation, it is too hard to make a criminal case of obstruction, hence, I make no judgment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's what it means to me too. Which is why I asked NotreDame why he thinks Mueller believes there isn't enough evidence. The way I'm reading it, Mueller clearly does think there's enough evidence.

Hmmm...no...Mueller does not “clearly” think there’s enough evidence.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
When the issue was collusion, Mueller decided that there was not enough evidence to indict (even though he couldn't indict even if the evidence was there).

Mueller says "clearly" that if the situation were that there was not enough evidence to indict on obstruction, he would state that conclusion. The Mueller then says that he cannot make that statement.

Mueller provides a detailed case for any prosecutor to follow of over 180 pages, in 10 sections, with arguments and details. Obviously, this could also be used in impeachment hearings, which may be useful, although there needn't be any vote for impeachment taken.

Hmmm...no...Mueller does not “clearly” think there’s enough evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Foamhead

I like water
Aug 27, 2005
620
555
46
✟42,241.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Others
Upvote 0

AllButNone

Active Member
Jan 18, 2017
326
328
Canada
✟77,933.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Just as a beginning point, the excerpt you cited doesn’t come close to contradicting my statement. Neither is the except inconsistent with my statement. To the contrary, my statement IS consistent with the excerpt.

I'm not sure this is an answer to my question, and I'm surprised by the confrontational tone. I'll re-ask the question. How do you get from, "did not draw ultimate conclusions" to "Mueller thinks there's not enough evidence". What's your rational here. Is it because of the line "actions and intent presents difficult issues"? Is there some specific line I've glossed over? You've written:

Mueller is very clear the evidence is problematic because SOME of the evidence is innocent, some of the evidence is incriminating.

Ok. That's fine. I believe you. I'm simply asking where you read this and/or what you're inferring it from, specifically.

Hmmm...no...Mueller does not “clearly” think there’s enough evidence.

Hmm, yeah. I've thought about it a little bit more, and I agree, my statement is incorrect. It's tough to ignore the juxtaposition between Volume I and Volume II in light of Mueller's statement that prosecutorial decisions are typically binary, his points one through four on pages 1 and 2 of Volume II, and that in Volume I he was willing to make a firm statement about the quantity of evidence. But giving it more thought, I'm making a big overstep. (this isn't sarcasm)

*edit, you edited your response, my response might not be appropriate. I'll remove this edit after I get a chance to re-read your response and make any necessary alterations to this post
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,565
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not sure this is an answer to my question, and I'm surprised by the confrontational tone. I'll re-ask the question. How do you get from, "did not draw ultimate conclusions" to "Mueller thinks there's not enough evidence". What's your rational here. Is it because of the line "actions and intent presents difficult issues"? Is there some specific line I've glossed over? You've written:

Mueller is very clear the evidence is problematic because SOME of the evidence is innocent, some of the evidence is incriminating.

Ok. That's fine. I believe you. I'm simply asking where you read this and/or what you're inferring it from, specifically.



Hmm, yeah. I've thought about it a little bit more, and I agree, my statement is incorrect. It's tough to ignore the juxtaposition between Volume I and Volume II in light of Mueller's statement that prosecutorial decisions are typically binary, his points one through four on pages 1 and 2 of Volume II, and that in Volume I he was willing to make a firm statement about the quantity of evidence. But giving it more thought, I'm making a big overstep. (this isn't sarcasm)

How do you get from, "did not draw ultimate conclusions" to "Mueller thinks there's not enough evidence". What's your rational here. Is it because of the line "actions and intent presents difficult issues"? Is there some specific line I've glossed over? You've written:

Mueller is very clear the evidence is problematic because SOME of the evidence is innocent, some of the evidence is incriminating.

Ok. That's fine. I believe you. I'm simply asking where you read this and/or what you're inferring it from, specifically.

Two sources.

First, in analyzing the evidence of each incident, Mueller frequently says the evidence is "relevant" to some element of the statute. That's rather flimsy. Even the weakest evidence is relevant. Relevance is not an indication of strength. Telling me or the reader the evidence is relevant is not an invitation to be confident that Trump obstructed justice and here is the ineluctable, and incontrovertible evidence.

In other instances, Mueller said the evidence "suggests" something, which is also not a compelling or assuring remark. The way I read Mueller's report, his choice of words indicates to me he is very much on the fence regarding whether the evidence substantiates obstruction of justice.

Second, this remark tells me something. "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Well, Mueller is telling the reader the evidence he surveys does not convince him Trump committed a crime. "Accordingly....this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..." Such a remark is not surprising given Mueller's characterization of the evidence as "relevant" and "suggests." At the same time, some of the evidence clearly troubles Mueller, which is to say he perceives some of the evidence as incriminating, leading him to say "it also does not exonerate him."

I'm surprised by the confrontational tone.

No such tone man. I was just giving you my reply.
 
Upvote 0