Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

Mueller was a former prosecutor. In addition, he is to some extent acting like a prosecutor in his report as it pertains to determining whether a crime was or was not committed. In prosecutor parlance, Mueller is saying obstruction of justice charges would be very difficult to prove, the case would be very difficult to win, and there is a high probability of losing. Mueller telegraphed his prosecutorial judgment in rather explicit terms. Mueller telegraphed to "any prosecutor" to beware should they want to prosecute for obstruction. Mueller's report is intentionally ambiguous as to whether Trump did obstruct justice, and the ambiguity is because of the nature of the evidence. Democrats risk political self-immolation in seeking to impeach because of obstruction of justice when Mueller's report is very wishy-washy about obstruction.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Mueller was a former prosecutor. In addition, he is to some extent acting like a prosecutor in his report as it pertains to determining whether a crime was or was not committed. In prosecutor parlance, Mueller is saying obstruction of justice charges would be very difficult to prove, the case would be very difficult to win, and there is a high probability of losing. Mueller telegraphed his prosecutorial judgment in rather explicit terms. Mueller telegraphed to "any prosecutor" to beware should they want to prosecute for obstruction. Mueller's report is intentionally ambiguous as to whether Trump did obstruct justice, and the ambiguity is because of the nature of the evidence. Democrats risk political self-immolation in seeking to impeach because of obstruction of justice when Mueller's report is very wishy-washy about obstruction.
I enjoy a knowledgeable, reasoned, arguement but Meuller knows that there is no precedent to try to indict a sitting President.
The next step is for the House to digest the report and have the appropriate committees conduct their own investigations (it’ll be an interesting summer!).

We will likely hear exactly what Mueller’s thinking on this all is.

Yup, fun, fun, fun, all summer long!
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Mueller was a former prosecutor. In addition, he is to some extent acting like a prosecutor in his report as it pertains to determining whether a crime was or was not committed. In prosecutor parlance, Mueller is saying obstruction of justice charges would be very difficult to prove, the case would be very difficult to win, and there is a high probability of losing. Mueller telegraphed his prosecutorial judgment in rather explicit terms. Mueller telegraphed to "any prosecutor" to beware should they want to prosecute for obstruction. Mueller's report is intentionally ambiguous as to whether Trump did obstruct justice, and the ambiguity is because of the nature of the evidence. Democrats risk political self-immolation in seeking to impeach because of obstruction of justice when Mueller's report is very wishy-washy about obstruction.

I agree partially...

Mueller’s approach seems to be very clear. He is meticulous when it comes to fairness and adherence to protocol. For that reason, I believe he is telling us the following in Volume 2...

  • OLC practice is such that a sitting president may not be indicted and Mueller has adhered to that practice.
  • It is a basic tenet of British (and therefore US) law that an accused person should have the right to face and challenge their accuser in court.
  • In a spirit of fairness, therefore, it is neither appropriate nor ethical for Mueller to conclude that the president has committed a crime.
  • However, Mueller makes it clear that no such protection exists for a President once he is out of office.
  • He further recognises that his findings do not prevent Congress from using his evidence to seek a political solution.
  • He instances 10 or 12 clear examples in which Trump has engaged in ‘obstructive behaviour’ with regard to the various aspects of the investigation.
  • Mueller goes out of his way to state that, if he found clear evidence that the president had not engaged in obstruction, he would present such a finding. He is clear that he is not providing such exoneration.
I believe that Mueller’s ‘message’ is obvious. He has provided a blueprint for the eventual indictment of Trump on obstruction charges, either at the termination of his term of office, or following impeachment proceedings.
 
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Mueller claims Florida county was compromised
The report contains the first ever public US government claim that Russian hackers compromised a county's network in the leadup to the 2016 election, with an attack on an unnamed Florida county.

According to the report, "the FBI believes that this operation enabled the GRU to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county government."

Florida election officials were shocked by the claim.

Mueller discovered new ways Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election - CNNPolitics
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I enjoy a knowledgeable, reasoned, arguement but Meuller knows that there is no precedent to try to indict a sitting President.
The next step is for the House to digest the report and have the appropriate committees conduct their own investigations (it’ll be an interesting summer!).

We will likely hear exactly what Mueller’s thinking on this all is.

Yup, fun, fun, fun, all summer long!

Sure, Mueller knows a sitting President cannot be indicted according to the OLC. But I’m not discussing indictment, and I’m discussing an aspect of the Mueller report that isn’t agonizing over whether a President can be indicted.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree partially...

Mueller’s approach seems to be very clear. He is meticulous when it comes to fairness and adherence to protocol. For that reason, I believe he is telling us the following in Volume 2...

  • OLC practice is such that a sitting president may not be indicted and Mueller has adhered to that practice.
  • It is a basic tenet of British (and therefore US) law that an accused person should have the right to face and challenge their accuser in court.
  • In a spirit of fairness, therefore, it is neither appropriate nor ethical for Mueller to conclude that the president has committed a crime.
  • However, Mueller makes it clear that no such protection exists for a President once he is out of office.
  • He further recognises that his findings do not prevent Congress from using his evidence to seek a political solution.
  • He instances 10 or 12 clear examples in which Trump has engaged in ‘obstructive behaviour’ with regard to the various aspects of the investigation.
  • Mueller goes out of his way to state that, if he found clear evidence that the president had not engaged in obstruction, he would present such a finding. He is clear that he is not providing such exoneration.
I believe that Mueller’s ‘message’ is obvious. He has provided a blueprint for the eventual indictment of Trump on obstruction charges, either at the termination of his term of office, or following impeachment proceedings.

Except Mueller tempers everthing you just said with the statement the report doesn’t conclude Trump committed a crime of obstruction. For a prosecutor, the end objective isn’t being able to bring an indictment. Bringing an indictment is easy. As a prosecutor once joked, “I could indict a ham sandwich.” A prosecutor wants sufficient evidence to support an indictment, especially one of this magnitude. Mueller is clearly not sure there is enough evidence to support an indictment.
 
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Except Mueller tempers everthing you just said with the statement the report doesn’t conclude Trump committed a crime of obstruction. For a prosecutor, the end objective isn’t being able to bring an indictment. Bringing an indictment is easy. As a prosecutor once joked, “I could indict a ham sandwich.” A prosecutor wants sufficient evidence to support an indictment, especially one of this magnitude. Mueller is clearly not sure there is enough evidence to support an indictment.

Not necessarily.

Again, Mueller is, in his own words, observing the OLC practice of not seeking to indict a sitting president. That does not, however, imply that he doesn’t think that Trump is guilty of such a crime.

Indeed, I think he gives us enough of a wink to indicate that, had Trump not been occupying his present position, he would indict him...and gain a conviction.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not necessarily.

Again, Mueller is, in his own words, observing the OLC practice of not seeking to indict a sitting president. That does not, however, imply that he doesn’t think that Trump is guilty of such a crime.

Indeed, I think he gives us enough of a wink to indicate that, had Trump not been occupying his present position, he would indict him...and gain a conviction.

You are confusing two concepts. There’s indictment and prosecutorial judgment. The two aren’t the same. Mueller’s report is discussing prosecutorial judgment of whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction.

Second, AG Barr clearly states Mueller’s decision not to make a prosecutorial judgment was not because of the OLC.

Third, Mueller’s report unequivocally states he is not making a prosecutorial judgment that Trump obstructed justice. A reason, inter alia, is because of the difficulty of the evidence.

Indeed, I think he gives us enough of a wink to indicate that, had Trump not been occupying his present position, he would indict him...and gain a conviction.

Having read the report dealing with obstruction, there is very little to nothing in Mueller’s Part II report to substantiate that remark. If you think otherwise, tell me where to find it in the report itself.

Mueller tells the reader the report doesn’t conclude Trump committed obstruction! The reason given is because of the difficulty of the evidence and legal elements. That’s hardly a nod towards the idea he’d indict otherwise.

Mueller’s report shows he was very ambivalent to the notion of whether he would indict.
 
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
With conspiracy, like aiding and abetting, what the law requires is a substantial step. That becomes a matter of fact for a judge or jury, or in the case of impeachment, the Congress to determine if there was one. With Clinton's handling of emails I think Comey was trying to say he didn't think they could meet the burden of proof with regards to intent, that's why she isn't going to get locked up. I think something like that is going on here, especially given that the President is afforded special privileges he needs to do his job, and not have some politically motivated charge bogging down his office while he tries to do his job. I think it bodes well for the Trump administration right now, nothing revealed so far we didn't already know as far as I can tell. But if there was nothing indicating obstruction or conspiracy, or the President absolutely can't be indicted, the second volume of the report wouldn't have been necessary.
 
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

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
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.

I think that in many ways, the extremely wealthy are above the law. Trump is just more brazen about the consequences of that than most.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,763
17,062
✟1,388,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are correct. My point was that there was not enough evidence to convict Trump of collusion. If there were enough information, then Mueller would have been unable to make a determination as was the case with regard to obstruction.

"....there was not enough evidence to convict Trump of criminal conspiracy." Collusion is not a legal term.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zanting
Upvote 0

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You are confusing two concepts. There’s indictment and prosecutorial judgment. The two aren’t the same. Mueller’s report is discussing prosecutorial judgment of whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction.

Second, AG Barr clearly states Mueller’s decision not to make a prosecutorial judgment was not because of the OLC.

Third, Mueller’s report unequivocally states he is not making a prosecutorial judgment that Trump obstructed justice. A reason, inter alia, is because of the difficulty of the evidence.



Having read the report dealing with obstruction, there is very little to nothing in Mueller’s Part II report to substantiate that remark. If you think otherwise, tell me where to find it in the report itself.

Mueller tells the reader the report doesn’t conclude Trump committed obstruction! The reason given is because of the difficulty of the evidence and legal elements. That’s hardly a nod towards the idea he’d indict otherwise.

Mueller’s report shows he was very ambivalent to the notion of whether he would indict.

You’re not being clear here. Are you referring to the issue of nolle prosequi...?
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Hmmm...no...Mueller does not “clearly” think there’s enough evidence.

Perhaps i'm wrong, but I read it that Mueller thinks there's enough evidence, but because he couldn't subpoena the President to testify, he couldn't ascertain intent.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You’re not being clear here. Are you referring to the issue of nolle prosequi...?

No.

And I’m very clear, what are you not understanding?
 
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

Allandavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 30, 2016
8,056
6,929
70
Sydney
✟230,565.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
“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,” Mr. Mueller wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. 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.

My bold.

“An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”

“The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting president, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice.”

Why include these two paragraphs...?
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Perhaps i'm wrong, but I read it that Mueller thinks there's enough evidence, but because he couldn't subpoena the President to testify, he couldn't ascertain intent.

It’s hard to reach that conclusion when, after scrutinizing the evidence, he says because of the evidence and difficulty of the legal issue of intent, the Report doesn’t conclude Trump committed a crime of obstruction. He doesn’t complain an inability to interview Trump precluded him from analyzing tne issue of intent.

Mueller spent a lot of keyboard time analyzing intent and the evidence for it in regards to the several acts of suspected obstruction conduct.
 
Upvote 0

NotreDame

Domer
Supporter
Jan 24, 2008
9,561
2,493
6 hours south of the Golden Dome of the University
✟505,627.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
“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,” Mr. Mueller wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. 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.

My bold.

“An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”

“The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting president, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice.”

Why include these two paragraphs...?

His other paragraph provides a summarizing answer. Because of the difficulty of the evidence and the issue of intent, the Report cannot conclude
Trump committed a crime of obstruction.
 
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

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What do you propose? Another investigation? Maybe prosecute him while knowing their isn't enough evidence? Perhaps trying to impeach anyway, just for the fun of it? Go ahead with all of this and it won't make the democrats look very good. Won't remove him from the White House. Won't help bring the country together either. In fact, it won't accomplish anything at all.
How about just not giving him the 2020 nomination? Wouldn’t that be their best chance of winning in 2020?
 
Upvote 0