Democrats make legal bid for all Russia probe evidence, Trump poll numbers drop

[rooster59]

Democrats make legal bid for all Russia probe evidence, Trump poll numbers drop

By Doina Chiacu and David Morgan

 

FILE PHOTO: Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) speaks during a mark up hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 26, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Democrats on Friday took legal action to get hold of all of U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's evidence from his inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, as the probe's findings hit President Donald Trump's poll ratings.

 

(Link to Mueller report - https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-TRUMP-RUSSIA/010091HX27V/report.pdf)

 

The number of Americans who approve of Trump dropped by 3 percentage points to the lowest level of the year following the release of a redacted version of Mueller's report on Thursday, according to a Reuters/Ipsos online opinion poll.

 

Mueller did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russians but did find “multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations.”

 

While Mueller ultimately decided not to charge Trump with a crime such as obstruction of justice, he also said that the investigation did not exonerate the president, either.

 

U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat, issued a subpoena to the Justice Department to hand over the full Mueller report and other relevant evidence by May 1.

 

"My committee needs and is entitled to the full version of the report and the underlying evidence consistent with past practice. The redactions appear to be significant. We have so far seen none of the actual evidence that the Special Counsel developed to make this case," Nadler said in a statement.

 

The report provided extensive details on Trump's efforts to thwart Mueller's investigation, giving Democrats plenty of political ammunition against the Republican president but no consensus on how to use it.

 

The document has blacked out sections to hide details about secret grand jury information, U.S. intelligence gathering and active criminal cases as well as potentially damaging information about peripheral players who were not charged.

 

(Graphic - A closer look at Mueller report redactions: https://tmsnrt.rs/2VSx7HZ)

 

Six top congressional Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected Attorney General William Barr's offer to give them access to a less-redacted version of the report. In a letter to Barr, they repeated their demand the full report be given to Congress, but said they were open to "a reasonable accommodation."

 

Democratic leaders have played down talk of impeachment of Trump just 18 months before the 2020 presidential election, even as some prominent members of the party's progressive wing, notably U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, promised to push the idea.

 

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren became the first major contender for the Democratic 2020 presidential nomination to call for the start of impeachment proceedings, saying on Twitter that "the severity of this misconduct" demands it.

 

"To ignore a President’s repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behaviour would inflict great and lasting damage on this country," she said.

 

'CRAZY MUELLER REPORT'

 

Trump, who has repeatedly called the Mueller probe a political witch hunt, lashed out again on Friday.

 

"Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report...which are fabricated & totally untrue," Trump wrote on Twitter.

 

He seemed to be referring to former White House counsel Don McGahn who was cited in the report as having annoyed Trump by taking notes of his conversations with the president.

 

"Watch out for people that take so-called “notes,” when the notes never existed until needed." Trump wrote, "it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the “Report” about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad)."

 

Phone conversations between the president and McGahn in June 2017 were a central part of Mueller's depiction of Trump as trying to derail the Russia inquiry. The report said Trump told McGahn to instruct the Justice Department to fire Mueller. McGahn did not carry out the order.

 

In analysing whether Trump obstructed justice, Mueller revealed details about how the president tried to fire him and limit his investigation, kept details of a June 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and a Russian under wraps, and possibly dangled a pardon to a former adviser.

 

According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll of 1,005 adults conducted Thursday afternoon to Friday morning, 37 percent of people approve of Trump’s performance in office - down from 40 percent in a similar poll conducted on April 15 and matches the lowest level of the year. The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 4 percentage points.

 

Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said the Democrats' subpoena "is wildly overbroad" and would jeopardize a grand jury's investigations.

 

The Mueller inquiry laid bare what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as a Russian campaign of hacking and propaganda to sow discord in the United States, denigrate 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and boost Trump.

 

Russia said on Friday that Mueller's report did not contain any evidence that Moscow had meddled. "We, as before, do not accept such allegations," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

 

Asked on Friday about Russian interference in 2016, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in Washington that "we will make very clear to them that this is not acceptable behaviour."

 

Trump has tried to cultivate good relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and came under heavy criticism in Washington last year for saying after meeting Putin that he accepted his denial of election meddling, over the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies.

 

Half a dozen former Trump aides, including former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, were charged by Mueller's office or convicted of crimes during his 22-month-long investigation. The Mueller inquiry spawned a number of other criminal probes by federal prosecutors in New York and elsewhere.

OBSTRUCTION

One reason it would be difficult to charge Trump is that the Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president should not be indicted, although the U.S. Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court.

 

A paragraph in the report is at the heart of whether Mueller, a former FBI director, intended Congress to pursue further action against Trump.

 

"The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law," Mueller wrote.

 

Republican Collins said Democrats had misconstrued that section of the report to suit their anti-Trump agenda.

 

"There seems to be some confusion...This isn’t a matter of legal interpretation; it’s reading comprehension," Collins wrote on Twitter.

 

"The report doesn’t say Congress should investigate obstruction now. It says Congress can make laws about obstruction under Article I powers," Collins said.

 

Nadler told reporters on Thursday that Mueller probably wrote the report with the intent of providing Congress a road map for future action against the president, but the Democratic congressman said it was too early to talk about impeachment.

 

But the House Oversight Committee's Democratic chairman, Elijah Cummings, said impeachment was not ruled out.

 

"A lot of people keep asking about the question of impeachment ... We may very well come to that very soon, but right now let's make sure we understand what Mueller was doing, understand what Barr was doing, and see the report in an unredacted form and all of the underlying documents,” he told MSNBC.

 

Short of attempting impeachment, Democratic lawmakers can use the details of Mueller's report to fuel other inquiries already underway by congressional committees.

 

Only two U.S. presidents have been impeached: Bill Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in 1998 and Andrew Johnson in 1868 after firing his secretary of war in the tumultuous aftermath of the American Civil War. Both were acquitted by the Senate and stayed in office.

 

In 1974, a House committee approved articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal but he resigned before the full House voted on impeachment.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-04-20

 

 

[Nyezhov]

Get what? Nobody objects to him having it, except GJ testimony/infrmation which is controlled by statute.

 

More posturing to try to avoid the day of reckoning.

[neeray]

I'm surprised but pleased to see that this highly credible report knocked Trump ratings down 3%.

Surprised because we have all been privy to his shenanigans for years now but finally the message is sinking into the heads of The Trump Party supporters. Hopefully the downward slide will continue steadily as more doodoo hits the fan. Lots more to come.

 

"We'll see".

 

Praise to Mitt Romney for speaking out. It would be nice to see his efforts followed by other Trump Party heavyweights.

[Thainesss]

12 minutes ago, neeray said:

I'm surprised but pleased to see that this highly credible report knocked Trump ratings down 3%.

Surprised because we have all been privy to his shenanigans for years now but finally the message is sinking into the heads of The Trump Party supporters. Hopefully the downward slide will continue steadily as more doodoo hits the fan. Lots more to come.

 

Well, considering the margin of error for the poll itself is +/- 3.5 percentage points, and they oversampled Democrats in this poll VS oversampling Republicans in the previous one, I wouldnt get my hopes up if I was you. 

 

https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-TRUMP-RUSSIA-POLL/010091JB28J/Mueller Investigation Report 04 19 2019 TRENDED PID.pdf

 

[Lungstib]

Certainly taken the lid of the whole dirty and dubious business that passes for US politics. Regardless of whether Trump is guilty of anything serious it has certainly showed up the level of honesty, integrity and decency that is missing from American politics at the moment. The corruption in the system appears to be totally out of control and everyone and his dog appears to be trying to benefit from their association with whoever gets the top job. The only positive is perhaps the fact that it can be reported despite Dons hope that it wont be.

[neeray]

14 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Well, considering the margin of error for the poll itself is +/- 3.5 percentage points, and they oversampled Democrats in this poll VS oversampling Republicans in the previous one, I wouldnt get my hopes up if I was you. 

 

https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-TRUMP-RUSSIA-POLL/010091JB28J/Mueller Investigation Report 04 19 2019 TRENDED PID.pdf

 

It's okay thanks. I plan to keep my hopes up.

[helpisgood]

What the OP does not include, regarding releasing either an unredacted or less redacted Mueller Report that Rep. Nadler and others like the media can get their hands on, are Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) court filings by certain media organizations.

 

Here's one spelled out well:

 

"Obviously there is a real concern as to whether there is full transparency," [Federal District Judge] Walton said at a Tuesday court hearing in Washington about a request from BuzzFeed News to have the Justice Department release the report quickly under the Freedom of Information Act. "The attorney general has created an environment that has caused a significant part of the American public to be concerned" about the redactions."

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/16/politics/judge-foia-doj-redactions-mueller-report/index.html

 

Another media organization also filed under FOIA:

 

"The nonprofit advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center filed the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit Friday evening in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."  [Bold and underscored from original text.]

 

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/03/22/new-foia-lawsuit-demands-release-of-mueller-report/?slreturn=20190319193429

 

Thus, federal judges will be able to review, I assume in camera (non-public), whether Barr's redactions conform to FOIA or not.  This may be another route for the media and others like Nadler to get a better look at the Mueller Report. 

 

 

[metisdead]

A post containing a derogatory insulting term to Trump supporters has been removed. 

[Puchaiyank]

Trump's poll numbers drop!  This is the end game now that the Russia debacle has been exposed as a perpetuated hoax...

 

[Langsuan Man]

1 hour ago, Puchaiyank said:

This is the end game now that the Russia debacle has been exposed as a perpetuated hoax...

This is the end game now that the Russian debacle has been exposed as a perpetual obstruction  

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Well, considering the margin of error for the poll itself is +/- 3.5 percentage points, and they oversampled Democrats in this poll VS oversampling Republicans in the previous one, I wouldnt get my hopes up if I was you. 

 

 

And that is why we never pin our hopes to one single poll, research study or anecdote.  Remember that the next time somebody posts a link to a single Rasmussen poll showing Trump at 51%.

[DoctorG]

14 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

And that is why we never pin our hopes to one single poll, research study or anecdote.  Remember that the next time somebody posts a link to a single Rasmussen poll showing Trump at 51%.

Agree. The real figures, from aggregators, is around 43-45%.

Anybody that gets excited about a poll of 1005 people, taken who knows where, is setting themselves up for disappointment.

 

[Tug]

The law makers should get the unredacted version us commoners must settle for the redacted version and it’s pretty damming as is and mr Barr acting more like Donald’s attorney than the AG is deeply disturbing dump the chump 2020

[Boon Mee]

The 2 year long Witch Hunt is over and now time for some well-deserved payback. The investigators are now going to be investigated. 

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, Puchaiyank said:

You are referring to HRC's unprecedented destruction of emails, computers, and equipment? 

It looks like we're almost even now, so let's move along to better days, shall we?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Get what? Nobody objects to him having it, except GJ testimony/infrmation which is controlled by statute.

 

More posturing to try to avoid the day of reckoning.

He’ll get it all.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Puchaiyank said:

You are referring to HRC's unprecedented destruction of emails, computers, and equipment? 

But but but ..... Hillary!

[quandow]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

It looks like we're almost even now, so let's move along to better days, shall we?

THIS IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME!!! That one group perpetrates a crime does NOT give Trump a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Yes, Hillary should have been taken to task for her crimes, but the more these criminals are not prosecuted emboldens future criminals.

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

The 2 year long Witch Hunt is over and now time for some well-deserved payback. The investigators are now going to be investigated. 

The exposure of Trump’s crimes is not over, not by a long way.

 

The report reveals the existence of 12 more indictments from the SC investigation.

This is at odds with Barr’s declaration that there are no more indictments.

 

Stay tuned.

 

[lannarebirth]

Just now, quandow said:

THIS IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME!!! That one group perpetrates a crime does NOT give Trump a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Yes, Hillary should have been taken to task for her crimes, but the more these criminals are not prosecuted emboldens future criminals.

 

But they knew he was a criminal when they voted for him. Respect the democratic process. Find someone better to vote for and move on.  If they hang him up in one of the other investigations, that's fine. No less than what he's had coming to him for decades; but don't throw him out of office for being the guy everyone knew he was already. Less than 19 months till elections. 

[gamb00ler]

42 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

The 2 year long Witch Hunt is over and now time for some well-deserved payback. The investigators are now going to be investigated. 

I'm sure they will hire Republicans as needed to assist in the investigation of the investigators.  That's great news.  I can't think of better bait to keep those reprobates uselessly chasing their tails.

[quandow]

52 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

We are referring to "Trump's" participation...aren't we?  After 2 years of non-stop speculation, Dems getting in front of cameras and proclaiming they know personally of Russian collusion with Trump...ZERO, NADA, NOTHING!  This attempt to pin obstruction on him is bogus as well...

Again, you make noise about that of which you know nothing. Read the report or folks will know you are merely regurgitating party rhetoric.

 

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  TO VOLUME II

(from page 4)

On June 17, 2017,  the President called McGahn  at home and directed  him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.   McGahn  did not carry  out the  direction, however, deciding  that he would  resign rather than trigger what he regarded  as a potential Saturday Night Massacre."

 

This is textbook obstruction. There is more of the same, and if I were you, I wouldn't bet on "no obstruction charges" being brought. Read the report.

 

Additional note: Be aware Trump was president when he did this.

[quandow]

39 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I'm sure they will hire Republicans as needed to assist in the investigation of the investigators.  That's great news.  I can't think of better bait to keep those reprobates uselessly chasing their tails.

You realize that particular member posts tongue in cheek, yes? LULZ - I just learned that term today, and this is a perfect example.

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, quandow said:

Again, you make noise about that of which you know nothing. Read the report or folks will know you are merely regurgitating party rhetoric.

 

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  TO VOLUME II

(from page 4)

On June 17, 2017,  the President called McGahn  at home and directed  him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.   McGahn  did not carry  out the  direction, however, deciding  that he would  resign rather than trigger what he regarded  as a potential Saturday Night Massacre."

 

This is textbook obstruction. There is more of the same, and if I were you, I wouldn't bet on "no obstruction charges" being brought. Read the report.

 

I remember when all this obstruction went down. Even die hard Democrats (Jingthing) thought (at that time) the charges were pretty marginal. He seems to have changed his opinion since.

 

My take is, it's obstruction if one is ultimately found guilty. It's what anyone would do if they thought they were innocent and the machine of state were moving against them and they had the ability to thwart it.. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem the state could make their case in a really persuasive way; YET.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, quandow said:

You realize that particular member posts tongue in cheek, yes? LULZ - I just learned that term today, and this is a perfect example.

What's ths LULZ thing that keeps appearing recently?

[quandow]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

What's ths LULZ thing that keeps appearing recently?

Google works wonders for things like this. That's how I found out. Try it, expand your horizons, multiply your wealth, widen your paradigms.

[quandow]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

My take is, it's obstruction if one is ultimately found guilty. It's what anyone would do if they thought they were innocent and the machine of state were moving against them. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem the state could make their case in a really persuasive way; YET.

No. If a man commits a crime in a forest and no one finds him guilty, has he still committed a crime? Uh, yes.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, quandow said:

No. If a man commits a crime in a forest and no one finds him guilty, has he still committed a crime? Uh, yes.

 

Sure he has, but if you want to convict him of that you need to produce the evidence.  Personally, I passed judgement on Trump 35 years ago and my opinion hasn't changed since.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post and the replies have been removed. 

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

While Mueller ultimately decided not to charge Trump with a crime such as obstruction of justice

This is a somewhat distorted statement by the journalist.

 

Because Mueller followed DOJ guidelines that a POTUS cannot be indicted, POTUS cannot be charged. Muller explained in his report that without a charge, the POTUS would be unable to defend himself under constitutional due process of law. As such, it would be for Congress through the impeachment process to charge and try POTUS Trump.

 

Mueller did not in his report exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice (read the twelve examples of obstruction in the report), only that accountability comes from Congress and not from DOJ to whom the Special Council reported.