Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Mueller says Trump was not exonerated but Trump declares victory

Recommended Posts

Here are some of the most important words in the report:
 
"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
 
"Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
 
"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. 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. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.”  Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
 
"Fourth, 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, 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. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
 
I added the emphasis.


Yes, none of us (as far as I know) disagrees with that. Now since you actually read the report, can you show us what evidence convinced you of his guilt? That would help a lot.

Thanks
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


Yes, none of us (as far as I know) disagrees with that. Now since you actually read the report, can you show us what evidence convinced you of his guilt? That would help a lot.

Thanks

 

C'mon now, that would take all the fun out of doing your own investigating. Here is a searchable copy - have a blast!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mogandave said:

 


That’s what I thought.

 

 

Come on get an audiobook version of the Mueller report and watch the hearing on repeating loop until you "get it." lol 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Not misleading, you just don't want to accept it so you're trying to play the denialism game. 
 
You guys have even lost Independents over 70% of them don't support impeachment, and those are the votes you need to win elections. 
Supporting impeachment and supporting dumping 45 in 2020 are not the same thing. Why? I already explained it. Because the Quisling senate republicans will never convict. Don't heckle me again on this question with your vapid insults.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh for crying out loud.
 
"Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn. In mid-January 2017, incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President, other administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russia’s response to U.S. sanctions on Russia for its election interference. On January 27, the day after the President was told that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and had made similar statements to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to a private dinner at the White House and told Comey that he needed loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn’s resignation, the President told an outside advisor, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” The advisor disagreed and said the investigations would continue.
 
"Later that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. Referring to the FBI’s investigation of Flynn, the President said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Shortly after requesting Flynn’s resignation and speaking privately to Comey, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel’s Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered."
 
This is one of the first - Trump clearly tried to get Comey off the Russia investigation, obstruction. When Comey wouldn't back down, Trump fired him, again obstruction. Now it's your turn to do some reading as well.


Yes, I agree Trump did not like (hate?) Comey, and wanted to see the investigation ended.

Firing Comey in no way could have ended the investigation, so how is that obstruction?

Trump could have ordered an end to the investigation at any time and he did not.

When asked if Trump had interfered with the investigation, Mueller answered no.

When asked if Barr’s letter was consistent with his report, Mueller indicated it was.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

When asked if Trump had interfered with the investigation, Mueller answered no.

 

That's a misrepresentation of the facts. Here is the transcript:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-of-robert-s-mueller-iiis-testimony-before-the-house-judiciary-committee/2019/07/24/7164abfe-ad96-11e9-a0c9-6d2d7818f3da_story.html

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll post removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mogandave said:

That’s what I thought.

 

Further:

"Former special counsel Robert Mueller confirmed in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday that President Trump directed staffers to falsify records connected to Mueller’s investigation.


"Asked by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) whether it was “fair to say” Trump “tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation,” Mueller responded, 'I would say that's generally a summary.'

 

"Richmond then asked if, in giving the order, Trump intended to “hamper the investigation.” In response, Mueller referred Richmond back to his office’s report.

 

"The Louisiana congressman went on to specifically ask Mueller about Trump’s attempts to get then-White House counsel Don McGahn to create a written record falsely asserting Trump had not directed him to fire Mueller, which McGahn refused.

 

"Richmond asked if the attempts “were related to President Trump's concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry,” to which Mueller responded, 'I believe that to be true.'


"So it's accurate to say the president knew that he was asking [Don McGahn] to deny facts that McGahn 'had repeatedly said were accurate.' Isn't that right?" Richmond asked Mueller, with the special counsel responding in the affirmative."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sujo said:

From your posts its obvious you havent read any part.

Eric Lichtblau, along with two CNN colleagues, resigned after CNN retracted a story alleging a Russian connection to the Trump transition.

 

The Washington Post called it “one of the biggest journalistic embarrassments in CNN’s 37-year history.”

 

The fact remains, however, that Scaramucci was not mentioned in the Mueller report, although, in March 2018, the New York Times reported, “Mr. Dmitriev met with Anthony Scaramucci.

 

No Trump collusion with Russia.  That's what Mueller says.   

Mueller agrees that accepting foreign election assistance is ‘unpatriotic’ The Steel report is foreign election assistance and being unpatriotic is not a crime last time I checked. 

 

I think / my opinion / is the report was an attempt to overturn a legitimate election that failed. 

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-07-24/guide-to-gop-attacks-against-the-credibility-mueller-probe

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry mr Holmes Donald getting another 4 years is not a forgone conclusion not by a long shot take off your rose collered glasses for a minute and think about what mr mullers testimony exposed corruption accepting help from a hostile foreign power that’s close to treason btw definitely obstruction but the republicans to cowardly to support it so the dems will expose more of Donald’s criminality and use lots of failed issued to get rid of him in 2020 then it’s off to jail for your Donald 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off-topic post removed.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...