Some in Mueller's team see report as more damaging to Trump than Barr summary: New York Times

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, albertik said:

All I can add is; Trump is a hell of a lot better than alternatives.

 

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

Noted:  You can add nothing.

 

6 hours ago, albertik said:

Wow, Just how angry are you? You have my sympathy..... really.

No sympathy required.  People who know so little about the job of the President as to think that a corrupt, clueless incompetent is better than the endless list of competent candidates have my sympathy.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

His "crimes" amount to telling someone that Mueller should be fired. Mueller was never fired, so where the F%^^%& is the crime. To date, thoughts have not been outlawed in the USA (not so sure about the UK). People can say what they want but the bottom line is Mueller was never fired and his investigation was not stopped or interfered with by the President. Since the underlaying crime of "collusion with the Russians" was determined to have never have occurred, how could Trump have actually obstructed the investigation into something that never happened?

 

The world has become mad.

His crimes amount to ordering ha staff member to fire Mueller, ordering the same staff member to lie about the order to fire, and various attempts to undermine the investigation.

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

His crimes amount to ordering ha staff member to fire Mueller, ordering the same staff member to lie about the order to fire, and various attempts to undermine the investigation.

Maybe I missed it but when was Mr. Mueller fired?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Maybe I missed it but when was Mr. Mueller fired?

You've clearly missed a lot.  From the Mueller report:

 

"The president's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."

 

Specific examples are here:  https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/donald-trump-disobey-mueller-report/

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

His crimes amount to ordering ha staff member to fire Mueller, ordering the same staff member to lie about the order to fire, and various attempts to undermine the investigation.

Now Trump knows how poor people feel when confronted by an all powerful government. Luckily he wasn't thrown in jail until he plea bargained to a crime he didn't commit.

[heybruce]

33 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Now Trump knows how poor people feel when confronted by an all powerful government. Luckily he wasn't thrown in jail until he plea bargained to a crime he didn't commit.

A crime he didn't commit?  The only reason he isn't in jail is because Justice Department policy doesn't allow indicting a sitting President.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

A crime he didn't commit?  The only reason he isn't in jail is because Justice Department policy doesn't allow indicting a sitting President.

I think obstructing justice is a crime. I'm less sure if obstructing justice is a crime if there is no underlying crime one is obstructing justice from. It's not entrapment. In this case it's more "rope a dope".

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

I think obstructing justice is a crime. I'm less sure if obstructing justice is a crime if there is no underlying crime one is obstructing justice from. It's not entrapment. In this case it's more "rope a dope".

It is possible to commit the crime generally referred to as obstruction of justice when there is no underlying crime:

 

" We checked with 11 legal experts to nail down answers. Essentially all of these experts agreed that obstruction can indeed be prosecuted without an underlying crime — and has been in the past, notably in the case of Martha Stewart. "

 

"Several experts added, however, that there are some important distinctions between these historical precedents and what Mueller found. "  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

 

My non-legal opinion is that Trump clearly attempted to obstruct a legal criminal investigation, but Mueller felt that since it is against Justice Department policy to indict a sitting President, he had to leave it to Congress. 

 

"

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It is possible to commit the crime generally referred to as obstruction of justice when there is no underlying crime:

 

" We checked with 11 legal experts to nail down answers. Essentially all of these experts agreed that obstruction can indeed be prosecuted without an underlying crime — and has been in the past, notably in the case of Martha Stewart. "

 

"Several experts added, however, that there are some important distinctions between these historical precedents and what Mueller found. "  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

 

My non-legal opinion is that Trump clearly attempted to obstruct a legal criminal investigation, but Mueller felt that since it is against Justice Department policy to indict a sitting President, he had to leave it to Congress. 

 

"

 

Yeah, I get that, and I agree that Trump attempted in his ham handed way to deter an investigation of himself. What I am less sure of is it really a crime to obstruct an investigation if the basis of the investigation is without merit. I can't point to the article of the Constitution that is relevant, but I can say that the Constitution was constructed in such a way as to protect the rights of the individual citizen against the power of the state. One would think one article or another might apply here. Even for a miscreant such as Trump.

[heybruce]

59 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Yeah, I get that, and I agree that Trump attempted in his ham handed way to deter an investigation of himself. What I am less sure of is it really a crime to obstruct an investigation if the basis of the investigation is without merit. I can't point to the article of the Constitution that is relevant, but I can say that the Constitution was constructed in such a way as to protect the rights of the individual citizen against the power of the state. One would think one article or another might apply here. Even for a miscreant such as Trump.

The basis of the investigation had merit.  Russia clearly interfered in the election, Trump and his inner circle clearly had interests in Russia, and the Trump campaign clearly used material provided by Russia. 

 

Before the investigation it was unclear if the Trump campaign was an informed and willing participant in this illegal interference or merely a group of useful idiots.  Mueller didn't think he could provide a provable answer to the accomplice vs idiot question so did not advise criminal indictments on the conspiracy (not collusion) issue.

 

However the investigation was legal and legitimate, and obstructing a legal investigation is illegal, even if the basis of the investigation is not conclusively proven.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The basis of the investigation had merit.  Russia clearly interfered in the election, Trump and his inner circle clearly had interests in Russia, and the Trump campaign clearly used material provided by Russia. 

 

Before the investigation it was unclear if the Trump campaign was an informed and willing participant in this illegal interference or merely a group of useful idiots.  Mueller didn't think he could provide a provable answer to the accomplice vs idiot question so did not advise criminal indictments on the conspiracy (not collusion) issue.

 

However the investigation was legal and legitimate, and obstructing a legal investigation is illegal, even if the basis of the investigation is not conclusively proven.

 

Well, he could have asked me. He's an idiot, as anyone can plainly see.

[wayned]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Well, he could have asked me. He's an idiot, as anyone can plainly see.

I'm not so sure of that, he is continuing to obstruct justice by telling his surrogates to not respond to any subpoenas from congress in hopes that they will impeach him.  He knows that the senate won't convict him so he will be able to say look I am cleared again!

[riclag]

13 hours ago, heybruce said:

His crimes amount to ordering ha staff member to fire Mueller, ordering the same staff member to lie about the order to fire, and various attempts to undermine the investigation.

There is no crime stop making up stories

[riclag]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

It is possible to commit the crime generally referred to as obstruction of justice when there is no underlying crime:

 

" We checked with 11 legal experts to nail down answers. Essentially all of these experts agreed that obstruction can indeed be prosecuted without an underlying crime — and has been in the past, notably in the case of Martha Stewart. "

 

"Several experts added, however, that there are some important distinctions between these historical precedents and what Mueller found. "  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

 

My non-legal opinion is that Trump clearly attempted to obstruct a legal criminal investigation, but Mueller felt that since it is against Justice Department policy to indict a sitting President, he had to leave it to Congress. 

 

"

according to your link : March 25, All hypothetical!

"Until the full text of the Mueller report is released — and possibly not even then, depending on what it includes — we won’t know which of the three elements of obstruction, if any, would have been provable".

 

The report's conclusion,  No collution,no obstruction

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

There is no crime stop making up stories

 

1 hour ago, riclag said:

according to your link : March 25, All hypothetical!

"Until the full text of the Mueller report is released — and possibly not even then, depending on what it includes — we won’t know which of the three elements of obstruction, if any, would have been provable".

 

The report's conclusion,  No collution,no obstruction

Hillarious!  Show us the part of the Mueller report that says "No collution,no obstruction".

 

Stop making up stories, the Mueller report is full of identified crimes.  Not "collution" of course, but many other crimes.

[riclag]

2 hours ago, wayned said:

I'm not so sure of that, he is continuing to obstruct justice by telling his surrogates to not respond to any subpoenas from congress in hopes that they will impeach him.  He knows that the senate won't convict him so he will be able to say look I am cleared again!

Executive Privilege comes with the office! If they decide to Impeach, it can be debated on the floor of the Congress,If impeached it goes to the senate.By the way the senate's part in a impeachment  is a trial for which the defendant can defend themselves! Most interesting to be able to defend yourself 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

 

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

[riclag]

54 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Hillarious!  Show us the part of the Mueller report that says "No collution,no obstruction".

 

Stop making up stories, the Mueller report is full of identified crimes.  Not "collution" of course, but many other crimes.

Like I said, There are no crimes stop making up stories  In that report there are no crimes stated ! For you to claim that is just your opinion 

The finding of the conclusion No collusion ,no obstruction (Barr and Rosenstein)

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

Like I said, There are no crimes stop making up stories  In that report there are no crimes stated ! For you to claim that is just your opinion 

The finding of the conclusion No collusion ,no obstruction (Barr and Rosenstein)

That's not what the Mueller report said:

 

'Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel 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.”

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,”'   https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/

 

Regarding "no crimes identified", I've lost track of the number of indictments, guilty pleas, convictions and awaiting trials.  When you add the number of Trump appointees forced to resign due to ethics issues, it becomes clear that Trump surrounds himself with criminals.  I wonder why that is?

 

[riclag]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

That's not what the Mueller report said:

 

'Factoring into his decision not to weigh in on prosecution, Mueller wrote, was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel 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.”

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,”'   https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/

 

Regarding "no crimes identified", I've lost track of the number of indictments, guilty pleas, convictions and awaiting trials.  When you add the number of Trump appointees forced to resign due to ethics issues, it becomes clear that Trump surrounds himself with criminals.  I wonder why that is?

 

 The supervisor of the matter Rosenstein signed off No Obstruction No crimes!

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Rosenstein signed off No Obstruction!

 

They don't seem to understand no charges were filed. Never mind that the obstruction thing was based upon an underlying crime that never existed. I think deep at heart they know it's all a big miss but they can't psychologically accept it and this is part of the grieving process.

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

They don't seem to understand no charges were filed. Never mind that the obstruction thing was based upon an underlying crime that never existed. I think deep at heart they know it's all a big miss but they can't psychologically accept it and this is part of the grieving process.

Now the left want's to deny the office , 235 years of Executive Privilege! The left aren't the dem's of my fathers generation. Senator McCarthy would expose these...

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

 The supervisor of the matter Rosenstein signed off No Obstruction No crimes!

What is your source for this?  If Rosenstein signed off on the Mueller report, and the report very explicitly draws no conclusion regarding obstruction, then Rosenstein has not signed off on no obstruction and no crimes.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

Now the left want's to deny the office , 235 years of Executive Privilege! The left aren't the dem's of my fathers generation. Senator McCarthy would expose these...

Trump waived executive privilege when he allowed McGahn to be interviewed by Mueller, interview material that was used in the published report.  You can't waive executive privilege then change your mind.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

They don't seem to understand no charges were filed. Never mind that the obstruction thing was based upon an underlying crime that never existed. I think deep at heart they know it's all a big miss but they can't psychologically accept it and this is part of the grieving process.

Many charges were filed.  No charges were filed against the President because Justice Department policy is to not indict a sitting President.  Mueller's report makes it clear that obstruction and other issues are to be addressed politically, which is what the House is doing.

[Tug]

The trump supporters are more desperate by the minute now with that clown telling staff to ignore congress just wait till the first staffer gets arrested they will be squealing like little pigs Donald is toast

[Cryingdick]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Trump waived executive privilege when he allowed McGahn to be interviewed by Mueller, interview material that was used in the published report.  You can't waive executive privilege then change your mind.

 

The fact he did that in the first place says something. The witch hunt goes on and on.

[wayned]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

The trump supporters are more desperate by the minute now with that clown telling staff to ignore congress just wait till the first staffer gets arrested they will be squealing like little pigs Donald is toast

Trump wants to get impeached and will do everything possible to make that happened.  He knows that if he is impeached by the House he will not be convicted by the Senate and will claim that as another win and d will use in the 22020 election.   He's running out of other options because if loses in 2020 SDNY, DOJ and State of New York will be lined up with indictments!

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The fact he did that in the first place says something. The witch hunt goes on and on.

In this and many other things, Trump did not know what he was doing.  He thought the White House Counsel acted as his personal attorney and wouldn't disclose anything.  He was quite shocked when he learned this isn't so and McGahn answered every question he could when asked by Mueller's team. 

 

Now that Trump has learned the truth he's trying to "un-waive" executive privilege.  Sorry Trump, no backsies. 

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Perhaps learn how too spell collusion which is not actually a crime?

The "No collution,no obstruction" was a copy and paste from the riclag post I was replying to.

 

Perhaps learn to read the posts you are replying to in context.

[riclag]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

What is your source for this?  If Rosenstein signed off on the Mueller report, and the report very explicitly draws no conclusion regarding obstruction, then Rosenstein has not signed off on no obstruction of justice and no crimes.

So Muellers boss(Rosenstein) agreed, in conclusion , there was no Obstruction,No collusion

"Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation.

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president"

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html