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

[heybruce]

25 minutes ago, riclag said:

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

Insufficient evidence to prosecute is not the same as definitively declaring there was no obstruction.  Rosenstein concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, not that there was no obstruction. 

[Jingthing]

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!

I don't agree that he wants to be impeached. That's the narrow narrative that this situation is the same as Clinton faced. It's very different.

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

[riclag]

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Insufficient evidence to prosecute is not the same as definitively declaring there was no obstruction.  Rosenstein concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, not that there was no obstruction. 

 "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"

 There was No Obstruction of Justice charges

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, riclag said:

 "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"

 There was No Obstruction of Justice charges

"No obstruction of Justice charges" (at this time) is not the same as "No obstruction", which you have been repeatedly posting.

[Chomper Higgot]

Meanwhile Trump adds to his list of obstructions of justice by ordering staff to ignore Congressional Subpoenas.

 

Which just happens to be the basis for one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon.

[Jingthing]

Meanwhile Trump adds to his list of obstructions of justice by ordering staff to ignore Congressional Subpoenas.

 

Which just happens to be the basis for one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Exactly. The Congress must impeach now or they'd be skirting their constitutional duty. We've got a lawless unfit president on our hands and he needs to face accountability.

 

Can anyone imagine the republicans not impeaching if they controlled the house and had a similarly criminally corrupt democrat as president? You can't. Democrats need to stop being wusses.

 

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

 

 

 

[Thainesss]

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Meanwhile Trump adds to his list of obstructions of justice by ordering staff to ignore Congressional Subpoenas.

 

Some shaky legal ground you guys are insisting on going down. Are you sure this is the hill you wanna die on?

 

Quote

Congress’ power to issue subpoenas, while broad, is not unlimited. The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-congress-no-longer-runs-a-jail-so-just-how-powerful-are-its-subpoenas-idUSKCN1S02K8

 

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Some shaky legal ground you guys are insisting on going down. Are you sure this is the hill you wanna die on?

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-congress-no-longer-runs-a-jail-so-just-how-powerful-are-its-subpoenas-idUSKCN1S02K8

 

Congress no longer runs a jail, but don’t mistake that for Congress not having the power to arrest and imprison people who do not obey Congressional subpoenas.

 

Reuters might of course disagree.

 

Watch what happens in the coming weeks.

[DogNo1]

So you think that Mueller has the authority to dictate what AG Barr writes in his summary?  Do you understand the position and authority of the Attorney General?

 

The counter-investigation of the source and propagation of the Russian collusion accusation is going to be earth-shaking.  The Russian source of the Steele Dossier and its illegal dissemination is going result in severe legal problems for many people in the intelligence community, the DOJ and the FBI.  One of the interesting details revealed by the Mueller Report is that all messages from a member of the FBI were copied to a Chinese-owned company in Manassas, VA.  Chinese collusion?

 

[Thainesss]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Congress no longer runs a jail, but don’t mistake that for Congress not having the power to arrest and imprison people who do not obey Congressional subpoenas.

 

Reuters might of course disagree.

 

Watch what happens in the coming weeks.

 

Tolerant, inclusive, totally non-totalitarian liberal opines on congressional power against political rivals. 

[riclag]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

"No obstruction of Justice charges" (at this time) is not the same as "No obstruction", which you have been repeatedly posting.

 At this time  , the conclusion is ,.No charges of Obstruction of Justice,or obstruction on the Mueller matter signed off by Rosenstein, Barr and the office of legal counsel !

The final conclusion was left to Barr, No Obstruction, No Obstruction of Justice in this report . The Mueller Matter has concluded,its finished no Obstruction of Justice, No Obstruction , no more indictments!

[Tug]

The poor trump supporters I think a few on this thread are trying out for a job with Donald lol bottom line imo donald is having some kind of weird show trolling us creating havoc but he is not governing he is not leading he is creating chaos to whose advantage?is it pure feckless incompetence or by design?

[KennethMura]

Blame the ones who mindlessly voted for him as well.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 At this time  , the conclusion is ,.No charges of Obstruction of Justice,or obstruction on the Mueller matter signed off by Rosenstein, Barr and the office of legal counsel !

The final conclusion was left to Barr, No Obstruction, No Obstruction of Justice in this report . The Mueller Matter has concluded,its finished no Obstruction of Justice, No Obstruction , no more indictments!

And you're at it again.  Insufficient evidence to press charges is not the same as "no Obstruction of Justice, No Obstruction" and it definitely doesn't rule out future indictments from other investigations.

 

Mueller stayed focused on the topics of election interference and obstruction.  Evidence of other crimes were turned over to the appropriate agencies and jurisdictions.  The end of the Mueller report does not end Trump's legal problems.

[riclag]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

And you're at it again.  Insufficient evidence to press charges is not the same as "no Obstruction of Justice, No Obstruction" and it definitely doesn't rule out future indictments from other investigations.

 

Mueller stayed focused on the topics of election interference and obstruction.  Evidence of other crimes were turned over to the appropriate agencies and jurisdictions.  The end of the Mueller report does not end Trump's legal problems.

The supervisor of the Mueller matter Rosenstein and Barr concurred  and  found no crimes ,made no charges of  obstruction  and obstruction of justice by the POTUS in the report, that is a fact

[stevenl]

56 minutes ago, riclag said:

The supervisor of the Mueller matter Rosenstein and Barr concurred  and  found no crimes ,made no charges of  obstruction  and obstruction of justice by the POTUS in the report, that is a fact

Yes, filed no charges of obstruction, that is a fact. Whether or not they found crimes you and I don't know.

There is a big difference between 'filed no charges' and 'there was no obstruction'.

[Tug]

4 hours ago, KennethMura said:

Blame the ones who mindlessly voted for him as well.

I don’t want to go there that is counter productive better to understand and better address the issues that allowed that also don’t forget misogyny is unfortunately alive in the USA that and help from russa is what allowed this man the presidency imo

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

The supervisor of the Mueller matter Rosenstein and Barr concurred  and  found no crimes ,made no charges of  obstruction  and obstruction of justice by the POTUS in the report, that is a fact

Substitute "no crimes" with "insufficient evidence for prosecution" and we are in agreement.  Go back to the incorrect and intentionally misleading "no crimes, no collusion" and expect to be corrected.

[wayned]

3 hours ago, riclag said:

The supervisor of the Mueller matter Rosenstein and Barr concurred  and  found no crimes ,made no charges of  obstruction  and obstruction of justice by the POTUS in the report, that is a fact

There were no charges filed because there is an internal DOJ policy that prohibits a sitting President  from being indicted even if he did shoot someone on 5th avenue.  Get your  H and A wired together!

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, riclag said:

The supervisor of the Mueller matter Rosenstein and Barr concurred  and  found no crimes ,made no charges of  obstruction  and obstruction of justice by the POTUS in the report, that is a fact

Trump’s hand picked AG and Rosenstein who called Trump to tell him (with tears in his eyes) ‘I’m on your team’ and in reference to the Mueller investigation told Trump  ‘I can land the plane’.

 

The wheels are coming off Trump’s conspiracy to obstruct justice.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 2:05 PM, lannarebirth said:

 

No, I think a certain segment of the populace has figured out that they've rode this nag about as far as they can already. Time to switch horses.

Soooo, having shown that they hate swampy Washington politicians, the people that voted for an outsider are going to vote for a swampy Washington politician instead next time. Is that what you believe?

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, wayned said:

There were no charges filed because there is an internal DOJ policy that prohibits a sitting President  from being indicted even if he did shoot someone on 5th avenue.  Get your  H and A wired together!

LOL. Even if he couldn't proceed with charges, there was nothing to stop him putting proof of something criminal in the report.

He didn't, ergo he didn't have proof.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Substitute "no crimes" with "insufficient evidence for prosecution" and we are in agreement.  Go back to the incorrect and intentionally misleading "no crimes, no collusion" and expect to be corrected.

Irrelevant. The report did not have any proof of a crime, and nothing will change that. Trump survives, and, IMO, goes on to win the election, helped immensely by the Mueller report.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Soooo, having shown that they hate swampy Washington politicians, the people that voted for an outsider are going to vote for a swampy Washington politician instead next time. Is that what you believe?

Soooo, having been shown that a New York City property developer with a long history of legal problems and bankruptcies will only make the swamp bigger and deeper, the people who fell for his "drain the swamp" BS will fall for this BS again.  Is that what you think?

 

Unfortunately, I think that for the Trump base, you are correct.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Even if he couldn't proceed with charges, there was nothing to stop him putting proof of something criminal in the report.

He didn't, ergo he didn't have proof.

Obviously you have read, or even taken a passing glance, at the report.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, heybruce said:

Soooo, having been shown that a New York City property developer with a long history of legal problems and bankruptcies will only make the swamp bigger and deeper, the people who fell for his "drain the swamp" BS will fall for this BS again.  Is that what you think?

 

Unfortunately, I think that for the Trump base, you are correct.

I think Trump will win the election and we'll be debating the same old things for the next 6 years on this forum.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Obviously you have read, or even taken a passing glance, at the report.

Don't need to. If there was even the suggestion of an actual crime in the report we'd all have heard of it by now. That we haven't says that there isn't.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Irrelevant. The report did not have any proof of a crime, and nothing will change that. Trump survives, and, IMO, goes on to win the election, helped immensely by the Mueller report.

The report detailed many crimes, resulted in many indictments, prosecutions, and guilty pleas.  It also detailed the crimes that Mueller felt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Obviously you want to believe that if Trump is not indicted it is a total vindication, while if Hillary it not indicted it is evidence of corruption in the system.  You are wrong on both counts.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think Trump will win the election and we'll be debating the same old things for the next 6 years on this forum.

For the sake of the USA I hope you are wrong.  However complacency, ignorance, and corrupt self-interest have caused many governments to fail.

[Thainesss]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Soooo, having been shown that a New York City property developer with a long history of legal problems and bankruptcies will only make the swamp bigger and deeper, the people who fell for his "drain the swamp" BS will fall for this BS again.

 

Says the long-term trump hating liberal and ardent Hillary supporter who defends her every moment her name is brought into a discussion.