Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[Chomper Higgot]

31 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

an interesting article today on cnbc stated 1. dem congress did not learn the lesson from the past 2. mueller failed to address the real problem cypersecurity.

 

wbr

roobaa01

If you’ve bothered to read the Mueller report you would notice that cyber security and counter intelligence are not mentioned.

 

Putting aside Trump has cut funding to election cyber security and McConnell has blocked legislation that addresses election cyber security, do not be fooled into believing there have been no cyber security or counter intelligence investigations and reports.

[mogandave]

Don’t get distracted reading the ‘Starr  Report’.
 
Read the Mueller report.

Yes, don’t be distracted by facts, stay focused on impeaching Trump.

Again, that Trump could not be indicted while in office did not disallow Mueller from reaching a conclusion.

It is worth noting Mueller did no say he was disallowed from coming to a conclusion, he only said it would not be fair to Trump.

How funny is that?

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I’m not embarrassed.

If DOJ policy disallowed Mueller from coming to a conclusion, how is it he was allowed to come to a conclusion on the collusion charges?
 

 

DOJ policy does not prevent Mueller coming to a conclusion.

 

It is DOJ Legal Council’s opinion that the President may not be indicted.

 

Read the section I recommended, it explains.

[attrayant]

16 minutes ago, mogandave said:

If DOJ policy disallowed Mueller from coming to a conclusion [...]

 

 

Policy does not disallow that.  He could have cleared Trump if the evidence allowed him to.  He did not clear Trump.  What did you learn from that?

 

 

Quote

how is it he was allowed to come to a conclusion on the collusion charges?

 

 

He didn't come to any conclusion on "collusion".  The question was about conspiracy.  His conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of a conspiracy.  Again, there's no OLC policy preventing investigators from finding innocence or clearing presidential suspects.  The policy is only against indicting them or reaching a finding that says they should be indicted.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by attrayant

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

I would recommend anyone that believes Mueller was barred (no pun intended) from coming to a conclusion due to DOJ policy read the Starr Report that (while operating under the same DOJ guidelines) clearly indicated that President Clinton was guilty of a number of crimes, including obstruction of justice.

 

Mueller did not come to a conclusion because the evidence was not there.

 

 

 

 

Ken Starr was operating under the Independent Prosecutor statute and wasn't limited by DOJ rules. That statute has since expired. Got it?

Edited May 30, 2019 by bristolboy

[Puchaiyank]

Mr muller, consummate lawyer/investigator could not bring himself to completely exonerate the President because it was not the outcome HE wanted...he left the door open for endless continued investigations... 

 

He did not even mention the DNC involvement in paying foreign operatives to falsify scenarios to make Trump appear to be working with the Russians...using unvetted intel to obtain illegal court approval to spy on the Trump campaign...and then President...

 

Obstruction? Laughable!  HRC set the bar so high for obstruction that no one should ever be convicted of obstruction again...

 

Mr muller you have done a great disservice to your country...sullied your reputation and set in motion years on continuous bogus investigations...you should never show your face in public again!

[cmarshall]

52 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I would recommend anyone that believes Mueller was barred (no pun intended) from coming to a conclusion due to DOJ policy read the Starr Report that (while operating under the same DOJ guidelines) clearly indicated that President Clinton was guilty of a number of crimes, including obstruction of justice.

 

Mueller did not come to a conclusion because the evidence was not there.

Actually untrue.  Starr and Mueller had different titles and different authorities.  Starr was appointed Independent Counsel under the Ethics in Government Act by a special three judge commission to continue the Whitewater investigation.  As such, he had the obligation to provide a report to the Congress.  The legal authorisation of the the Office of Independent Counsel was allowed to lapse.  Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel by Deputy AG Rosenstein under the authority of 28 CFR Part 600 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600).  Under that authority Mueller was obliged to provide a report not to Congress, but to the AG, who had the authority, but no obligation, to release it to the public.  

 

The current memorandum from the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel providing the policy with respect to the prosecution of a sitting president was issued on Oct. 16, 2000, that is, after Starr's investigation and before Mueller's.  https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/sitting_president.htm  There was a previous opinion at the DoJ on the subject, but IIRC it did not have the status of official DoJ policy.

 

Mueller stated as plainly as he can while constrained by DoJ policy that Trump did commit numerous acts of obstruction of the law and that there were acts of conspiracy with the Russians, but for which sufficient evidence to bring an indictment was lacking, partly due to the obstruction of justice.

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

Mr muller, consummate lawyer/investigator could not bring himself to completely exonerate the President because it was not the outcome HE wanted...he left the door open for endless continued investigations... 

 

He did not even mention the DNC involvement in paying foreign operatives to falsify scenarios to make Trump appear to be working with the Russians...using unvetted intel to obtain illegal court approval to spy on the Trump campaign...and then President...

 

Obstruction? Laughable!  HRC set the bar so high for obstruction that no one should ever be convicted of obstruction again...

 

Mr muller you have done a great disservice to your country...sullied your reputation and set in motion years on continuous bogus investigations...you should never show your face in public again!

Thank you anonymous poster from on high!

[roobaa01]

59 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you’ve bothered to read the Mueller report you would notice that cyber security and counter intelligence are not mentioned.

 

Putting aside Trump has cut funding to election cyber security and McConnell has blocked legislation that addresses election cyber security, do not be fooled into believing there have been no cyber security or counter intelligence investigations and reports.

_{forget mueller: our pants are still down on electtion security   https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/mueller-cybersecurity-and-election-risk-facebook-cant-save-us.html}

 

_wbr

_roobaa01

[mogandave]

Ken Starr was operating under the Independent Prosecutor statute and wasn't limited by DOJ rules. That statute has since expired. Got it?

I think you are incorrect. I believe they were the same guidelines that resulted from the Nixon investigation.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

I think you are incorrect. I believe they were the same guidelines that resulted from the Nixon investigation.

 

C.M. Marshall's post gives you all the details you want. If you're still inclined to indulge in denial after reading his post, then the case with you is hopeless.

[riclag]

 Mueller has committed a injustice by not adhering to prosecutor ethics! (no crimes or offenses ,  no opinions!. According to Starr, Mueller should of kept quiet! IMOP, Mueller and his team of 18 angry dems are part of the swamp.

 From a article in March

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/435405-ken-starr-mueller-cannot-indict-should-remain-quiet

six ways to sunday the intel can get back at you !- C.Schummer

Edited May 30, 2019 by riclag

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Stop weighing impeachment and just start it.

 

 

 

I think the Dems will impeach, because they have to, but Lichtman's opinion is not particularly persuasive.  His track record of picking the past 9 presidential election winners is a little impressive, but he has constructed a model for that purpose taking various objective factors into account.  I assume he backtested his model on historical elections.  On a scientific basis it's a tiny dataset with correspondingly limited validity, but still a good score for what it's worth.

 

But when he gives his opinion on the effect of impeachment on reelection, he has no prior examples in history at all.  So, he is outside of his data-driven model and just talking off the top of his head as we all do.  

 

By the way, if the House does pass articles of impeachment I predict that McConnell will simply refuse to conduct a trial of Trump in the Senate as described in the Constitution.  The Constitution has this to say:

 

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.  Article 1, section 3.

 

Note that the Senate has the power, but not the obligation, to conduct a trial.  The current rules of Senate specify that a trial will take place within a time frame, but those are house rules chosen by the Senate in the past and which can be amended at any time by the Senate.  I expect McConnell to take full advantage of his power to do so and will refuse to conduct a trial saying it's just a Dem political attack without merit.  

 

In fact the Senate took this step when they tried Andrew Johnson in 1868.  Johnson was acquitted on the first three charges after which the Senate declined to take up the remaining eight charges.

 

This loophole is one among the many defects in the Constitution, which can now never be amended, because of the polarisation of US politics.

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by cmarshall

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

Any particular reason you didn't provide the link?  I'm curious to know what people expect a special counsel to do about cyber security, especially considering that was not within the scope of his investigation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/mueller-cybersecurity-and-election-risk-facebook-cant-save-us.html?&qsearchterm=cybersecurity muellernd it. 

 

[Kelsall]

On 5/30/2019 at 6:16 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

Neatly buried amidst the waffle is the most important part. Mueller thinks he can just resign and slink off into the sunset, and never speak about his witch hunt again He is sorely mistaken. It doesn't work like that. Mueller will be dragged kicking and screaming if necessary to testify about what on earth he was thinking acting on the Steele dossier(that even Steele refuses to talk about!) that was paid for up Clinton and team, and how he could be so stupid to stack his team with extremists like Page and Strzok, and the rest of the bizarre actions he undertook. You can't overshadow and ruin the first 3 years of the best President ever for no reason whatsoever without some serious blowback after you fail. Expect treason/sedition charges at the very least. That also goes for Comey, Clinton and the rest of those complicit in this farce.

 

 Mueller can finally stop talking about this travesty of justice and soft coup attempt when he is safely behind bars. Can't come soon enough.

 

edit to add - did anyone else notice the guys demeanor? He started off the speech in flat-out panic mode. He was finding it hard to breath, looked like he was about to have a coronary. He knows he is in a world of trouble.

Yes.  That is the FIRST thing I noticed.

[mogandave]

C.M. Marshall's post gives you all the details you want. If you're still inclined to indulge in denial after reading his post, then the case with you is hopeless.

I did not see anything in the post that I thought would disallow Mueller from reaching a conclusion one way or another, did you?

You don’t need to keep repeating the same thing over and over. I understand your position, I just do not agree with it.

If that makes me hopeless, so be it.

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I did not see anything in the post that I thought would disallow Mueller from reaching a conclusion one way or another, did you?

You don’t need to keep repeating the same thing over and over. I understand your position, I just do not agree with it.

If that makes me hopeless, so be it.

 

Let me simplify it for you. Mueller was bound by DOJ rules. Starr was not.

[xylophone]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I did not see anything in the post that I thought would disallow Mueller from reaching a conclusion one way or another, did you?

You don’t need to keep repeating the same thing over and over. I understand your position, I just do not agree with it.

If that makes me hopeless, so be it.

 

Mueller said that, having detailed at least 10 possible acts of obstruction by Trump, it was not possible to say the US leader committed no crime.  If he had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, he would have said so.

 

That should help. Mueller did not want to be the one who made the fateful statement/decision so he described it thus....... "it was not possible to say the US leader committed no crime". 

 

Left it to others to do.........he wants out, obviously.

[cmarshall]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I did not see anything in the post that I thought would disallow Mueller from reaching a conclusion one way or another, did you?

You don’t need to keep repeating the same thing over and over. I understand your position, I just do not agree with it.

If that makes me hopeless, so be it.

 

Actually I agree that even with the DoJ restrictions Mueller could have and should have identified Trump as an unindicted felon.  But Mueller made that choice because of his interpretation of the DoJ regs and fair practice with which I happen not to agree, not because of any lack of evidence of Trump's law-breaking of which he supplies abundant evidence in the report.  The idea that a president who was accused, but not indicted would not be able to defend his good name is ridiculous since no one has as much access to the media as the president, even if he would not have his day in court.

 

But consider carefully Mueller's statement:

 

The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.

 

Mueller is careful to limit his claim that a president cannot be indicted for a federal crime.  (I think Mueller is clearly wrong that it would be unconstitutional to do so, but it would violate DoJ policy.)  But he does not claim that Trump cannot be indicted by a jurisdiction other than federal, e.g. New York State.

 

I think NY AG Laetitia James will indict Trump and others in the Trump crime family.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Actually I agree that even with the DoJ restrictions Mueller could have and should have identified Trump as an unindicted felon.  But Mueller made that choice because of his interpretation of the DoJ regs and fair practice with which I happen not to agree, not because of any lack of evidence of Trump's law-breaking of which he supplies abundant evidence in the report.  The idea that a president who was accused, but not indicted would not be able to defend his good name is ridiculous since no one has as much access to the media as the president, even if he would not have his day in court.

 

But consider carefully Mueller's statement:

 

The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.

 

Mueller is careful to limit his claim that a president cannot be indicted for a federal crime.  (I think Mueller is clearly wrong that it would be unconstitutional to do so, but it would violate DoJ policy.)  But he does not claim that Trump cannot be indicted by a jurisdiction other than federal, e.g. New York State.

 

I think NY AG Laetitia James will indict Trump and others in the Trump crime family.

I think Mueller was just explicating the DOJ's policy. Not defending it.  Here's a good article in which 16 legal experts are asked if it would be unconstitutional to indict the President. Not one of them agrees with the DOJ policy.

[cmarshall]

18 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I think Mueller was just explicating the DOJ's policy. Not defending it.  Here's a good article in which 16 legal experts are asked if it would be unconstitutional to indict the President. Not one of them agrees with the DOJ policy.

I don't think that reading of Mueller's statement is tenable, because the OLC policy statement, to which I posted a link above, does not actually take the position that indicting a sitting president is unconstitutional.  Indeed, if the OLC took that position a policy statement to the same effect would redundant and unnecessary.  The reasoning of the policy is 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.

 

This is not a constitutional claim at all, but based on a novel legal theory that has never been tested in a court.  So Mueller's claim that to indict a sitting president is unconstitutional is either his own opinion or his incorrect reading of the DoJ opinion.  The DoJ opinion is itself incorrect, because even if a criminal prosecution did undermine the execution of the duties of the executive branch, there is a remedy at hand in the 25th Amendment.

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by cmarshall

[Kelsall]

The Mueller report is not a balanced report; it is a prosecutorial document, and as such is very weak. 

 

The whole "Get Trump" effort has been a smear campaign, nothing more.  It was designed to cast doubt in the minds of voters in 2020.  It's not going to work.

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

I think you are incorrect.

 

 

Trying to shoot holes in other people's arguments is easy, but when you want to advance your own positions you should explain the reasons underlying your beliefs. So when you say:

 

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

I believe they were the same guidelines that resulted from the Nixon investigation.

 

 

What is this belief founded on?

[khaowong1]

"improper behavior"... Is there a politician in Washington that can honestly say they haven't shown any?  If that was a crime we wouldn't have a Congress or Senate.  They would all be in jail. 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, khaowong1 said:

"improper behavior"... Is there a politician in Washington that can honestly say they haven't shown any?  If that was a crime we wouldn't have a Congress or Senate.  They would all be in jail. 

 

I think an argument can be made for Trump going over and beyond the "call of duty" to behave improperly, and that being President (rather than a mere politician) implies greater accountability.

[2tall]

12 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Mueller will testify even if Nadler has to subpoena him to do so.  Beggars belief that he thinks it is up to him to decide when his job is done.  Many questions remain to be answered.  Did Barr shut down the investigation which ended 2 weeks after Barr took office?  Why did Mueller refer Cohen to the Southern District to be charged with perjury before Congress, but not Don Jr., Hope Hicks, or any of the other members of the Trump crime family?  Why did he not subpoena Trump?  Did Trump or any the others refuse to testify by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights?  If so, that should have been reported.  The public is entitled to hear all this and more directly from Mueller.  

 

Mueller is mistaken when he claims in his speech that the Constitution prevents him from indicting the president.  The Constitution is silent on the question and the DoJ policy was set by the DoJ and can be changed by the DoJ at any time.  He could and should have identified Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator as Jaworski did with Nixon.  

 

He apparently failed to investigate Trump's financial involvement with the Russians which is pertinent to Trump's public support for the Russian attack on the election.  Mueller was specifically charged with carrying out the counter-intelligence investigate, as distinct from the criminal investigation, but instead turned that over to the FBI.  No public report was issued. 

 

Mueller failed to fulfill his obligation to the American people.  Nevertheless, his speech yesterday is a pretty clear call for impeachment.  I hope the Dems step up quickly to the task at hand.

"...Mueller is mistaken when he claims in his speech that the Constitution prevents him from indicting the president."

 

Mueller cannot indict anyone or anybody...his scope is limited to investigation only. Only GJ's can issue indictments.

[Zack61]

14 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Neatly buried amidst the waffle is the most important part. Mueller thinks he can just resign and slink off into the sunset, and never speak about his witch hunt again He is sorely mistaken. It doesn't work like that. Mueller will be dragged kicking and screaming if necessary to testify about what on earth he was thinking acting on the Steele dossier(that even Steele refuses to talk about!) that was paid for up Clinton and team, and how he could be so stupid to stack his team with extremists like Page and Strzok, and the rest of the bizarre actions he undertook. You can't overshadow and ruin the first 3 years of the best President ever for no reason whatsoever without some serious blowback after you fail. Expect treason/sedition charges at the very least. That also goes for Comey, Clinton and the rest of those complicit in this farce.

 

 Mueller can finally stop talking about this travesty of justice and soft coup attempt when he is safely behind bars. Can't come soon enough.

 

edit to add - did anyone else notice the guys demeanor? He started off the speech in flat-out panic mode. He was finding it hard to breath, looked like he was about to have a coronary. He knows he is in a world of trouble.

.......and on what planet have you been living? Guilty as sin.

[Kasane]

Between Trump covering up the name of a dead veteran he didn’t like, Ben Shapiro whining about a female superhero, and Geraldo Rivera implying he will physically fight anyone who tries to impeach Trump, it’s been a big week for fragile man-babies who want to appear tough.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Kasane

[mogandave]

 
What is this belief founded on?

He wasn’t making an argument, he was just regurgitating that same thing he’d been saying all along.

My belief is founded on the facts.

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, 2tall said:

"...Mueller is mistaken when he claims in his speech that the Constitution prevents him from indicting the president."

 

Mueller cannot indict anyone or anybody...his scope is limited to investigation only. Only GJ's can issue indictments.

Not true at all.  Mueller and his team indicted the Russians, Manafort, Flynn, Papadopoulous, and rest to a total of 34.  Butina and Cohen were indicted by other DoJ prosecutors.  Where did you get such an idea?