Mueller says Trump was not exonerated but Trump declares victory

[mogandave]

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

[quandow]

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

[mogandave]

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

That’s what I thought.

[Cryingdick]

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 

[quandow]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

That’s what I thought.

 

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.

[Jingthing]

 
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

[mogandave]

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.

[quandow]

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

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

[mogandave]

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

Liston to the clip if you can find it.

[quandow]

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."

[JHolmesJr]

Doddering Rob Mueller broke some dem hearts when he said that his not determining the  prez as guilty had nothing to do with the OLC ruling. He said it's wrong to say it that way...ie...  "but for the OLC ruling we would have found the president guilty". He stopped short of making a determination of guilt...and with that act, shirked his only job and purpose. So evidence to support obstruction in a legal sense does not exist. No underlying crime of conspiracy...no obstruction.

 

Plus nothing is gonna happen when Trump returns to civilian life after another 4 years. Which is a done deal.

 

But the Dems are not going to stop now...the bluster will continue because otherwise they will be seen as guilty of plotting a coup. The only way to stop them is when Barr starts slapping on some handcuffs.

[marcusarelus]

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

 

[Tug]

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 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

 

[Sujo]

9 hours 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

 

Well you better talk to trump about that. Its his AG Barr that is refusing to release the underlying evidence.

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Doddering Rob Mueller broke some dem hearts when he said that his not determining the  prez as guilty had nothing to do with the OLC ruling. He said it's wrong to say it that way...ie...  "but for the OLC ruling we would have found the president guilty". He stopped short of making a determination of guilt...and with that act, shirked his only job and purpose. So evidence to support obstruction in a legal sense does not exist. No underlying crime of conspiracy...no obstruction.

 

Plus nothing is gonna happen when Trump returns to civilian life after another 4 years. Which is a done deal.

 

But the Dems are not going to stop now...the bluster will continue because otherwise they will be seen as guilty of plotting a coup. The only way to stop them is when Barr starts slapping on some handcuffs.

Wrong, what he is saying is that because of the opinion he was not even allowed to consider guilt. Thats why he could not make a determination.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, marcusarelus said:

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

 

Mueller did not find there was no collusion. The report states many instances of collusion.

 

Steele does not work on behalf of a foreign govt and he was asked to compile a report by a republican.

[Cryingdick]

Meanwhile back in the United States life support has been pulled from the Mueller fiasco. It's in the rearview mirror of the news cycle. RIP it served the dems well and helped them in the mid terms. 

 

It's a brave new day now.

[mogandave]

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."

Who is this quoting! I think an actual transcript would be much more revealing.

In any event, don’t doubt Trump was concerned about the obstruction charges once it became clear the investigation morphed from conspiring with Russia to anything the could hang on Trump or anyone associated with him.

Again, Trump was within his rights to fire Comey, he could have ended the investigation any time he wanted.

[mogandave]

Well you better talk to trump about that. Its his AG Barr that is refusing to release the underlying evidence.

I thought the evidence was in the report, no?

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I thought the evidence was in the report, no?

 

No, the report is a report on the evidence. Do try to keep up.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Who is this quoting! I think an actual transcript would be much more revealing.

In any event, don’t doubt Trump was concerned about the obstruction charges once it became clear the investigation morphed from conspiring with Russia to anything the could hang on Trump or anyone associated with him.

Again, Trump was within his rights to fire Comey, he could have ended the investigation any time he wanted.

 

 

No he cannot fire anyone for any reason. If he fires comey or mueller to stop the investigation that is obstruction. Illegal.

 

Thats why trump refused to give evidence. Even tho he invited the russkies into the white house to tell them thats what he did, oh and to tell them some state secrets, which Israel was none too pleased about.

[mogandave]

No, the report is a report on the evidence. Do try to keep up.

So why when anyone asks for evidence here they’re always told to read the report? Unless of course they haven’t read it...

The potions I read seemed to contain evidence, or at least a description of it. I mean, do you really have to touch the spots on a blue dress to be convinced.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post and the replies have been removed. 

[mogandave]

No he cannot fire anyone for any reason. If he fires comey or mueller to stop the investigation that is obstruction. Illegal.
 
Thats why trump refused to give evidence. Even tho he invited the russkies into the white house to tell them thats what he did, oh and to tell them some state secrets, which Israel was none too pleased about.

I understand you have a precarious position to support, but please don’t make things up and pretend I said them.

I never said Trump could fire anyone for any reason. I said he was within his right to fire Comey.

[marcusarelus]

 

6 hours ago, Sujo said:

Steele does not work on behalf of a foreign govt and he was asked to compile a report by a republican.

Steele dossier is a private intelligence report written from June to December 2016 containing allegations of misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Government of Russia during the 2016 election. The dossier comprises 17 memos and was authored by Christopher Steele, a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence.

 

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund political research into Donald Trump that ultimately produced a dossier of allegations about his ties to Russia, a person familiar with the matter said Tuesday night.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2116904/clinton-campaign-helped-fund-notorious-steele

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier#Research_funded_by_Democrats_produces_dossier

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by marcusarelus

[atyclb]

21 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

21 hours ago, quandow said:

That Trump has perpetrated these crimes is a matter of record. The chilling fact is the Republican held Senate will back Trump regardless of what he does because he speaks to the base. A very White Nationalist base. Impeachment starts with Congress then has to be approved by the Senate, and they've come right out and said they won't vote for impeachment no matter WHAT crimes Trump has committed.

Mueller said he found Trump had no connection with Russia and had done nothing wrong about Russia.  Look it up in the report if you don't believe me.  

 

 

this is true, because  Kazakstan trump collude with. they investigate russia wrong country.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by atyclb

[atyclb]

23 hours ago, Longcut said:

????????

 

 

it almost seems like mueller's good name and good reputation was used as a front for hillary connected lawyers. this becomes apparent when observing his mental intellectual status confusion. perhaps they knew he had health problems and they could thus have free reign?

[chokrai]

https://kfyi.iheart.com/featured/the-conservative-circus-with-james-t-harris/content/2019-07-25-mueller-exposed-himself-and-democrats-as-frauds/?fbclid=IwAR1iFMi4t6mwEOZkvRQi3wnEVlD06xMFWZKsVDchP8MpnIJ58to35_sbuCI