Democrats fume as McGahn skips House hearing: 'Our subpoenas are not optional'

[Fletch]

Mueller outlined possible violations, but he left them for someone else to prosecute:

The report provided fresh details of how the Republican president tried to force Mueller's ouster, directed members of his administration to publicly vouch for his innocence and dangled a pardon to a former aide to try to prevent him from cooperating with the special counsel.

It also concluded, as Barr announced last month, that Trump and his campaign had not engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia during the election.

Barr in March concluded that Trump had not broken the law, but told a news conference on Thursday that Mueller had detailed "10 episodes involving the president and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense."​

Mueller's report outlines episodes of possible Trump obstruction

Trump could have wanted the MUeller investigation to end because he knew he was innocent and saw the investigation as an attempt by his political enemies to destroy him. Thats not 'corrupt intent.'

 

[BitterPill]

What part of;

Mueller's job was not to indict the President, but make a prosecutorial decision,

didn't you understand ??

Indicting a sitting president would be a prosecutorial decision, yet Mueller deferred to the DoJ injunction against indicting a sitting president.

Don't you understand that?

 

[Fletch]

What's absurd is the argument you're trying to make.... according to your logic, if Mueller was fired it wouldn't have impeded his investigation.

The investigation would have continued under a different head. But the issue here is corrupt intent that neither you, nor Mueller has evidence for. Trump wanting to end the investigation is not evidence of corrupt intent. Had he actually been guilty of the underlying crime you might have an argument. But he wasnt so you dont.

 

[upsideguy]

What part of;

Mueller's job was not to indict the President, but make a prosecutorial decision,

didn't you understand ??

We actually do not know what Mueller would have done. His boss was Barr, who had the authority to quash any indictment Mueller wished to do. We really do not know what Barr may have quashed. We don't know what pressure Barr put on Mueller to wrap things up. This is why Mueller needs to testify.

We do know the investigation was suddenly "wrapped up" with two months of Barr assuming authority over it. Barr is on record as not believing in the investigation in the first place. We also know that Mueller believed Barr mis-characterized his findings.

Read: Robert Mueller letter to Attorney General William Barr - CNNPolitics

AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Barr distort Mueller report findings

So, its pretty clear that Mueller and Barr were not on the same page, which is why you can not take Barr's view of this as Mueller's. This is another reason why Mueller's testimony to congress is imperative.

Barr did. You guys haven't accepted it.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Yes, Barr did. He upheld a DoJ tradition that they do not indict sitting President. This is largely because investigating and prosecuting Presidential malfeasance is the domain of the House of Representatives. Hence, Barr's determination (even if he were a legitimate actor in this) is as relevant as yours and mine.

Given that hundreds of former US attorney's say that Trump has committed acts that are chargeable under Obstruction of Justice statues, Congress should do its job and investigate, and perhaps prosecute, Trump.

Over 450 ex-federal prosecutors say Trump would have been charged with obstruction if not president - Portland Press Herald

 

[Fletch]

Indicting a sitting president would be a prosecutorial decision, yet Mueller deferred to the DoJ injunction against indicting a sitting president.

Don't you understand that?

But Mueller didnt make any recommendation. In fact, he said plainly that he was not accusing Trump of committing a crime.

 

[BitterPill]

Trump could have wanted the MUeller investigation to end because he knew he was innocent and saw the investigation as an attempt by his political enemies to destroy him. Thats not 'corrupt intent.'

Trump did want the Mueller investigation quashed and even stated as much multiple times. That is obstruction of justice as Mueller pointed out, and I am afraid obstructing justice is corrupt to its core.

 

[bomberfox]

What part of;

Mueller's job was not to indict the President, but make a prosecutorial decision,

didn't you understand ??

The part where mueller never exonerated Trump and listed several instances of obstruction.

 

[BitterPill]

But Mueller didnt make any recommendation. In fact, he said plainly that he was not accusing Trump of committing a crime.

Where did Mueller say Trump committed no crimes? He didn't though it seems he did mention there was insufficient evidence to conclude collusion between Putin and Trump.

In fact, it seems Mueller pointed to at least 10 possible violations of criminal law.

 

[Fletch]

Trump did want the Mueller investigation quashed and even stated as much multiple times.

So what?

That is obstruction of justice as Mueller pointed out,

Mueller made no such charge.

and I am afraid obstructing justice is corrupt to its core.

Trump saw the investigation for exqctly what it was--a witch hunt. He was never guilty of collusion and saw the investigation as a means for his political enemies to destroy him. Of course he wanted it to end. Who wouldnt. But the fact remains that he made no effort and took no actions to obstruct it. That is why Mueller made no recommendation or accusation of guilt.

 

[BitterPill]

So what?Mueller made no such charge. Trump saw the investigation for exqctly what it was--a witch hunt. He was never guilty of collusion and saw the investigation as a means for his political enemies to destroy him. Of course he wanted it to end. Who wouldnt. But the fact remains that he made no effort and took no actions to obstruct it. That is why Mueller made no recommendation or accusation of guilt.

Never, in the long and storied history of witch hunts, have so many witches been treed.

Do you understand that?

 

[Fletch]

Never, in the long history of witch hunts, have so many witches been treed.

HOw many witches got treed for collusion/conspiracy/coordination with Russia during the 2016 election? Ill answer that: ZERO. Why? Because it didnt happen. The entire thing was a 2 year hoax. And now we get to find out out who started the hoax. THAT is where the crimes are.

 

[BitterPill]

HOw many witches got treed for collusion/conspiracy/coordination with Russia during the 2016 election? Ill answer that: ZERO. Why? Because it didnt happen. The entire thing was a 2 year hoax. And now we get to find out out who started the hoax. THAT is where the crimes are.

Mueller decided there was insufficient evidence to conclude collusion between Trump and Putin, yet it seems 34 were treed for various crimes:

Mueller's investigation is done. Here are the 34 people he indicted along the way​

That is certainly a successful witch hunt by any measure.

 

[Cordelier]

The investigation would have continued under a different head. But the issue here is corrupt intent that neither you, nor Mueller has evidence for. Trump wanting to end the investigation is not evidence of corrupt intent. Had he actually been guilty of the underlying crime you might have an argument. But he wasnt so you dont.

The investigation would have continued under a different head only if Rosenstein appointed one. Since Rosenstein would have been circumvented if Mueller was fired, there is no reason whatsoever to put forward that he wouldn't have also been circumvented in appointing a new Special Counsel.

Regardless - even if a new Special Counsel had been appointed - the investigation still would have been influenced and/or impeded by the President's actions, would it not?

 

[upsideguy]

Trump could have wanted the MUeller investigation to end because he knew he was innocent and saw the investigation as an attempt by his political enemies to destroy him. Thats not 'corrupt intent.'

Moot 1. Guilty people often think they are innocent. Moreover, just because you think you are innocent, even if you actually are, its not your call. If there is probable cause, an investigation is warranted, even if you ultimately get cleared. It is in the public interest for the question of probable cause to be thoroughly vetted.

Moot 2. The investigation was not about Donald Trump. It was about the Trump campaign. Trump, the narcissist that he is, made it about Donald Trump (and his cultists bought into that). Even if he were innocent, those around him may have been guilty.... while the number of indictments and convictions prove that the Trump campaign was full of bad actors.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726381/Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.pdf

Attempting to thwart or otherwise inhibit a criminal investigation, even if you are innocent, is obstruction of justice, as a large number of former federal prosecutors have affirmed.

Former federal prosecutors say Trump guilty of obstruction

Now, we have enough evidence to not only suggest that Trump should be charged, but that he MUST be charged (in the form of impeachment).

So what?Mueller made no such charge. Trump saw the investigation for exqctly what it was--a witch hunt. He was never guilty of collusion and saw the investigation as a means for his political enemies to destroy him. Of course he wanted it to end. Who wouldnt. But the fact remains that he made no effort and took no actions to obstruct it. That is why Mueller made no recommendation or accusation of guilt.

Not a fact at all, but a layman's unsubstantiated opinion. One element of debate is to be able to discern between "fact" and "opinion". This seems to be an example that you do not understand the difference. As per above, over 450 former federal prosecutors say you are wrong. That is EXPERT opinion that says you are wrong.

 

[Cordelier]

HOw many witches got treed for collusion/conspiracy/coordination with Russia during the 2016 election? Ill answer that: ZERO. Why? Because it didnt happen. The entire thing was a 2 year hoax. And now we get to find out out who started the hoax. THAT is where the crimes are.

It never baffles me how obtuse some people can be.

I don't know how old you are, Fletch... but I'm in my late 40's, so my first-hand awareness of Watergate is pretty dim, but I've always been interested in politics from a young age. I'll read pretty much any books or watch any documentaries on politics that I can get my hands on whenever I can find the time.

Anyways... the point I want to make is this. If there's one common theme that has been drilled into my head these last 40 years or so it's this.... the fundamental lesson of Watergate is that it isn't the crime that gets you - it's the cover-up. The Watergate Burglary didn't bring down Nixon. The odds are just about 100% he didn't even know about the damn thing. What brought down Nixon was the cover-up.

Same thing with Clinton. Nothing the Clintons did or didn't do in Arkansas or whatever tangled business dealings they might or might not have had didn't get him impeached.... not even the horrific crime (gasp!) of getting a blow job in the Oval Office got him impeached. It was the lie.

The lie will get you every time. I don't know why people have to keep re-learning that lesson. Must be a human nature thing.

 

[hanger4]

Mueller decided going into the investigation that since it's probably the case that sitting President cannot be criminally indicted, that he wouldn't make a prosecutorial judgment one way or the other where it came to the President. That's fine - I get that. It offends my sensibilities, but I respect the position. So let's operate from that presumption... and let's assume that Barr and Rosenstein came to same conclusion for the same reason.

But just because a sitting President can't be indicted for obstruction of justice doesn't mean that it didn't actually occur and that it's occurrence may (or may not) have had an operative effect on the underlying investigation itself, opening the possibility that it's findings may have been prejudiced. That's the question that needs to be addressed going forward - did the President actually obstruct justice? If so, what effect did this obstruction have on the Mueller investigation?

1) Mueller did make a prosecutorial decision concerning conspiracy and coordination. He punted concerning OoJ.

2) The House majority makes that decision, they haven't even started impeachment proceedings yet. All bluster and sound bites, no cajones.

 

[Cordelier]

1) Mueller did make a prosecutorial decision concerning conspiracy and coordination. He punted concerning OoJ.

2) The House majority makes that decision, they haven't even started impeachment proceedings yet. All bluster and sound bites, no cajones.

I know you'd like the House Democrats go off running off-cocked and drive right off the same cliff Newt Gingrich & Co. did with Clinton. But it's not going to happen. I figure if they're going to make mistakes, they'll find brand-new ones.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It never baffles me how obtuse some people can be.

I don't know how old you are, Fletch... but I'm in my late 40's, so my first-hand awareness of Watergate is pretty dim, but I've always been interested in politics from a young age. I'll read pretty much any books or watch any documentaries on politics that I can get my hands on whenever I can find the time.

Anyways... the point I want to make is this. If there's one common theme that has been drilled into my head these last 40 years or so it's this.... the fundamental lesson of Watergate is that it isn't the crime that gets you - it's the cover-up. The Watergate Burglary didn't bring down Nixon. The odds are just about 100% he didn't even know about the damn thing. What brought down Nixon was the cover-up.

Same thing with Clinton. Nothing the Clintons did or didn't do in Arkansas or whatever tangled business dealings they might or might not have had didn't get him impeached.... not even the horrific crime (gasp!) of getting a blow job in the Oval Office got him impeached. It was the lie.

The lie will get you every time. I don't know why people have to keep re-learning that lesson. Must be a human nature thing.

You're right and the Russia investigation was the cover up for the Obama administration. They worked very hard to make members of the Trump campaign look guilty. After all, Mueller knew a year ago collusion was false. So how did we get that far and what motivations caused guilty until proven innocent to become the narrative?

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[hanger4]

Indicting a sitting president would be a prosecutorial decision, yet Mueller deferred to the DoJ injunction against indicting a sitting president.

Don't you understand that?

Sure it is, but it's not the only one. Mueller punted.

 

[Cordelier]

You're right and the Russia investigation was the cover up for the Obama administration. They worked very hard to make members of the Trump campaign look guilty. After all, Mueller knew a year ago collusion was false. So how did we get that far and what motivations caused guilty until proven innocent to become the narrative?

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Wow... I'm getting this sudden feeling a deja vu. Didn't we have this discussion a few days ago? *L*

Alright... I'll give you the same response I did back then and then you can conveniently avoid not answering it for the next 20 pages again.

What's your evidence that Mueller "knew" there was no collusion a year ago?

 

[Cordelier]

Sure it is, but it's not the only one. Mueller punted.

Mueller didn't punt... he did his job - which was to follow Department of Justice guidelines which state that a sitting President cannot be criminally indicted.

 

[hanger4]

We actually do not know what Mueller would have done. His boss was Barr, who had the authority to quash any indictment Mueller wished to do. We really do not know what Barr may have quashed. We don't know what pressure Barr put on Mueller to wrap things up. This is why Mueller needs to testify.

We do know the investigation was suddenly "wrapped up" with two months of Barr assuming authority over it. Barr is on record as not believing in the investigation in the first place. We also know that Mueller believed Barr mis-characterized his findings.

Read: Robert Mueller letter to Attorney General William Barr - CNNPolitics

AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Barr distort Mueller report findings

So, its pretty clear that Mueller and Barr were not on the same page, which is why you can not take Barr's view of this as Mueller's. This is another reason why Mueller's testimony to congress is imperative.



Yes, Barr did. He upheld a DoJ tradition that they do not indict sitting President. This is largely because investigating and prosecuting Presidential malfeasance is the domain of the House of Representatives. Hence, Barr's determination (even if he were a legitimate actor in this) is as relevant as yours and mine.

Given that hundreds of former US attorney's say that Trump has committed acts that are chargeable under Obstruction of Justice statues, Congress should do its job and investigate, and perhaps prosecute, Trump.

Over 450 ex-federal prosecutors say Trump would have been charged with obstruction if not president - Portland Press Herald

But we do know what Mueller would do, it's right there in his report. He made a determination concerning conspiracy and coordination and punted concerning OoJ.

 

[hanger4]

The part where mueller never exonerated Trump and listed several instances of obstruction.

Start the impeachment proceedings !! Anything short of that is all talk and no walk.

 

[hanger4]

Mueller decided there was insufficient evidence to conclude collusion between Trump and Putin, yet it seems 34 were treed for various crimes:

Mueller's investigation is done. Here are the 34 people he indicted along the way​

That is certainly a successful witch hunt by any measure.

No American was charged with anything remotely akin to illegal collusion, conspiracy or coordination with the Ruskies.

 

[hanger4]

I know you'd like the House Democrats go off running off-cocked and drive right off the same cliff Newt Gingrich & Co. did with Clinton. But it's not going to happen. I figure if they're going to make mistakes, they'll find brand-new ones.

Then the investigation is over.