Mueller report summary sent to Congress

[Slyfox696]

Mueller decided there was no obstruction, too.

No he did not. He made no determination. Big difference.

Those weren't indictments for working with Russians. They were indictments/convictions for LYING about it.

...do you realize how stupid that post sounds?

You literally just admitted that ALL those people in Trump's campaign worked with Russians. Which is EXACTLY the point I was making.

Even if that release of information is illegal?

Nothing of relevance would be illegal to release.

 

[Barnacle]

True. But that's a Trump appointee who stated "Presidents cannot obstruct". It was not Mueller, and without hearing from Mueller I don't see the issue resolved. Hopefully it will come out in Mueller's Congressional testimony.

..... :roll:

 

[Chomsky]

It specifically wasn't, though. See post #173.

Barr claims, "I concluded".

You're telling me he doesn't drawn on his understanding of the law?

 

[Athanasius68]

With regards to firing the FBI directory in terms of criminality, that's exactly what Barr said. A president cannot obstruct by exercising his constitutional/lawful presidential authority to fire the head of the FBI.
Thi

The note to which I responded said Barr said the president cannot obstruct. It is not an accurate comment on what the AG said. He in fact has said president's can be charged with obstruction.

 

[Athanasius68]

No he did not. He made no determination. Big difference.
...do you realize how stupid that post sounds?

You literally just admitted that ALL those people in Trump's campaign worked with Russians. Which is EXACTLY the point I was making.

It's not illegal to work with Russians.

 

[Chomsky]

The “a President cannot obstruct” you mention and further to “a President cannot be indicted” should be settled at the USSC. Elections have consequences.

Picking your own AG and DoJ is kind of cool. The Senate is like the great catcher, a backstop.

Yeah, I was hoping Mueller would have indicted to give the Court a chance to finally resolve the issue. Unfortunately, it's still in limbo.

 

[Slyfox696]

It's not illegal to work with Russians.

What does that have to do with anything I have said? Working with Russians as part of the campaign is the very definition of colluding.

Seriously, stop posting stupid stuff.

 

[apdst]

No he did not. He made no determination. Big difference.
...do you realize how stupid that post sounds?

You literally just admitted that ALL those people in Trump's campaign worked with Russians. Which is EXACTLY the point I was making.

1. He was conducting an investigation.

2. The investigation didn't find evidence of obstruction.

3. Case closed.

That's how that works, here in our republic.

 

[Linc]

Yep.

Like I said, my mantra would be: "Release the Report!"

It's short, snappy, direct. And it's supported by a large majority of the electorate.

Let’s see how the GOP and INDY Polls change on “release the report”. We can only speculate at this point, as I’ll mention that trust in Mueller is soaring.

Let’s get to Issues. As for ISSUES, present your platform with a condensed Cabinet. Of the 22 Cabinet Level positions I counted, you could easily combine those of Energy, Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, and EPA to get a coordinated “Infrastructure”.

The other Three Categoties of the Cabinet would be Economic, Defense/Foreign, and Executive, with the other 17 Cabinets going into them. Time to Streamline, Coordinate, Reorganize, and Move On.

I care that this gets done to help our Nation. It can’t happen without both parties working together.

 

[apdst]

What does that have to do with anything I have said? Working with Russians as part of the campaign is the very definition of colluding.

Seriously, stop posting stupid stuff.

That would depend on how someone was working with Russians. It may be illegal and may not be.

Sanders had Australians working directly for his campaign. Where's the outrage?

 

[Slyfox696]

1. He was conducting an investigation.

2. The investigation didn't find evidence of obstruction.

That is not what the letter said.

 

[Chomsky]

not really.
there is nothing there.

mueller didn't have enough evidence to form a conclusion.
that doesn't mean he didn't have evidence.

it just means the evidence he had wasn't enough to form an opinion so
he deffered to the AG's office and the DOj.

they looked at it and said there was not enough evidence for an Obstruction charge.

PS trump did submit a written statement to mueller.
that is all he needed to do.

Your argument is all good here, until the very last state two sentences.

No, those written statements did not include obstruction. Trump refused to sit for his subsequent interview, where his intent could be determined.

 

[sjmay]

It's amazing how quickly the left on here is backpedaling.....

 

[apdst]

That is not what the letter said.

That's exactly what it said.

 

[JANFU]

Mueller decided there was no obstruction, too. You onboard with that?

You been runnin' around this mother****er since day 1 of the Mueller witch hunt saying that Trump's going down, just wait, be patient, Mueller is straight as an arrow, blah, blah, ****in, blah.

HOW DO YOU LIKE IT NOW???

Just wondering as you never had any use for Rosenstein.
Oh yes, do not forget what Mueller has hived off.
SDNY has been working on Trump / Family / Corp for a year or so.
They just do not quit.

 

[Athanasius68]

So, there are a few possible paths to take:

The US Atty General for SDNY investigates, but they defer prosecution.
They pass the results of their investigations to the NY Attorney General.
NY state court indicts, tries and convicts Trump's family.
He cannot pardon state crimes, so a goodly number in his family become jailbirds. However, Trump can't be indicted while he's in office, but if the investigations uncover crimes that would be defined as "high crimes or treason," he could be impeached.
But since it is doubtful that the Senate would remove him, Congress might not bother.
But when Trump leaves office, he'll be wearing orange soon enough.

Oh yeah, one other thing:
SDNY just replaced the lead attorney on the Michael Cohen case with Audrey Strauss, famous for her defeat of Roy Cohn.

And Mueller was famous for knocking out the mafia-- and then he took on the president-- you know-- head of the Trump crimefamily and all.

As can be now concluded, even Ms. Strauss needs evidence of a crime.

 

[Slyfox696]

That's exactly what it said.

This is a lie. The letter did not say that.

 

[Athanasius68]

What does that have to do with anything I have said? Working with Russians as part of the campaign is the very definition of colluding.

Seriously, stop posting stupid stuff.

Yawn. The dossier anyone... Oh, only some people working with some Russians count...

 

[apdst]

Just wondering as you never had any use for Rosenstein.
Oh yes, do not forget what Mueller has hived off.
SDNY has been working on Trump / Family / Corp for a year or so.
They just do not quit.

Liberals are such sore losers. :lamo

 

[Chomsky]

I've always thought Mueller would do a detailed and efficient investigation. I'm not so sure Barr's conclusion on obstruction will stand just from everything that's known.

Quite possibly. It's clear the only way to get understanding here is to interview Mueller, and publishing the report. It's the way to go, in order to maintain integrity in the democratic process.

I've always thought it was a mistake for the president to open the doors to a SC with the firing of Comey because his life hasn't always been the diary of a choir boy. Mueller farmed out a lot from what I understand. Just another phase that might otherwise have been ovr with had he just let the FBI finish what they started.

Yeah, firing Comey was one of the major Presidential political blunders of modern Presidential history.

 

[apdst]

This is a lie. The letter did not say that.

Quote the letter.

 

[Barnacle]

I did. And in another post, I quoted the part where the Special Counsel specifically states Trump is not exonerated.

I think we are going in circles here, so here is my last comment to you on this matter:

"... and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. ...

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. ..."


The DOJ took Mueller's findings and concluded NO CRIME ... in other words EXONERATED.

 

[Slyfox696]

Quote the letter.

"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.

...

while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him"

Source: Read the Mueller report findings: Barr’s letter to Congress | Fox News


Mueller specifically did not make a determination.

 

[ludin]

But only on the two fronts identified. No one ever credibly said Trump was involved with Russia on planning the hacking nor were they actively working with the IRA.

That was never the allegation. That is what I just said.

Aaccording to Barr's letter, "The special counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its effort" to interfere with the 2016 presidential election in that manner.

Not that hard to understand IE no collusion with russia.

What Trump is alleged to have done is coordinate with the release of the information (Trump Tower meeting, Stone indictment) and to craft US policy which is favorable to Russia (Flynn indictment).

Please see the previous statements.
"The Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated" with Russians who worked on those hacking efforts, according to Barr's letter, "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

again no collusion

Barr's letter is noticeably silent on all the indictments Mueller has already filed.

Because all of his indictments had nothing to do with the investigation. They were all part of past crimes
that were ousted during the election and had nothing to do with the campaign russia or anything else.

Bill Barr was nominated SPECIFICALLY because of his position on obstruction.

there was no evidence of obstruction so what are you talking about?
did you not read? even rosentein said there was not enough evidence of obstruction?

Again, we need Mueller's report, not the summary of the person who was nominated by a man who fired his previous Attorney General because Sessions wouldn't interfere in the investigation.

So you are saying the Barr is basically lying? evidence please?

The facts are PapaD colluded and was indicted. Flynn colluded and was indicted. Manafort was found to have colluded. Stone colluded (with Wikileaks). Cohen colluded.

Nope one was convicted of collusion with russia or any other charge of election meddling.
you are wrong. most of them were found guilty of perjury but that was it.

Those are the facts. What Barr mentions in his letter is NOT what has been popularly alleged.

No what is fact is there is no collusion and no obstruction i posted them
to you already.

those are facts

No...the idea that our President could be compromised into policies favorable to our enemies is the concern. Always has been.

Again no evidence

The criminal aspect was the Trump team's shaping of the situation.

of crimes unrelated to the campaign.

 

[apdst]

"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.

...

while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him"

Source: Read the Mueller report findings: Barr’s letter to Congress | Fox News


Mueller specifically did not make a determination.

Mueller made no "conclusion" because he didn't have the evidence to support such a conclusion.