Mueller will testify July 17

Slavister · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
FIrst off, what most critics of Trump continue to state he obstructed justice. Since it was determined that there was no conspiracy already determined by Mueller, this is a near impossible feat to prove.

It's proven easily within the report. Mueller just could not then go ahead and say "therefore, he is guilty". Instead he said Congress has to make that last statement AND/OR prosecutor AFTER Trump leaves office.

Condor060 said:
In order for a president to commit obstruction he must ...

have 3 elements of the obstruction charge: an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. All those are present in various cases cited by Mueller:

As you can see, 4 counts are all easy and done. Rest need more digging but not necessary really.

Condor060 said:
... Mueller would have made the recommendation ...

You can repeat this 1000 times, but it won't make it true. He said he could not. Stop arguing with him.

Condor060 said:
Mueller made it clear prior to his TV debut that his decision not to make a criminal recommendation had nothing to do with the OLC opinion.

Mueller made this very clear in his report. Even according to the (right-wing) link you provided, this is all based on what Barr said. Mueller himself never said it anywhere and in fact said the opposite in his black-and-white written report.

Condor060 said:
Both are bound by the OLC opinion that states you can't indict a sitting president.

So Mueller followed that opinion and Starr did not. It does not matter what YOU think. What matters is what Mueller thought his parameters were.

Condor060 said:
... feel free to post a link stating the DOJ opinion, recommendation, or internal policy that precludes a Special counsel from making a criminal recommendation.

Easy - go read Mueller report, esp his intro to Volume 2.

Condor060 said:
... But he can tell the AG that Trump committed a crime, the AG would make such recommendation to Congress, and Congress would move to impeach.

Next time you can explain it to the Special Counsel. But this time, he explained why he could not do that - specifically because it would be unfair according to his office.

Condor060 said:
TO add to this debacle, Barr came out in his interview the day after Muellers unscheduled TV statements to clear the air. He stated that Mueller could have made a criminal recommendation. Now it doesn't matter what names you want to call Barr as it has no purpose but to just hate on the guy. Barr is the AG, he is Muellers boss, and he makes those decisions. Mueller is an employee. He doesn't get to determine anything. He is ordered by the DOJ and AG to perform (X) task.

There is a big difference between Barr telling Mueller he can do it AFTER Muller is done and BEFORE. He should have made that clear BEFORE, not AFTER.

apdst said:
You know stupid that answer is going make the Leftists look?

It won't. At the end of the day he provided plenty of evidence of Trump attempting to collude (heck, even the Trump tower meeting where they TRIED to get dirt on Hillary from Russians is proof enough of their attempts). The fact that he could not prove an indictable charge is simply just that.

apdst · Jun 26, 2019

Slavister said:
It's proven easily within the report. Mueller just could not then go ahead and say "therefore, he is guilty". Instead he said Congress has to make that last statement AND/OR prosecutor AFTER Trump leaves office.

have 3 elements of the obstruction charge: an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. All those are present in various cases cited by Mueller:

View attachment 67258702

As you can see, 4 counts are all easy and done. Rest need more digging but not necessary really.

You can repeat this 1000 times, but it won't make it true. He said he could not. Stop arguing with him.

Mueller made this very clear in his report. Even according to the (right-wing) link you provided, this is all based on what Barr said. Mueller himself never said it anywhere and in fact said the opposite in his black-and-white written report.

So Mueller followed that opinion and Starr did not. It does not matter what YOU think. What matters is what Mueller thought his parameters were.

Easy - go read Mueller report, esp his intro to Volume 2.

Next time you can explain it to the Special Counsel. But this time, he explained why he could not do that - specifically because it would be unfair according to his office.

There is a big difference between Barr telling Mueller he can do it AFTER Muller is done and BEFORE. He should have made that clear BEFORE, not AFTER.

It won't. At the end of the day he provided plenty of evidence of Trump attempting to collude (heck, even the Trump tower meeting where they TRIED to get dirt on Hillary from Russians is proof enough of their attempts). The fact that he could not prove an indictable charge is simply just that.

You just said there's no such offense as "collusion". :lamo

Trump · Jun 26, 2019

Slavister said:
It's proven easily within the report. Mueller just could not then go ahead and say "therefore, he is guilty". Instead he said Congress has to make that last statement AND/OR prosecutor AFTER Trump leaves office.

have 3 elements of the obstruction charge: an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. All those are present in various cases cited by Mueller:

View attachment 67258702

As you can see, 4 counts are all easy and done. Rest need more digging but not necessary really.

You can repeat this 1000 times, but it won't make it true. He said he could not. Stop arguing with him.

Mueller made this very clear in his report. Even according to the (right-wing) link you provided, this is all based on what Barr said. Mueller himself never said it anywhere and in fact said the opposite in his black-and-white written report.

So Mueller followed that opinion and Starr did not. It does not matter what YOU think. What matters is what Mueller thought his parameters were.

Easy - go read Mueller report, esp his intro to Volume 2.

Next time you can explain it to the Special Counsel. But this time, he explained why he could not do that - specifically because it would be unfair according to his office.

There is a big difference between Barr telling Mueller he can do it AFTER Muller is done and BEFORE. He should have made that clear BEFORE, not AFTER.

It won't. At the end of the day he provided plenty of evidence of Trump attempting to collude (heck, even the Trump tower meeting where they TRIED to get dirt on Hillary from Russians is proof enough of their attempts). The fact that he could not prove an indictable charge is simply just that.

maybe Pelosi will understand my chart

Condor060 · Jun 26, 2019

First and foremost, that about the dumbest chart I have ever encountered. It has no reality in anyone's world but your own to believe it.

Second, You have no clue what the difference is between convening a grand jury for an indictment or charge and making a criminal recommendation. That is pretty obvious.

If Starr breached the OLC opinion, how did they get an impeachment. You can't even keep up with actual history. You don't even know what the OLC opinion is. It states you can't INDICT a sitting president. It doesn't mean anything else. Making criminal recommendations in an investigation is not charging the president with anything. Where do you people come up with this ludicrous stuff is beyond me.

Its already a matter of record from Mueller to Barr that the OLC opinion had nothing to do with him not making a criminal recommendation. Barr already testified to it and its recorded with Congress. It doesn't matter what you think of Barr. He is the AG and what he says goes. You can hollar all you won't but it won't change that fact.

Since Barr came out and said, Mueller can make a criminal recommendation, It is well within the power of Mueller to make any addendum to his report he wants or to file another report with Barr stating such. He hasn't done that.

These made up algorithms and charts are just what they are, Made up. I have never seen the likes of such stupidity in a single chart in my life.

Condor060 · Jun 26, 2019

Moderate Right said:
Democrats are foaming at the mouth yet again. Somehow they believe Mueller will give them ammunition to impeach Trump. This is clear and simple. Democrats know they don't have enough from the Mueller report to impeach Trump and Mueller has already said that if he is forced to testify he will not answer any questions beyond what is already in his report. And yet Democrats believe they can force words out of Mueller's mouth they can use against Trump for impeachment. Ain't happinin. Mueller has clearly said he is not going to be used as a pawn in partisan politics by either side, which includes Democrats.

Do we have enough towels to clean up the drool from republican congress members waiting to get Mueller in front of them.

Condor060 · Jun 26, 2019

Idiometer said:
The "criminal recommendation to Congress" is all there in the details of the many obstruction activities Mueller investigated.

What you are proposing is that Congress divines something out of a report that Barr, Rosenstein, 46 FBI investigators, and 14 lawyers couldn't do. Mueller told a story. That story doesn't have any criminal recommendations from Mueller the AG or the DOJ. All I actually see at this point is an absolute train wreck in his testimony given the fact that the questions I posed in this thread are going to asked.

As far as getting people to hear some of the report that refuse to read it, Yeah, I can see why Democrats want this hearing but I don't think the result is going to be what they think it will be.

Slavister · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
First and foremost, that about the dumbest chart I have ever encountered. It has no reality in anyone's world but your own to believe it.

Sure, mine and Muellers and rest of the people...

Condor060 said:
If Starr breached the OLC opinion, how did they get an impeachment.

Nothing prevents impeachment now either.

Condor060 said:
Where do you people come up with this ludicrous stuff is beyond me.

From someone much smarter than you, i.e. Mueller.

Condor060 said:
Its already a matter of record from Mueller to Barr that the OLC opinion had nothing to do with him not making a criminal recommendation.

"Matter of record", really? Wrong, even in your right-winger source it was clear Mueller never confirmed he made such statements.

Condor060 said:
It doesn't matter what you think of Barr. He is the AG and what he says goes. You can hollar all you won't but it won't change that fact.

By same bizzare logic, whatever Trump says goes too... but yet we know he lies all the time.

Condor060 said:
Since Barr came out and said, Mueller can make a criminal recommendation, It is well within the power of Mueller to make any addendum to his report he wants or to file another report with Barr stating such. He hasn't done that.

You have no idea whether Mueller is allowed such addendums at this point. You are making stuff up.

Condor060 said:
These made up algorithms and charts are just what they are, Made up. I have never seen the likes of such stupidity in a single chart in my life.

I know, you don't have any REAL arguments, so you just call it names - how Trumpian of you.

Anyway, I'll let Mueller answer your concerns... You can take it up with him...

Mueller Report said:
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. ...

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." 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 ." ...

Idiometer · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
Idiometer said:

I would agree with you as to Muellers reputation and as I have stated, the lawyers he hired of of the highest caliber. I don't think you and I disagree on that point. But with all due respect, Muellers inclusion of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (Given their known bias against Trump) and the acquisition of this panel doesn't present itself well.

For the same reasons we Voir Dire a jury so both sides get to have a say in the selection of a jury of your peers, this should have been done with Muellers team as well.

I can damn sure guarantee you if that panel had all been republicans with the same Mueller report, this would be a never ending call for Muellers head on a stick. All you have to do is mention Barrs name because he didn't make any criminal recommendations and OVERNIGHT he has become a Trump boot licking degenerate after over 20 years of service to include being the AG before.

Now call me a liar. lol You and I both know how this would be viewed under the opposite circumstances. I think Muellers distaste for Trump has effected his good judgement. It happens and it has nothing to do with his findings. And I don't discount his findings in any way.

Click to expand...

Geebus, dude, you think Mueller knew about their affair and the texts messages before he hired Strzok and Page? Seriously? He did fire them as soon as all of that **** hit the fan, did he not?

How does "the acquisition of this panel" indicate anything other than Mueller hiring team members with expertise in the areas he would be investigating? To me, that's the right wing fantasy that the whole investigation was biased from the beginning. The FBI does not ask their investigators which party they belong to, not when they join the FBI and not when assigning duties. This wasn't a jury, it was an investigative team. Voir dire does not apply.

As for calling for "Mueller's head on a stick" if it hadn't been for Strzok and Page, I doubt very much if the political leanings of his team would ever have been questioned at all. This is just the sort of nonsense that happens when weak men who can't stick to their marriage vows make silly claims in order to get into a woman's pants. Those two were stupid to use their work phones to communicate private stuff to each other. They got caught, they got fired, end of "conspiracy" theory.

As for Barr, perhaps you should look into his history of "service" before you set him on a pedestal. You do know how he got the job, right? You know about the very lengthy opinion he wrote last year claiming that a sitting president was essentially above the law and could stop any investigation he wanted to, right? You do remember Barr's testimony before congress when he claimed that if the president thought an investigation into him was "unfair" he had every right to stop that investigation, right?

Why would I call you a liar? You're merely repeating the rhetoric and the misunderstanding of the issues and events that I've heard from all Trump apologists. If you believe it, then you aren't lying, you're just misinformed.

Idiometer · Jun 26, 2019

Condor060 said:
What you are proposing is that Congress divines something out of a report that Barr, Rosenstein, 46 FBI investigators, and 14 lawyers couldn't do. Mueller told a story. That story doesn't have any criminal recommendations from Mueller the AG or the DOJ. All I actually see at this point is an absolute train wreck in his testimony given the fact that the questions I posed in this thread are going to asked.

As far as getting people to hear some of the report that refuse to read it, Yeah, I can see why Democrats want this hearing but I don't think the result is going to be what they think it will be.

Couldn't do? FFS, read the report. The lawyers, the investigators ... all of their work is detailed in the report, and they most definitely did find several clear cases of Trump attempting to obstruct justice by trying to stop this investigation. Virtually the only people who believe that's not obstruction are Trump and Barr.

Former federal prosecutors say Trump guilty of obstruction

As soon as he's no longer president, there are several indictments waiting for Trump. Don't you think he knows that? Don't you think that's why he's stalling, ignoring subpoenas, insisting that current and former staff ignore subpoenas? Delay is the only tactic he has right now.

Trump · Jun 26, 2019

Idiometer said:
Couldn't do? FFS, read the report. The lawyers, the investigators ... all of their work is detailed in the report, and they most definitely did find several clear cases of Trump attempting to obstruct justice by trying to stop this investigation. Virtually the only people who believe that's not obstruction are Trump and Barr.

Former federal prosecutors say Trump guilty of obstruction

As soon as he's no longer president, there are several indictments waiting for Trump. Don't you think he knows that? Don't you think that's why he's stalling, ignoring subpoenas, insisting that current and former staff ignore subpoenas? Delay is the only tactic he has right now.

obstruction with no underlying crime....FFS....you wanna throw an Ex President in Jail:lamo

Condor060 · Jun 26, 2019

Idiometer said:
As for Barr, perhaps you should look into his history of "service" before you set him on a pedestal. You do know how he got the job, right? You know about the very lengthy opinion he wrote last year claiming that a sitting president was essentially above the law and could stop any investigation he wanted to, right? You do remember Barr's testimony before congress when he claimed that if the president thought an investigation into him was "unfair" he had every right to stop that investigation, right?

Click to expand...

By the way, I was just making a joke about lying. I was just pokin at you.

I have no intention of placing Barr on a pedestal, I was only stating his service to our country. As far as his comments about the executive authority of the president of the US, he is actually right. I know everyone who hates Trump hates the fact that he has such powers but it wasn't written for Trump. He just happens to be president.

I know everyone like to associate being above the law to Trumps executive authority but its not above the law when the constitution gives you those powers. The OLC opinion states you can't indict a sitting president. Does that make him above the law? The president can issue executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies and do not require approval of the United States Congress.

The president appoints the top officials for nearly all federal agencies and serve "at the pleasure of the President" There is no existing constitutional limit that states ANY situation where he can't fire these officials. Executive privilege gives the president the ability to withhold information from the public, Congress, and the courts in national security and diplomatic affairs.

Barr was not making a personal opinion, he was addressing the existing executive powers of the president currently in the constitution.

Why would I call you a liar?

Click to expand...

I was just teasing you

Condor060 · Jun 26, 2019

Idiometer said:
Couldn't do? FFS, read the report. The lawyers, the investigators ... all of their work is detailed in the report, and they most definitely did find several clear cases of Trump attempting to obstruct justice by trying to stop this investigation. Virtually the only people who believe that's not obstruction are Trump and Barr.

Like it, dislike it, doesn't matter. If you don't understand that Mueller can make criminal recommendations, you are going to be tangled in this for the rest of your life. You will find out during the hearing with Mueller as they are going to make it absolutely clear. Guaranteed. No matter what his report says even if he makes 30 criminal recommendations, the AG can read it, disagree with it, and wright his own report. Starr made 11 criminal claims but only 3 were recommended.

You are going to find out in these hearings if you don't know these by now:

1. Mueller has the right to make criminal recommendations
2. Mueller works for Barr and Barr gets to make the final decision on any criminal recommendations to Congress
3. Mueller made the decision that nobody associated with the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to effect the election
4. Mueller couldn't make a decision on any obstruction charges and that decision had nothing to do with the OLC opinion
5. After Barr of Rosenstein read the report they couldn't make a case for obstruction either and is why they determined no obstruction

As soon as he's no longer president, there are several indictments waiting for Trump. Don't you think he knows that? Don't you think that's why he's stalling, ignoring subpoenas, insisting that current and former staff ignore subpoenas? Delay is the only tactic he has right now.

The Special counsel has finished their report and Mueller has stated that no sealed indictments are pending. Trump provided thousands of documents and all people Rosenstein wished to subpoena. The decision was made by the AG and the DOJ. No Conspiracy, No Obstruction. That is the verdict and the AG gets the final word.

Now Congress wants to reopen the investigation and start over. Trump has said no, you have already subpoenaed these individuals and have those transcripts. Just an FYI, Trump had the right to redact ALL of Muellers information since no criminal recommendations were made. Barr asked if Trump wanted to redact anything and Trump told Barr to make whatever decision he felt was necessary to secure classified information. You can't be more open than that.

Since there are no outstanding sealed indictments awaiting Trump, never in the history of this country has any president been charged after leaving office, even when 11 felony counts were provided for Clinton. Trump has none.

Idiometer · Jun 27, 2019

Trump said:
obstruction with no underlying crime....FFS....you wanna throw an Ex President in Jail:lamo

I want the guilty to be duly punished no matter what office they hold. Nice to know you expect Trump to be a ex president soon, though.

No underlying crime is required for obstruction. The president's intent was very, very clear. Just because Mueller decided there was not enough evidence to sucessfully charge anyone with conspiracy doesn't mean Trump is not guilty of trying to obstruct the investigation several times over.

Look it up for yourself. For once.

Idiometer · Jun 27, 2019

Condor060 said:
Like it, dislike it, doesn't matter. If you don't understand that Mueller can make criminal recommendations, you are going to be tangled in this for the rest of your life. You will find out during the hearing with Mueller as they are going to make it absolutely clear. Guaranteed. No matter what his report says even if he makes 30 criminal recommendations, the AG can read it, disagree with it, and wright his own report. Starr made 11 criminal claims but only 3 were recommended.

You are going to find out in these hearings if you don't know these by now:

1. Mueller has the right to make criminal recommendations
2. Mueller works for Barr and Barr gets to make the final decision on any criminal recommendations to Congress
3. Mueller made the decision that nobody associated with the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to effect the election
4. Mueller couldn't make a decision on any obstruction charges and that decision had nothing to do with the OLC opinion
5. After Barr of Rosenstein read the report they couldn't make a case for obstruction either and is why they determined no obstruction

The Special counsel has finished their report and Mueller has stated that no sealed indictments are pending. Trump provided thousands of documents and all people Rosenstein wished to subpoena. The decision was made by the AG and the DOJ. No Conspiracy, No Obstruction. That is the verdict and the AG gets the final word.

Now Congress wants to reopen the investigation and start over. Trump has said no, you have already subpoenaed these individuals and have those transcripts. Just an FYI, Trump had the right to redact ALL of Muellers information since no criminal recommendations were made. Barr asked if Trump wanted to redact anything and Trump told Barr to make whatever decision he felt was necessary to secure classified information. You can't be more open than that.

Since there are no outstanding sealed indictments awaiting Trump, never in the history of this country has any president been charged after leaving office, even when 11 felony counts were provided for Clinton. Trump has none.

Geebus but you're stubborn in your complete misunderstanding of my posts.

Where did I express that I don't understand that Mueller can make criminal recommendations? Of course he can, and in my opinion he should have. Which part of this do you not understand?

"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 impatial adjudicator."

Do you get it? That was Mueller's reasoning about not openly accusing Trump of obstruction. Please do us both a favor and Read The ****ing Report (RTFR).

Now, according to Barr, which he clearly stated in his testimony before congress, a sitting president can stop any investigation into his own activities if he he thinks he's been falsely accused. According to your post, that's constitutional. Please quote me the part of the constitution that backs up that opinion.

Condor060 · Jun 27, 2019

Idiometer said:
Geebus but you're stubborn in your complete misunderstanding of my posts.

I resemble that remark

Where did I express that I don't understand that Mueller can make criminal recommendations? Of course he can, and in my opinion he should have. Which part of this do you not understand?

I guess its my mistake. I must have confused our conversation with another one. My apologizes

"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 impatial adjudicator."

Agreed

Now, according to Barr, which he clearly stated in his testimony before congress, a sitting president can stop any investigation into his own activities if he he thinks he's been falsely accused. According to your post, that's constitutional. Please quote me the part of the constitution that backs up that opinion.

According to Barr, that's constitutional. I was only providing his assessments.

There are no such limitations provided in the constitution. The president is the highest executive authority in the country. It does state in Article II he can even withhold information through executive privilege from the AG and Congress. It states the power of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch of the United States Government to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of information or personnel relating to confidential communications that would impair governmental functions.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled this privilege qualifies as an element of the separation of powers doctrine, derived from the supremacy of the executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.

Mueller will testify July 17

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency