Jump to content

Recommended Posts

so, this is big

 

where

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

so, this is big

 

where

 

 

 

there a whole bunch of stuff in the report about him trying to fire mueller like 4 times or something. some pretty strong evidence for obstruction. 

 

it's still a collusion witch hoax of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

so, this is big

 

where

 

 

there a whole bunch of stuff in the report about him trying to fire mueller like 4 times or something. some pretty strong evidence for obstruction. 

 

it's still a collusion witch hoax of course. 

he hinted at or stated outright in public dozens of times that he wanted Mueller gone/fire him/whatever. this was not a revelation from the report, unless there was some info about it (that I've not yet seen) beyond just him wanting Mueller gone. that's very old news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

so, this is big

 

where

 

 

there a whole bunch of stuff in the report about him trying to fire mueller like 4 times or something. some pretty strong evidence for obstruction. 

 

it's still a collusion witch hoax of course. 

he hinted at or stated outright in public dozens of times that he wanted Mueller gone/fire him/whatever. this was not a revelation from the report, unless there was some info about it (that I've not yet seen) beyond just him wanting Mueller gone. that's very old news.

 

 

 

i guess there's more in there about him actually maneuvering to fire him. i haven't read it. just bits.  i'm waiting for the audio book version read by barack obama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

so, this is big

 

where

 

 

maddow

 

the president committed a ton of obstruction of justice. mueller said he's only not prosecuting because of the OLC opinion establishing the DOJ guideline to not indict a president. he packaged up the evidence in the report. 

 

the Dems have what they need to impeach. they will now decide if they want to take the political risk. they're worried the propaganda machine will hurt them if they do, and the Republicans in the Senate would prevent removal, anyway.

 

honestly, i think they should do it. let the Republicans vote no. imagine the vibe if the dems let trump and the Repubs get away with this. it's like going to the dark-side.

Edited by very honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

so, this is big

 

where

 

 

the president committed a ton of obstruction of justice. mueller said he's only not prosecuting because of the OLC opinion establishing the DOJ guideline to not indict a president.

 

the report's packed with damning evidence.

 

the Dems have what they need to impeach. they will now decide if they want to take the political risk. they're worried about the propaganda machine will hurt them in 2020 if they impeach trump in the house but the senate does not convict.

 

honestly, i think they should do it anyway. let the republicans vote no and where it.

he did the bulk of the obstruction in public, the report sheds light on little, if anything, new.

 

damning evidence? of what? trump's an idiot and manafort is a snake? common knowledge, little if any 'new evidence' much less DAMNING new evidence

 

Dems can impeach if they want, but unless there's more in the redactions (unlikely) or something comes from SDNY in the future, they'd be stupid to impeach. Pelosi isn't an idiot.

 

the report is not big. stuff that Mueller sent to SDNY/etc? that may be big, but we don't know about it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looming election throws a monkey wrench into everyone's thinking and strategizing and what not.. 

 

starting impeachment proceedings makes trump the issue.  changes focus. it becomes "hillary's emails" but "impeach trump" and his base will get continuously asked how they feel about it and lot's of people will view it as trump being crucified. 

 

there will be endless spin. it's a big gamble depending on what things in the report will have teeth.  trump has no conscience. it's not like someone is going to lean in and say "Mr President you should resign for the good of the country".  that's not going to happen w/this guy and the people around him.  not w/fox news and the PR machine.

 

it's a different world from the nixon years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

so, this is big

 

where

 

 

the president committed a ton of obstruction of justice. mueller said he's only not prosecuting because of the OLC opinion establishing the DOJ guideline to not indict a president.

 

the report's packed with damning evidence.

 

the Dems have what they need to impeach. they will now decide if they want to take the political risk. they're worried about the propaganda machine will hurt them in 2020 if they impeach trump in the house but the senate does not convict.

 

honestly, i think they should do it anyway. let the republicans vote no and where it.

he did the bulk of the obstruction in public, the report sheds light on little, if anything, new.

 

damning evidence? of what? trump's an idiot and manafort is a snake? common knowledge, little if any 'new evidence' much less DAMNING new evidence

 

Dems can impeach if they want, but unless there's more in the redactions (unlikely) or something comes from SDNY in the future, they'd be stupid to impeach. Pelosi isn't an idiot.

 

the report is not big. stuff that Mueller sent to SDNY/etc? that may be big, but we don't know about it yet.

 

 

the fact that a number of the things occurred in the open does not make it any less evidence of obstruction of justice. the mueller report lays out obstruction of justice. mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to. Congress is supposed to impeach. we suspected but didn't know that this would come. now it has been delivered, and it looks solid.

 

looming election throws a monkey wrench into everyone's thinking and strategizing and what not.. 

 

starting impeachment proceedings makes trump the issue.  changes focus. it becomes "hillary's emails" but "impeach trump" and his base will get continuously asked how they feel about it and lot's of people will view it as trump being crucified. 

 

there will be endless spin. it's a big gamble depending on what things in the report will have teeth.  trump has no conscience. it's not like someone is going to lean in and say "Mr President you should resign for the good of the country".  that's not going to happen w/this guy and the people around him.  not w/fox news and the PR machine.

 

it's a different world from the nixon years. 

 

there was an election 6 months ago. you can hardly get further from an election. 

 

the left has facts on their side. they need to get better at using them.

Edited by very honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

presidential election is ~18 months away, not forever but plenty of time to do anything. 

 

 

the fact that a number of the things occurred in the open does not make it any less evidence of obstruction of justice.

it goes against your 'this [Mueller report] is big' because the Mueller report has given us next to nothing we didn't already know. we know demonstrably almost nothing compared to yesterday, if i'm wrong please point out where because the 'new' stuff I've seen isn't important or isn't really new.

 

 

mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to

where does it state this pls? closest Mueller gets is

“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,” Mr. Mueller’s investigators wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

 

which isn't worthless, but most fucking definitely isn't 'boy if I could lock Trump up right now I sure as sam heck damned would boyo!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However we approach the next election cycle, I think the important thing is to focus on issues that matter in potential debates, especially climate change and health care. Attacking Trump won't work, and we can't afford to fuck this up, regardless of whatever goat-fuck of a "strategy" he comes up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However we approach the next election cycle, I think the important thing is to focus on issues that matter in potential debates, especially climate change and health care. Attacking Trump won't work, and we can't afford to fuck this up, regardless of whatever goat-fuck of a "strategy" he comes up with.

It doesn't feel good to say this, but I think this is quite misguided. It's a popularity contest. The situation calls for a beautiful whore with a heart of gold, which is exactly what nearly half the country sees when they look at Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However we approach the next election cycle, I think the important thing is to focus on issues that matter in potential debates, especially climate change and health care. Attacking Trump won't work, and we can't afford to fuck this up, regardless of whatever goat-fuck of a "strategy" he comes up with.

So much this. Attacking trump will only harden his supporters, and worse will make it look like the Dems don’t have a platform. I pray that Sanders makes it in as the candidate and brings in Warren as his running mate.

AOC is great but she needs more experience in managing the political landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

the fact that a number of the things occurred in the open does not make it any less evidence of obstruction of justice.

it goes against your 'this [Mueller report] is big' because the Mueller report has given us next to nothing we didn't already know. we know demonstrably almost nothing compared to yesterday, if i'm wrong please point out where because the 'new' stuff I've seen isn't important or isn't really new.

 

 

 

 

i was saying it's big because the obstruction case looks pretty good and mueller got it completed and got it to congress. also, it seems like there is a lot of intersting stuff in there. 

 

 

 

 

 

mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to

where does it state this pls? closest Mueller gets is

“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,” Mr. Mueller’s investigators wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

 

which isn't worthless, but most fucking definitely isn't 'boy if I could lock Trump up right now I sure as sam heck damned would boyo!'

 

here is where he links the decision not to consider prosecution with the OLC opinion:

 

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.'"

 

mueller says he couldn't say trump committed obstruction of justice even if he knew it to be true:

 

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 ajudgment 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.

 

we know that they can't say trump did it. but they go out of their way to say they're not saying he didn't do it: 

 

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.

 

now look at this. from the conclusion of Volume II:

 

The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

 

that quote is striking. prosecutors are allowed to decline to prosecute a sitting president. mueller says that the evidence causes a problem in his ability to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement. 

 

that's why i said "mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to."

 

 

also interesting: mueller suggests in a few places that congress is an appropriate body to handle this kind of investigation:

 

The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

 

and

 

With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.

Edited by very honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please ignore this passive aggressive post to ignore this if you want a read through of the report by none other than the devil himself.

 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1118631217212067841.html

 

Or in other words: people talking about a nothingburger report either haven't read it, or are trumpists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not the smoking gun you are looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

smocking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smacking.

 

Also, tec, not looking for a smoking gun, you silly fruitcake. Are you sheathe number two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read through about half of that, quite good, though it really should be more focused. Does he not write articles somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to

where does it state this pls? closest Mueller gets is

“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,” Mr. Mueller’s investigators wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

 

which isn't worthless, but most fucking definitely isn't 'boy if I could lock Trump up right now I sure as sam heck damned would boyo!'

 

now look at this. from the conclusion of Volume II:

 

The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

 

that quote is striking. prosecutors are allowed to decline to prosecute a sitting president. mueller says that the evidence causes a problem in his ability to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement. 

 

that's why i said "mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to."

 

I'm seeing the same stuff y'all are, just not interpreting it through these skewed lenses: 'difficult issues that would need to be resolved' is most definitely not 'I would totally prosecute this guy for the evidence laid out with a rock solid case.' 

 

 

i was saying it's big because the obstruction case looks pretty good and mueller got it completed and got it to congress. also, it seems like there is a lot of intersting stuff in there. 

the obstruction case doesn't 'look pretty good' from what I'm reading/seeing/hearing, Mueller himself says (^in the quote above) it's only middling at best, so maybe it could be the basis if there's MORE stuff found...which is possible, but not part of this report.

 

…..because he completed it and got it to congress' and 'it's interesting' isn't an argument lol, Mueller is a professional with a sterling track record, of course he was going to complete it and deliver it. you're grasping very honest :)

 

Please ignore this passive aggressive post

:catsob: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see I successfully converted aux in discord the other night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to

where does it state this pls? closest Mueller gets is

“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,” Mr. Mueller’s investigators wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

 

which isn't worthless, but most fucking definitely isn't 'boy if I could lock Trump up right now I sure as sam heck damned would boyo!'

 

now look at this. from the conclusion of Volume II:

 

The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

 

that quote is striking. prosecutors are allowed to decline to prosecute a sitting president. mueller says that the evidence causes a problem in his ability to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement. 

 

that's why i said "mueller said he only didn't indict because the DOJ isn't supposed to."

 

I'm seeing the same stuff y'all are, just not interpreting it through these skewed lenses: 'difficult issues that would need to be resolved' is most definitely not 'I would totally prosecute this guy for the evidence laid out with a rock solid case.' 

 

 

i was saying it's big because the obstruction case looks pretty good and mueller got it completed and got it to congress. also, it seems like there is a lot of intersting stuff in there. 

the obstruction case doesn't 'look pretty good' from what I'm reading/seeing/hearing, Mueller himself says (^in the quote above) it's only middling at best, so maybe it could be the basis if there's MORE stuff found...which is possible, but not part of this report.

 

 

 

where does it say middling at best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

now look at this. from the conclusion of Volume II:

 

The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

 

 (^in the quote above)

 

 

where does it say middling at best?

Mueller says there's evidence for obstruction, but some evidence doesn't equal a conviction in a 'traditional prosecutorial judgment'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

now look at this. from the conclusion of Volume II:

 

The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

(^in the quote above)

where does it say middling at best?

Mueller says there's evidence for obstruction, but some evidence doesn't equal a conviction in a 'traditional prosecutorial judgment'

no, the report does not say that. it says they decided not to make the decision because of the OLC opinion. it also says that they wouldn't say they thought he committed a crime even if they thought it were true. that's what i laid out for you above, in post 16002, which had quotes mostly from the intro to Volume II. I'll just put the whole intro to Volume II here (bold added by me):

 

 

This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8©, which states that, “[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he ... shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached.”

 

Beginning in 2017, the President of the United States took a variety of actions towards the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice. The Order appointing the Special Counsel gave this Office jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the FBI’s Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations. The Special Counsel’s jurisdiction also covered potentially obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel’s investigation itself. This Volume of our report summarizes our obstruction-of-justice investigation of the President.

 

We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:

 

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.

 

***

 

This report on our investigation consists of four parts. Section I provides an overview of obstruction-of-justice principles and summarizes certain investigatory and evidentiary considerations. Section II sets forth the factual results of our obstruction investigation and analyzes the evidence. Section III addresses statutory and constitutional defenses. Section IV states our conclusion.

Edited by very honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...