The Mueller Report thread

[hollodero]

(04-01-2019, 08:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It becomes less shady when you reintroduce two factors you omitted. First, Trump requested the memo from Rosenstein. Second, Trump stated on national television that he wanted Comey gone because of the investigation being conducted into his campaign. When you omit certain details, it doesn't show the whole situation in context.

And he told Lavrov and Kislyak that now he fired Comey, the pressure on him has been taken off.

[*michaelsean*]

I don't think you are going to get an obstruction case on the Comey thing. Trump has the authority to fire Comey and he did. I don't see how you make that illegal.

[GMDino]

(04-01-2019, 09:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think you are going to get an obstruction case on the Comey thing.  Trump has the authority to fire Comey and he did.  I don't see how you make that illegal.

Intent.

Which is very difficult to prove.

Unless you have a suspect that publicly explains his intent.  

[*michaelsean*]

(04-01-2019, 09:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: Intent.

Which is very difficult to prove.

Unless you have a suspect that publicly explains his intent.  

I don't know if that matters.  Firing him isn't a crime.  I think intent would matter if someone were say 60 and you fired them because they were 60, and there is a law that specifically says you can't do that, but I'm just not sure here.  

[GMDino]

(04-01-2019, 10:24 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know if that matters.  Firing him isn't a crime.  I think intent would matter if someone were say 60 and you fired them because they were 60, and there is a law that specifically says you can't do that, but I'm just not sure here.  

It's above my pay grade to say if this is a crime.  But, to me, firing a person because they started/are leading an investigation into yourself is shady at the least and criminal at the worst.

I'm not saying it is.

Also, from the little I understand of it, a President can be impeached even if they didn't "break the law".

But that is a political decision.

[BmorePat87]

(04-01-2019, 10:24 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know if that matters.  Firing him isn't a crime.  I think intent would matter if someone were say 60 and you fired them because they were 60, and there is a law that specifically says you can't do that, but I'm just not sure here.  

Intent matters. Firing isn't a crime unless it is done to obstruct an investigation. Then it is obstruction of justice.

But the question is twofold:  1) can the president be charged with obstructing justice and 2) did he intend to obstruct justice?

If the president can't be charged then intent does not matter. If he can, then it does.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-01-2019, 10:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: It's above my pay grade to say if this is a crime.  But, to me, firing a person because they started/are leading an investigation into yourself is shady at the least and criminal at the worst.

I'm not saying it is.

Also, from the little I understand of it, a President can be impeached even if they didn't "break the law".

But that is a political decision.

Is it obstruction of justice because he fires him because he's investigating something else that he doesn't want investigated that has nothing to do with him?  

Well yeah as their is no appeal, they can technically impeach him for anything they want or no reason.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-01-2019, 10:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Intent matters. Firing isn't a crime unless it is done to obstruct an investigation. Then it is obstruction of justice.

The question is twofold:  1) can the president obstruct justice and 2) did he intend to obstruct justice?

But aren't there legitimate reasons to fire someone him to obstruct an investigation?  Say the FBI wants to investigate Jussie Smollett, and the President says nope waste of time,  and halts the investigation.  Obstruction?

[GMDino]

(04-01-2019, 10:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But aren't there legitimate reasons to fire someone him to obstruct an investigation?  Say the FBI wants to investigate Jussie Smollett, and the President says nope waste of time,  and halts the investigation.  Obstruction?

Possibly?

But in this specific case the investigation was into the guy who did the firing.  That adds a certain level of uncertainty.

Nixon said "It's not a crime if the President does it."

The DOJ said you couldn't indict a sitting President...but that is not law.  That's opinion. And it has never been tested in the courts.

[BmorePat87]

(04-01-2019, 10:53 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But aren't there legitimate reasons to fire someone him to obstruct an investigation?  Say the FBI wants to investigate Jussie Smollett, and the President says nope waste of time,  and halts the investigation.  Obstruction?

This is why the Mueller report presents arguments on both sides of the issue. It's one that would require the courts to step in and give guidance. We can only give hypothetical answers.

[*michaelsean*]

And I wouldn't close the door on impeachment just because a President didn't technically commit a crime.

[GMDino]

(04-01-2019, 11:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is why the Mueller report presents arguments on both sides of the issue. It's one that would require the courts to step in and give guidance. We can only give hypothetical answers.

(04-01-2019, 11:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote: And I wouldn't close the door on impeachment just because a President didn't technically commit a crime.

See?  These two posts are being rational.  But that doesn't get air time or political points like saying "the report completely exonerated him" or "it's OBVIOUS he should be impeached".

[jj22]

Reading Trumps tweets he is sounding more and more like he's trying too hard to convince people. And it's making matters worse for him.

Quote:Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Everybody is asking how the phony and fraudulent investigation of the No Collusion, No Obstruction Trump Campaign began. We need to know for future generations to understand. This Hoax should never be allowed to happen to another President or Administration again!

He's throwing Obstruction in there now too and even Barr admitted he wasn't cleared of Obstruction. To most Americans this looks like Trump is lying and the more and more he attempts to convince us it was all a hoax, the worse it'll be for him when the report is released.

He doesn't have very smart people around him. Or he does and they just can't stop him.

[Dill]

(04-01-2019, 11:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: Possibly?

But in this specific case the investigation was into the guy who did the firing.  That adds a certain level of uncertainty.

Nixon said "It's not a crime if the President does it."

The DOJ said you couldn't indict a sitting President...but that is not law.  That's opinion. And it has never been tested in the courts.

Some things aren't a crime if the President does it.  E.g., it's automatically a crime if a general, on his own initiative, turns over a top secret bit of classified material to the Russians. It is not automatically so if the president does it--though under the right conditions it could be treason even for the president.

But if there is rule of law, a president cannot simply end FBI or Special Counsel investigations into his own conduct, as can dictators.

Many aspects of the president's relation to law have never been legally addressed because office holders themselves had 1) a good idea of how government works and where the invisible lines between good and bad conduct lay, and 2) were generally capable of separating personal from national issues, whether in the realm of policy or of finances.  It is in the interest of the country that the president have a wide powers of action, especially in foreign policy where the U.S. must often react instantly to a threat. So Congress has generally been deferential, regardless of whose party is in power.  There has since Vietnam been a constant tug of war between the two branches regarding the legality of each other's actions, but almost always within the context of Constitutional interpretation--not regarding what appears to be criminal and self-dealing behavior.

When exceptions like Nixon come along there are challenges--though Nixon is kind of the inverse of Trump regarding "1)" in that he knew very well how government worked and where the boundaries were.  

Now we are living through a time in which Trump's testing/public violation of norms of presidential behavior are calling forth ever strong Congressional responses.  

[Dill]

(04-01-2019, 12:54 PM)jj22 Wrote: Reading Trumps tweets he is sounding more and more like he's trying too hard to convince people. And it's making matters worse for him.



He's throwing Obstruction in there now too and even Barr admitted he wasn't cleared of Obstruction. To most Americans this looks like Trump is lying and the more and more he attempts to convince us it was all a hoax, the worse it'll be for him when the report is released.

He doesn't have very smart people around him. Or he does and they just can't stop him.

Barr scores first.

Now a segment of the voting public who learned that Trump was cleared of obstruction will have to unlearn that--an uphill battle for those trying to convince them of what Mueller's silence on that score actually means.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-01-2019, 02:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Barr scores first.

Now a segment of the voting public who learned that Trump was cleared of obstruction will have to unlearn that--an uphill battle for those trying to convince them of what Mueller's silence on that score actually means.

articulating to the inarticulate.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2019, 11:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote: And I wouldn't close the door on impeachment just because a President didn't technically commit a crime.

I've said a number of times if dude did something illegal he should be punished; I've also said I'd welcome President Pence with open arms.

WTS, I think the worst thing the Dems can do is pursue impeachment or even keep talking about it. 

[hollodero]

(04-01-2019, 07:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've said a number of times if dude did something illegal he should be punished; I've also said I'd welcome President Pence with open arms.

WTS, I think the worst thing the Dems can do is pursue impeachment or even keep talking about it. 

Too early to tell, I'd say. There are still multiple investigations going on, and what Mueller specifically was asked to look at is quite narrow. Technically Trump is not cleared for obstruction, he's not even cleared for being influenced by Russia or being part of their moneylaundering schemes (is how I feel). He's certainly not cleared of cooking the books, which it seems he extensively did.

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2019, 07:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Too early to tell, I'd say. There are still multiple investigations going on, and what Mueller specifically was asked to look at is quite narrow. Technically Trump is not cleared for obstruction, he's not even cleared for being influenced by Russia or being part of their moneylaundering schemes (is how I feel). He's certainly not cleared of cooking the books, which it seems he extensively did.

Too early you say? We agree. Now if we could just talk part of the Nation and the majority of this forum into the same mentality. 

[jj22]

This is your daily reminder that the Republicans released every one of the 445 pages of the Starr Report about a blowjob.

And Impeached the POTUS because of it.