The Mueller Report thread

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2019, 03:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I saw that but you included Congress when the House has yet to decide if formal charges are necessary. They have not made a decision one way or the other. 

Understood. As I said it's my simplistic look at it. Not considering which is "better or worse".

Also as a business Major I never went much past Government 101. So can someone answer the following simple questions for me, so I am clear. Thought I was, be now I'm not so sure:

Can Congress impeach POTUS (aka charge with a crime) if they feel such a crime has occurred?

If impeached and voted to be removed from office can POTUS be subject to greater punishment?

Can the VP and Cabinet remove POTUS if they agree to do so?

[Benton]

(05-02-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Understood. As I said it's my simplistic look at it. Not considering which is "better or worse".

Also as a business Major I never went much past Government 101. So can someone answer the following simple questions for me, so I am clear. Thought I was, be now I'm not so sure:

Can Congress impeach POTUS (aka charge with a crime) if they feel such a crime has occurred?

If impeached and voted to be removed from office can POTUS be subject to greater punishment?

Can the VP and Cabinet remove POTUS if they agree to do so?

Congress can impeach if they feel a crime has been committed, but that's not the same as being charged with a crime. It serves as a mechanism to remove someone from office 

The POTUS can .still be subject to any criminal charges, but as zona said, it hasn't happened.

[*bfine32*]

(05-02-2019, 04:44 PM)Benton Wrote: Congress can impeach if they feel a crime has been committed, but that's not the same as being charged with a crime. It serves as a mechanism to remove someone from office 

The POTUS can .still be subject to any criminal charges, but as zona said, it hasn't happened.

Thanks, It's pretty much as I was tracking. All the "can't charge" talk had me thinking twice. So if Congress feels there's enough to recommend impeachment I'm sure they'll do it; regardless the AG's stance on charging.

At this point I would not be upset if they did; as I'd love to see President Sasse, Cotton, or Kennedy.

[BmorePat87]

(05-02-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Understood. As I said it's my simplistic look at it. Not considering which is "better or worse".

Also as a business Major I never went much past Government 101. So can someone answer the following simple questions for me, so I am clear. Thought I was, be now I'm not so sure:

Can Congress impeach POTUS (aka charge with a crime) if they feel such a crime has occurred?

If impeached and voted to be removed from office can POTUS be subject to greater punishment?

Can the VP and Cabinet remove POTUS if they agree to do so?

Doesn't really have anything to do with "better or worse", I was just clarifying.

To answer your questions: Yes, probably, and yes. 

[Benton]

(05-02-2019, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks, It's pretty much as I was tracking. All the "can't charge" talk had me thinking twice. So if Congress feels there's enough to recommend impeachment I'm sure they'll do it; regardless the AG's stance on charging.

At this point I would not be upset if they did; as I'd love to see President Sasse, Cotton, or Kennedy.

I don't think Congress will do much at this point outside of threaten. It'll be used heading into the 2020 elections, probably something along the lines of 'do you want to waste your vote on a guy about to get impeached?' or 'look how dirty they are, he's about to be impeaxhed but they stand behind him.' 

They'll use it to get elected/reelected but they won't do anything unless it looks like they'll lose. 

The embarrassing part for Dems is this is the about the office or the good of the country, it's job security.

[Dill]

(05-02-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Can the VP and Cabinet remove POTUS if they agree to do so?

Yes. 25th Amendment, passed once Congress learned that Wilson had been incapacitated by a stroke and his staff strove to keep it secret.

If the "Fake News" is to be believed, Rosenstein discussed this option at one point.

[Belsnickel]

Surprised this wasn't posted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.e5c421be55f1

Quote:More than 450 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he holds.

The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime.

Mueller had declined to say one way or the other whether Trump should have been charged, citing a Justice Department legal opinion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing someone for whom there can be no court proceeding.

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the former federal prosecutors wrote.

“We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment,” they added. “Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. . . . But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.”

The statement is notable for the number of people who signed it — 375 as of early Monday afternoon, growing to 459 in the hours after it published — and the positions and political affiliations of some on the list. It was posted online Monday afternoon; those signing it did not explicitly address what, if anything, they hope might happen next.

Among the high-profile signers are Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is running against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination; Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration; John S. Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge appointed to his posts by Republican presidents; Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; and Jeffrey Harris, who worked as the principal assistant to Rudolph W. Giuliani when he was at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

The list also includes more than 20 former U.S. attorneys and more than 100 people with at least 20 years of service at the Justice Department — most of them former career officials. The signers worked in every presidential administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a former federal prosecutor, joined the letter after news of it broke, and Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted his support for its premise .

The signatures were collected by the nonprofit group Protect Democracy, which counts Justice Department alumni among its staff and was contacted about the statement last week by a group of former federal prosecutors, said Justin Vail, an attorney at Protect Democracy.

“We strongly believe that Americans deserve to hear from the men and women who spent their careers weighing evidence and making decisions about whether it was sufficient to justify prosecution, so we agreed to send out a call for signatories,” Vail said. “The response was overwhelming. This effort reflects the voices of former prosecutors who have served at DOJ and signed the statement.”

Weld said by the time he reviewed the statement, it already had more than 100 signatures, and he affixed his name because he had concluded the evidence “goes well beyond what is required to support criminal charges of obstruction of justice.”

“I hope the letter will be persuasive evidence that Attorney General Barr’s apparent legal theory is incorrect,” he said.

A spokesman for the special counsel’s office declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department referred a reporter to Barr’s previous public statements on the subject.

Many legal analysts have wondered since Mueller’s report was released whether the special counsel believed he had sufficient evidence to charge Trump and was just unwilling to say it out loud.

By the report’s account, Trump — after learning he was being investigated for obstruction — told his White House counsel to have Mueller removed. And when that did not work, according to Mueller’s report, Trump tried to have a message passed to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the scope of Mueller’s authority. Of that episode, Mueller’s team wrote there was “substantial evidence” to indicate Trump was trying to “prevent further investigative scrutiny” of himself and his campaign.

“All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions,” the former federal prosecutors wrote in their letter.

They wrote that prosecuting such cases was “critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk.”

Mueller’s team, though, wrote that it decided not to make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” in part because of the Justice Department opinion on not indicting sitting presidents and because the evidence obtained “presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved” if they were to do so.

“At the same time, 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,” Mueller’s team wrote.

After receiving Mueller’s report, Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein reviewed the case themselves and determined the evidence was not there. He offered a robust defense of that decision at a recent congressional hearing, detailing for lawmakers possible defenses Trump could have raised in each episode.

“The government has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt,” Barr said. “And, as the report shows, there’s ample evidence on the other side of the ledger that would prevent the government from establishing that.”

[Bengalzona]

(05-06-2019, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Surprised this wasn't posted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.e5c421be55f1

But Hillary!!!

But Obama!!!!

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-06-2019, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Surprised this wasn't posted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?utm_term=.e5c421be55f1

Its disgusting and epically frustrating at the same time.

I have been whining about a broke ass two party system for a long time. Basically 98% of the Republican party being on board with what is happening proves it. Its all about power. Party over country. We are being led by incorrectly spelled tweets from a moron at the head of a party of spineless cowards. The same kind of people that enable dictators.

[*michaelsean*]

The question is can he do what he did in cases that don't concern him, and does that make a difference? Somehow this stuff should be under the judiciary, and then we won't have this problem.

[jj22]

Reading thought the Mueller report, it's clear Trump would be in prison if not for being President. He'll still fall under the statue if voted out in 2 years, and likely will face charges for all sorts of stuff (involving fraud in the Trump Org, taxes, collusion, and obstruction etc) then. This is far from over regardless of how much spin is coming from Barr (who is scared to testify under oath), Trump, and his supporters.

Actions speak louder then words. Trump doesn't want Mueller to testify under oath, Barr wants no part of testifying under oath. These aren't the actions of a man who claims to be fully exonerated. But by now we all (even if his supporters won't admit it) that he was never fully exonerated. Not even close.

[Dill]

(05-06-2019, 09:40 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: But Hillary!!!
But Obama!!!!

Excellent point.  Deep-state Republicans in the FBI let them go scot free.

But they hate Trump so they have to investigate all the many (lied about) contacts between his administration and our Russian adversary, though we could be friends with Russia if we could just drop the sanctions on them and keep Trump as president.

Now NO ONE is talking about the ATTEMPTED COUP against Trump except this guy  (and Fox).
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/05/07/trump-tweet-stolen-presidency-steve-cortes-kirsten-powers-anderson-cooper-panel-ac360-vpx.cnn

Trump should get two more years to make up for the two stolen from him.  It's only fair.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/05/trump-term-mueller-1302643
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/jerry-falwell-jr-extend-trumps-term-as-reparations.html

If the president in question was anyone else, the suggestion from a prominent supporter, Jerry Falwell Jr., that he was owed an extension of his term as “reparations” for the Mueller investigation could be dismissed as mere rhetorical excess combined with an effort to taunt liberals for their interest in reparations for the descendants of slaves. But because Donald Trump has repeatedly fanned claims that he regards anything that gets in his way — say, an adverse 2020 election — as an extra-constitutional “coup,” it’s not so easy to laugh this off:

Quote:After the best week ever for @realDonaldTrump - no obstruction, no collusion, NYT admits @BarackObama did spy on his campaign, & the economy is soaring. I now support reparations-Trump should have 2 yrs added to his 1st term as pay back for time stolen by this corrupt failed coup
— Jerry Falwell (@JerryFalwellJr) May 5, 2019

Time to start the investigation into the president's opponents now.  Putin would not let his get off like that.

[jj22]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9b00111f2a0b

Update.
Matt Zapotosky Retweeted Matt Zapotosky

The signatories on this have grown to 650. When we first broke the news of the statement's existence yesterday shortly after 1 p.m. - just as it was made public - the count was at 375. The @protctdemocracy effort to collect those initial signatures was all behind the scenes.

[jj22]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/fbi-chief-wray-says-spying-didn-t-occur-trump-campaign-n1002806?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

[Belsnickel]

(05-07-2019, 09:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The question is can he do what he did in cases that don't concern him, and does that make a difference? Somehow this stuff should be under the judiciary, and then we won't have this problem.

As the US is a common law country, we lean towards a primarily adversarial judicial system. What this means is that our judiciary, as described by Hamilton in Federalist 78, is only there to levy judgment. It sits as an independent referee in matters between two parties. This is the result of our English origins, as they are also rooted in this common law/adversarial system.

In civil law systems, such as what is found in most of the EU, they also have an inquisitorial (which sounds bad, but isn't really) judiciary. What this means is that judges play a role in investigating the facts of a case. There is a judicial law enforcement which is primarily responsible for criminal investigations and the like and the prosecutors are a part of the judicial branch. What this means is that criminal cases are between the defendant and the judiciary, not the defendant and the executive with the judiciary as a mediator. The executive still maintains a police force which handles more of the public safety situations--the day-to-day patrol type of work.

There are pros and cons, there, but the civil law system provides greater independence from the other two branches, bringing them closer to being on their level. It does, however, open the judiciary to more corruption as the more power gained, the more potential to twist it there is. Civil law systems do not allow for judicial precedence to create law, it is only creating by the people (or their duly elected representatives).

It's hard to get into all of the differences because each country is a little different and so the nuances are plentiful. My main point here is that this type of system does exist, but our constitutional framework is that of a common law country. This is likely to keep the judiciary--the non-elected branch--the weakest of the three as it lacks purse or sword. There are pros and cons to both primary types of judicial systems and we have to think long and hard about the wisdom of changing that balance.

[jj22]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/07/don-mcgahn-wont-comply-with-house-democrats-subpoena-1308802

More obstruction from a POTUS who now knows (as well as anyone who is reading the Mueller report) he committed crimes and can continue to do so without fear of being prosecuted as long as he's in office. Not the best lesson to learn for a criminal. But Trump has learned it and has dug in.

For people who refuse to read the Mueller report so that they can regurgitate Fox News and Hannity summaries without guilt, I ask, you really think this is the actions of a man who was "fully exonerated" by the Mueller report?

He's lying to you, but then again, yall already know it.

Love yourself, and love this country. Don't keep playing a fool for a man with Trumps "integrity".

[Dill]

(05-07-2019, 12:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As the US is a common law country, we lean towards a primarily adversarial judicial system. What this means is that our judiciary, as described by Hamilton in Federalist 78, is only there to levy judgment. It sits as an independent referee in matters between two parties. This is the result of our English origins, as they are also rooted in this common law/adversarial system.

In civil law systems, such as what is found in most of the EU, they also have an inquisitorial (which sounds bad, but isn't really) judiciary. What this means is that judges play a role in investigating the facts of a case. There is a judicial law enforcement which is primarily responsible for criminal investigations and the like and the prosecutors are a part of the judicial branch. What this means is that criminal cases are between the defendant and the judiciary, not the defendant and the executive with the judiciary as a mediator. The executive still maintains a police force which handles more of the public safety situations--the day-to-day patrol type of work.

There are pros and cons, there, but the civil law system provides greater independence from the other two branches, bringing them closer to being on their level. It does, however, open the judiciary to more corruption as the more power gained, the more potential to twist it there is. Civil law systems do not allow for judicial precedence to create law, it is only creating by the people (or their duly elected representatives).

It's hard to get into all of the differences because each country is a little different and so the nuances are plentiful. My main point here is that this type of system does exist, but our constitutional framework is that of a common law country. This is likely to keep the judiciary--the non-elected branch--the weakest of the three as it lacks purse or sword. There are pros and cons to both primary types of judicial systems and we have to think long and hard about the wisdom of changing that balance.

Excellent summary.  Frankly, though, I think there are mostly cons to any system which sets up direct conflict between defendant and judiciary.

[Belsnickel]

(05-07-2019, 05:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Excellent summary.  Frankly, though, I think there are mostly cons to any system which sets up direct conflict between defendant and judiciary.

I tend to agree. I dislike the idea of the inquisitorial trial process. At the same time, however, I see a value in the criminal investigation being separate from the executive and a part of the judiciary. We can see throughout history the challenges with both common and civil law systems and the way the justice system has been corrupted either by the executive or the judicial branches, depending on the country.

[Lucidus]

(05-02-2019, 01:57 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Based upon what?  Obstruction of justice?  They will reach the same conclusion as Mueller; while we can't say he did, we can't say he didn't.  The Republican controlled Senate would never impeach Trump with that level of certainty/uncertainty.

Impeachment is something the democrats shouldn't pursue because the Senate will ensure it will never succeed.  Unless the purpose of pursuing impeachment is some Benghazi-like smear campaign and if it is shame on them.  It is a waste of time, effort, and tax payer's money.

What the democrats need to focus on instead of impeachment is a platform for the next presidential election which will attract voters.  Something Hillary Clinton failed to do effectively and is the real reason she lost the election, although Russian interference and a campaign of misinformation certainly played a part.  Instead of concentrating on what they can do to damage their opponent politically, they need to focus on what they can do to help their constituents.  That applies to both parties.

Mueller's conclusion was constrained do to his adherence to the OLC opinion that a sitting President should not be indicted. For that reason, Mueller would not, and could not, charge Mr. Trump himself. Given that he could not charge the POTUS based on said adherence to the OLC's opinion, it also limited him as far as any statements concerning presumed guilt or innocence. 

Instead, he chose to present 10 examples of clear obstruction in his report for consideration to those that due have the power and obligation to evaluate the actions of the POTUS and determine how to proceed. 

Hundreds of current and former prosecutors recently submitted their conclusion on the matter, and in their collective judgement, Mr. Trump broke the law on several occasions. Congress has an obligation -- regardless of election posturing or consternation -- to due it's duty, which includes impeachment if they determine the evidence warrants it. I have a hard time believing that any rational person could look at the evidence at this point and make any determination other than the President obstructed or attempted to obstruct (also a crime) multiple times.

If the Democrats follow your advice and forgo impeachment, I fear they will be seen as extremely weak and disinterested in justice, which will in turn cause the a greater portion of the electorate to throw their collective hands in the air and ask, "why even bother." If everyone is exempt from accountability and the Democratic party is unwilling to provide a sense of justness and fairness, then why should the masses care which party wins. 

You're correct that impeachment in the House will die with the current Senate. However, it would at least show that the Democrats are willing to take a stand, show a semblance of backbone and carry out the lawful duty. If they don't, I will offer that it makes Trump all the more powerful and greatly enhances his bid for a second term. He will look strong and vindicated, while Democrats will look weak and incompetent. 

[*michaelsean*]

(05-07-2019, 09:18 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Mueller's conclusion was constrained do to his adherence to the OLC opinion that a sitting President should not be indicted. For that reason, Mueller would not, and could not, charge Mr. Trump himself. Given that he could not charge the POTUS based on said adherence to the OLC's opinion, it also limited him as far as any statements concerning presumed guilt or innocence. 

Instead, he chose to present 10 examples of clear obstruction in his report for consideration to those that due have the power and obligation to evaluate the actions of the POTUS and determine how to proceed. 

Hundreds of current and former prosecutors recently submitted their conclusion on the matter, and in their collective judgement, Mr. Trump broke the law on several occasions. Congress has an obligation -- regardless of election posturing or consternation -- to due it's duty, which includes impeachment if they determine the evidence warrants it. I have a hard time believing that any rational person could look at the evidence at this point and make any determination other than the President obstructed or attempted to obstruct (also a crime) multiple times.

If the Democrats follow your advice and forgo impeachment, I fear they will be seen as extremely weak and disinterested in justice, which will in turn cause the a greater portion of the electorate to throw their collective hands in the air and ask, "why even bother." If everyone is exempt from accountability and the Democratic party is unwilling to provide a sense of justness and fairness, then why should the masses care which party wins. 

You're correct that impeachment in the House will die with the current Senate. However, it would at least show that the Democrats are willing to take a stand, show a semblance of backbone and carry out the lawful duty. If they don't, I will offer that it makes Trump all the more powerful and greatly enhances his bid for a second term. He will look strong and vindicated, while Democrats will look weak and incompetent. 

None of that matters. If they deem impeachment could hurt them with the middle they won’t do it. They may lose a few of their voters to third party, but most people will realize that voting third party helps Trump. If they think impeachment will help them then they will. They also have to make sure they have the votes.