The Mueller Report thread

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

If W and Cheney weren't prosecuted after they left office then I think you're living in a dream world if you think Trump will. The POTUS, current or former, is never going to be prosecuted because every single one of them has done things they could be prosecuted for (except for Carter probably). Consequently, they won't want to set such a precedent. I remember many left leaning types salivating at the thought of Obama's justice department raking Cheney over the coals. Not only did it never happen it was never even brought up, once. Even if Trump loses in 2020 he's never going to be brought up on criminal charges.

[GMDino]

three years ago today...

The new joke in town is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails, which should never have been written (stupid), because Putin likes me

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2016

 


And DJT now only knew it was true he knew they were actively encouraging it.  And he still is.  While still denying it ever happened. "2funny"

[Belsnickel]

(07-24-2019, 11:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Lol, "exonerate"...   American system of justice "exonerates" no one.  The verdict is either guilty or not guilty.  There's no such thing as "exoneration" from a court, a prosecutor, or anyone.  It's only freakin' guilty, or not guilty..  If there wasn't enough evidence to refer for charges, then there's no crime to even be guilty or not guilty of.

Dude, I always thought that you were smarter than that??  

Actually, there is. However, it is something that comes after someone has been found guilty of a crime and then the verdict is reverse. That's the legal sense of the word. The word itself, though, is used in the context of the Mueller report simply to make explicit that the lack of indictment was not based on a lack of evidence.

The report itself lays out a plethora of evidence that could be used to indict. Enough, even, that I have heard several former federal prosecutors state that in their experience they would bring an indictment on three of the charges, even without an interview from Trump to get to intent. But, since Mueller knew from the onset that indictment was not going to be on the table thanks to the OLC memo, it wasn't on the menu. He could have literally had Trump tell him to his face that he was guilty of obstructing justice and there would be no indictment. He would have had the same conclusion in the second section of the report.

(07-24-2019, 11:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Tell that to you boy Don Trump...he keeps saying it and everyone keeps saying he's wrong.  Just like I did.

"smarter"

Edit: My bad. I didn't know you were just parroting your boy.

Months after proclaiming "total exoneration," Trump now says Mueller "never had the right to exonerate." pic.twitter.com/tbxbjDp2oz

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 24, 2019

Parrots gonna parrot.

(07-25-2019, 10:31 AM)hollodero Wrote: But in that case, this is not true. That's not Mueller's fault, it's that DOJ policy that he cannot possibly put a sitting president before a court. Hence he could not accuse him of a crime, for the system would grant Trump no court and therefore no defense as would be designated and in order.

You can't compare that with the "normal" instance, for it is not. It's quite clear. Even if Mueller found evidence Trump shot someone in the street, had found a smoking gun and a hundred witnesses, he could lay ot that evidence, but could not have gone further as to "not exonerate" him and maybe charge him after he's out of office. That's the "American system" for presidents.

You nailed it, here. Pretty sad that you're understanding our system of government better than some of our own citizens.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2019, 12:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, there is. However, it is something that comes after someone has been found guilty of a crime and then the verdict is reverse. That's the legal sense of the word. The word itself, though, is used in the context of the Mueller report simply to make explicit that the lack of indictment was not based on a lack of evidence.

The report itself lays out a plethora of evidence that could be used to indict. Enough, even, that I have heard several former federal prosecutors state that in their experience they would bring an indictment on three of the charges, even without an interview from Trump to get to intent. But, since Mueller knew from the onset that indictment was not going to be on the table thanks to the OLC memo, it wasn't on the menu. He could have literally had Trump tell him to his face that he was guilty of obstructing justice and there would be no indictment. He would have had the same conclusion in the second section of the report.


Parrots gonna parrot.


You nailed it, here. Pretty sad that you're understanding our system of government better than some of our own citizens.

Didn't Mueller clarify to say the reason he didn't indite was not because of the OLC memo, but rather because they "decided not to make a decision"

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2019, 10:31 AM)hollodero Wrote: But in that case, this is not true. That's not Mueller's fault, it's that DOJ policy that he cannot possibly put a sitting president before a court. Hence he could not accuse him of a crime, for the system would grant Trump no court and therefore no defense as would be designated and in order.

You can't compare that with the "normal" instance, for it is not. It's quite clear. Even if Mueller found evidence Trump shot someone in the street, had found a smoking gun and a hundred witnesses, he could lay ot that evidence, but could not have gone further as to "not exonerate" him and maybe charge him after he's out of office. That's the "American system" for presidents.

So are you saying the Dems were just talking out their asses when they kept saying "No one is above the Law"?

[Belsnickel]

(07-25-2019, 01:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't Mueller clarify to say the reason he didn't indite was not because of the OLC memo, but rather because they "decided not to make a decision"

My understanding was that they decided not to make a decision because of the OLC memo. That meant they had no decision to make.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2019, 01:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My understanding was that they decided not to make a decision because of the OLC memo. That meant they had no decision to make.

I though he corrected himself before the 2nd round of testimony and said to say the reason we didn't indite because of the OLC memo is incorrect.

[jj22]

That may have been the conservative media spin, but that wasn't accurate.

First he said he didn't prosecute because of the OLC (sounding like a decision was made to prosecute but not pursued because of the OLC).

Then he corrected it as there wasn't any decision to prosecute because of the OLC to make sure that wasn't the "breaking news" from the hearing.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2019, 01:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: That may have been the conservative media spin, but that wasn't accurate.

First he said he didn't prosecute because of the OLC (sounding like a decision was made to prosecute but not pursued because of the OLC).

Then he corrected it as there wasn't any decision to prosecute because of the OLC to make sure that wasn't the "breaking news" from the hearing.

Thanks, So is it incorrect to say he didn't prosecute because of the OLC memo?

[jj22]

It's incorrect for Dems to claim he planned to but didn't because of the OLC memo if that's what you heard.

I think it was important for him to clarify because prosecuting wasn't even the focus (because of the OLC memo).

I know. Seems like he is saying the same thing, but there is a difference especially when trying to avoid political spin.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 10:31 AM)hollodero Wrote: But in that case, this is not true. That's not Mueller's fault, it's that DOJ policy that he cannot possibly put a sitting president before a court. Hence he could not accuse him of a crime, for the system would grant Trump no court and therefore no defense as would be designated and in order.

You can't compare that with the "normal" instance, for it is not. It's quite clear. Even if Mueller found evidence Trump shot someone in the street, had found a smoking gun and a hundred witnesses, he could lay ot that evidence, but could not have gone further as to "not exonerate" him and maybe charge him after he's out of office. That's the "American system" for presidents.

And folks around here would be defending Trump anyway and looking for any technical way to imply he did no wrong.

[Bengalzona]

(07-25-2019, 11:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If W and Cheney weren't prosecuted after they left office then I think you're living in a dream world if you think Trump will.  The POTUS, current or former, is never going to be prosecuted because every single one of them has done things they could be prosecuted for (except for Carter probably).  Consequently, they won't want to set such a precedent.  I remember many left leaning types salivating at the thought of Obama's justice department raking Cheney over the coals.  Not only did it never happen it was never even brought up, once.  Even if Trump loses in 2020 he's never going to be brought up on criminal charges.

^ This

And as soon as one party or the other breaks that precedent, Pandora's Box is opened and all hell breaks loose, literally. Each time a party wins POTUS, they will pursue charges against the prior POTUS regardless because that reinforces the idea that they were "right to win the office".

Parties have traditionally tried to find candidates with reasonably higher moral character in order not to test this. At least they did until recently.

That said, they may be held accountable for crimes before they entered office or after they left office. It hasn't happened yet, but it could.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2019, 01:25 PM)jj22 Wrote: It's incorrect for Dems to claim he planned to but didn't because of the OLC memo if that's what you heard.

I think it was important for him to clarify because prosecuting wasn't even the focus (because of the OLC memo).

I know. Seems like he is saying the same thing, but there is a difference especially when trying to avoid political spin.

Thanks, You get spins from all directions. I found it funny when he basically said "we decided not to decide".

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 01:32 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: ^ This

And as soon as one party or the other breaks that precedent, Pandora's Box is opened and all hell breaks loose, literally. Each time a party wins POTUS, they will pursue charges against the prior POTUS regardless because that reinforces the idea that they were "right to win the office".

Parties have traditionally tried to find candidates with reasonably higher moral character in order not to test this. At least they did until recently.

That said, they may be held accountable for crimes before they entered office or after they left office. It hasn't happened yet, but it could.

Or they  just get pardoned and no one can do anything.

Or suddenly develop a disease where they can't remember anything.

[jj22]

It's still smart for Dem candidates to state the first thing they'll do when elected is to prosecute Trump.

Sure you'll hear the "lock her up" crowd cry foul for jailing a political opponent. But hey, they set the precedent for such promise.

It'll still be interesting to hear Conservative media act like it's completely un-American and a disgrace.

[GMDino]

Devin Nunes did his homework pic.twitter.com/Y8DzGoMlMM

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) July 24, 2019

[Goalpost]

Axelrod called the hearing very very painful to watch. Repubs don't have to spin anything.

[jj22]

Well tell that to Republicans who have been in full spin mode.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2019, 01:47 PM)jj22 Wrote: It's still smart for Dem candidates to state the first thing they'll do when elected is to prosecute Trump.

Sure you'll hear the "lock her up" crowd cry foul for jailing a political opponent. But hey, they set the precedent for such promise.

It'll still be interesting to hear Conservative media act like it's completely un-American and a disgrace.

I wonder if we'll hear "Lock Him Up" chants this election cycle.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2019, 12:41 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Utterly pathetic that this isn't something we can actually address.

The "lady" who blocked both bills yesterday tweeted this...after.

The House hearings rehashed what we already knew. There was no collusion. Let’s move forward to fight Russian meddling, get past the partisan wild goose chases and work on issues that matter to everyday Americans.

— U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (@SenHydeSmith) July 24, 2019

 


Completely unironically.