The Mueller Report thread

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2019, 12:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ignorance isn't an excuse.  He wanted a new job and got it.  It's on him to learn at least some of the rules.

Many of his supporters have raved about how he bucks trends and does things "his way" like with NK and China and how it's about time someone did that.  And when he fails miserably they chalk it up to "ignorance".

You say you are not a Trump supporter/defender.

I didn't quote you.

Yet here you are.

Maybe more READING slower and less typing would help you?

Not a Hilary supported either but I freely admit she didn't commit a crime as SOS.. And you know why? Ignorance. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-19-2019, 07:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose you've missed in my last 2 posts that although I feel you cheery picked the words you used, I said it really doesn't matter. Why do you continue to argue the point conceded instead addressing my constantly bringing up the highlighted word of corruptly ?  

So we’re only suppose to pay attention to the single word you cherry picked? Okay.

Directing others to be dishonest to investigators to save his own ass meets the definition of corrupt.

[GMDino]

(09-19-2019, 03:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not a Hilary supported either but I freely admit she didn't commit a crime as SOS.. And you know why? Ignorance. 

"freely"?  

Oh, right!  I remember the post after post you made "defending" her for not being charged with a crime!  Slipped my mind there for a minute because it never happened. 

I am glad that Clinton was brought in as an example to defend Trump again though.  I miss it when she isn't mentioned.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2019, 04:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So we’re only suppose to pay attention to the single word you cherry picked? Okay.

Directing others to be dishonest to investigators to save his own ass meets the definition of corrupt.

You can pay attention to as much of it as you want. Benton just said I only needed to use the words he highlighted, so I did so. They most key word in his bolded words was corruptly; it's very important in determining whether a crime was committed or not. Your declaration of corruption aside: depending on the bias of the source (much like this forum) you will hear folks opine whether or not he had corrupt intentions. 

It appears the Mueller report found no Corrupt intentions, as the Dems have torn that report up, down, and sideways and there is no finding of corrupt intentions.

Do you have an example of Trump telling folks to lie to investigators? If so please share it so we can examine it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-19-2019, 03:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not a Hilary supported either but I freely admit she didn't commit a crime as SOS.. And you know why? Ignorance. 

That’s odd because I thought you freely wrote everybody knows she should have been at least brought to trial for what she did. On what charge? Ignorance? LOL. Your use of “at least” would suggest you thought there should be more than just a trial. What else do you think should have happened to someone whom you freely admit didn’t commit a crime?

[Benton]

(09-19-2019, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can pay attention to as much of it as you want. Benton just said I only needed to use the words he highlighted, so I did so. They most key word in his bolded words was corruptly; it's very important in determining whether a crime was committed or not. Your declaration of corruption aside: depending on the bias of the source (much like this forum) you will hear folks opine whether or not he had corrupt intentions. 

It appears the Mueller report found no Corrupt intentions, as the Dems have torn that report up, down, and sideways and there is no finding of corrupt intentions.

Do you have an example of Trump telling folks to lie to investigators? If so please share it so we can examine it.

The last I'm saying on it, asking someone to do something illegal is a corrupt act.

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2019, 04:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: "freely"?  

Oh, right!  I remember the post after post you made "defending" her for not being charged with a crime!  Slipped my mind there for a minute because it never happened. 

I am glad that Clinton was brought in as an example to defend Trump again though.  I miss it when she isn't mentioned.  

Of course I've freely asserted that Hillary didn't commit a crime. You've been asked to stop lying in the past, but you continue to do so. My stance has been that Hillary broke laws, but she did not commit a crime because wait for it......here it comes......almost here......ignorance.. Now you can be a man and apologize for constantly lying about what I say because I seriously doubt that some Board Member that has never been in this forum before or after will chime in here and state "you better".  

She was brought in because you stated ignorance is not an excuse and she's a prime example of a case I've pointed to in the past. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-19-2019, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can pay attention to as much of it as you want. Benton just said I only needed to use the words he highlighted, so I did so. They most key word in his bolded words was corruptly; it's very important in determining whether a crime was committed or not. Your declaration of corruption aside: depending on the bias of the source (much like this forum) you will hear folks opine whether or not he had corrupt intentions. 

It's not my declaration of corrupt, it's simply the definition: corrupt

Quote:It appears the Mueller report found no Corrupt intentions, as the Dems have torn that report up, down, and sideways and there is no finding of corrupt intentions.

That is patently false.

Quote:Do you have an example of Trump telling folks to lie to investigators? If so please share it so we can examine it.

Yeah, Mueller's congressional testimony under oath.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-testimony-trump-don-mcgahn-lie-karen-bass-a9018956.html

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2019, 05:11 PM)Benton Wrote: The last I'm saying on it, asking someone to do something illegal is a corrupt act.

If I give a Mardi Gras reveler in Mobile plastic -based confetti and tell them to throw it in the air, I'm corrupt; even if I don't know it's illegal. 

And the last I'll say on it is: You may have just painted with the broadest brush I've ever seen. 

[GMDino]

(09-19-2019, 05:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I've freely asserted that Hillary didn't commit a crime. You've been asked to stop lying in the past, but you continue to do so. My stance has been that Hillary broke laws, but she did not commit a crime because wait for it......here it comes......almost here......ignorance.. Now you can be a man and apologize for constantly lying about what I say because I seriously doubt that some Board Member that has never been in this forum before or after will chime in here and state "you better".  

She was brought in because you stated ignorance is not an excuse and she's a prime example of a case I've pointed to in the past. 

I didn't "lie" (lolz) about you saying Hillary didn't commit a crime.  I said you didn't post you didn't make post after post defending her for not being charged with a crime.

Point two would be (your "stance" aside) she was not not charged due to "ignorance" but rather "intent".

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was

Quote:“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”


Asked when he was persuaded to change his mind, Baker said: “Pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end.”


Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: “My original belief after — well, after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials — I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged.”


His boss, Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend criminal charges. He did so without consulting the Department of Justice, a decision the department’s inspector general (IG) later concluded was misguided and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts that finding but took the actions he did because he thought “they were in the country's best interest.”


Baker acknowledged that during the weeks leading up to the announcement, Comey “would throw things out like that to get people to start talking and thinking about it and test his conclusions.”


Baker said that if he had been more convinced there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, “I would have argued that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view.”

https://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-investigation/

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]Over the course of the investigation, the agents found thousands of emails that contained information that should have been treated as government secrets, Comey said Tuesday, including eight messages that had Top Secret information in them. All those messages had been sent or received through unsecure, unclassified channels on Clinton’s private e-mail network. And while agents found no direct evidence that the network was hacked, the FBI thinks it is possible some “hostile actors” may have done so. That combination of facts led Comey to declare Tuesday that Clinton and her aides had been “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]Technically speaking, that conclusion could have put Clinton in legal jeopardy. The laws regarding handling of classified information don’t authorize punishing government officials for carelessness, but they are written so broadly they come close. One section of the Espionage Act, 18USC793(f), for example, says anyone authorized to handle secrets who “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Other laws controlling government secrets are similarly broad, especially with regard to Top Secret material.[/color]


[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]In practice, however, law enforcement officials have set a high bar for prosecuting violations of those laws, looking for clear criminal intent, which Comey said was absent in the Clinton case. Because the government is awash in secrets, they are regularly mishandled unintentionally. In 2013, according to the National Archives, which tracks classification, executive branch agencies created more than 77 million documents with secrets in them, including 46,800 with newly created secrets. The FBI receives dozens of referrals of leaked classified information every year, according to Justice Department declarations to Congress.[/color]

If you want to use Clinton as another defense for DJT at least try and argue he didn't INTEND to give away secrets.  I mean that's laughable as anyone who listens to Trump knows he loves bragging up what he "knows".  His best defense is ignorance.  That's what Mueller said about Junior and the rest of the gang that couldn't lie straight.

"be a man and apologize" 

[GMDino]

(09-19-2019, 05:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yeah, Mueller's congressional testimony under oath.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-testimony-trump-don-mcgahn-lie-karen-bass-a9018956.html

Yes, but other than an actual example of what he was literally asking for?!?!



This is what happens when someone doesn't do the reading and still wants an A on the book report.

[GMDino]

1,000 words pic.twitter.com/MOTaNYBQ3v

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 19, 2019

 

[*bfine32*]

This is my first post on the subject

(09-19-2019, 03:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not a Hilary supported either but I freely admit she didn't commit a crime as SOS.. And you know why? Ignorance. 

This is you calling me a liar as you placed the ? after freely

(09-19-2019, 04:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: "freely"?  

Oh, right!  I remember the post after post you made "defending" her for not being charged with a crime!  Slipped my mind there for a minute because it never happened. 

Once you called me a liar I replied with exactly what I said in the first thread where you called me a liar and asked you to apologize 

(09-19-2019, 05:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I've freely asserted that Hillary didn't commit a crime. You've been asked to stop lying in the past, but you continue to do so. My stance has been that Hillary broke laws, but she did not commit a crime because wait for it......here it comes......almost here......ignorance.. Now you can be a man and apologize for constantly lying about what I say because I seriously doubt that some Board Member that has never been in this forum before or after will chime in here and state "you better".  

She was brought in because you stated ignorance is not an excuse and she's a prime example of a case I've pointed to in the past. 

This is you being "forthright" because you used a different word than I did when accusing me of lying 

(09-19-2019, 06:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: I didn't "lie" (lolz) about you saying Hillary didn't commit a crime.  I said you didn't post you didn't make post after post defending her for not being charged with a crime.

Not one person in this forum expected you to be forthright. But know this is the last exchange I will have with you in this forum. You've got entirely too many friends/ your own alts in high places and there's no chance of standing up to that. 

[Belsnickel]

Whether the intentions need to be corrupt in order for a conspiracy charge to be valid depends on whether you prescribe to the Powell Doctrine or if you follow the Model Penal Code, which refutes it. The MPC rejects the Powell Doctrine and states that corrupt motive need not apply in conspiracy charges and as such ignorance of the law, even if acting in good faith, is not a valid defense against the charges.

All of that being said, abuse of office is a corrupt act. As such, using, or attempting to use, one's office to stop or inhibit an investigation into oneself or persons close to oneself would be an abuse of office in any legal opinion I have seen. As such, the actions of Trump to conspire to interfere with the investigation in some way would be an abuse of power, making it a corrupt motive.

So, whether you subscribe to the Powell Doctrine or the MPC, I would say it is fairly obvious that a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice could be made were Trump not POTUS. Since abuse of power alone could be considered a "high crime" using the contemporary definition of the term during the writing of the Constitution, it seems fairly obvious to me that there are grounds for impeachment based solely on the findings in the Mueller Report. However, given the hyper-partisan environment of our politics today and the lack of concern for the welfare of our country and our democratic principles that are being exhibited by Congress, there is too much hesitation to act on this.

The fact that this continues to go on and there is no accountability at the highest levels of our government is an affront to the ideals that the framers of our country imbued our government with. I'm going to be at Mount Vernon this weekend, and I'll probably be able to feel George Washington continually rolling over in his grave.

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2019, 09:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Whether the intentions need to be corrupt in order for a conspiracy charge to be valid depends on whether you prescribe to the Powell Doctrine or if you follow the Model Penal Code, which refutes it. The MPC rejects the Powell Doctrine and states that corrupt motive need not apply in conspiracy charges and as such ignorance of the law, even if acting in good faith, is not a valid defense against the charges.

All of that being said, abuse of office is a corrupt act. As such, using, or attempting to use, one's office to stop or inhibit an investigation into oneself or persons close to oneself would be an abuse of office in any legal opinion I have seen. As such, the actions of Trump to conspire to interfere with the investigation in some way would be an abuse of power, making it a corrupt motive.

So, whether you subscribe to the Powell Doctrine or the MPC, I would say it is fairly obvious that a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice could be made were Trump not POTUS. Since abuse of power alone could be considered a "high crime" using the contemporary definition of the term during the writing of the Constitution, it seems fairly obvious to me that there are grounds for impeachment based solely on the findings in the Mueller Report. However, given the hyper-partisan environment of our politics today and the lack of concern for the welfare of our country and our democratic principles that are being exhibited by Congress, there is too much hesitation to act on this.

The fact that this continues to go on and there is no accountability at the highest levels of our government is an affront to the ideals that the framers of our country imbued our government with. I'm going to be at Mount Vernon this weekend, and I'll probably be able to feel George Washington continually rolling over in his grave.

Of course we'd all like to see accountability in our people of power, but I've also stated, be careful asking to see how the sausage is made. 

I have seen the counter to your point stated as: Is it corrupt to try to stop someone/thing from willfully working to find something against you after a reasonable period of time.

For instance in this case the report has been investigated, concluded, reported on for +/- 3 years. No charges have been filed. At what point can you say enough is enough? 

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2019, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course we'd all like to see accountability in our people of power, but I've also stated, be careful asking to see how the sausage is made. 

I know more than most about how the sausage is made. It infuriates me, but I still want people held accountable because I do not accept it. It violates western democratic principles and the values our country found so important that we fought a war over to become independent.

(09-19-2019, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have seen the counter to your point stated as: Is it corrupt to try to stop someone/thing from willfully working to find something against you after a reasonable period of time.

For instance in this case the report has been investigated, concluded, reported on for +/- 3 years. No charges have been filed. At what point can you say enough is enough? 

Well, the Special Counsel investigation took less than two years. During which time, multiple charges were filed against individuals who could have charges filed against them. Since there are policies in place that prevent charges being filed against a sitting POTUS, whether or not charges could have been brought against Trump were he not POTUS there would never be any charges. A constitutional duty of Congress is to provide oversight of the Executive Branch, and therefore it is their job to take the facts of the report on the investigation and determine whether or not impeachment proceedings are appropriate based on those and any other information they may gather through their own investigations. That is where we are now. The cry that "no charges have been brought" is meaningless because plenty of people have been charged and the person that the investigation is really about it unable to be charged.

The counter argument just shows the tolerance for corruption that some people have when it comes to elected officials, especially those they tend to side with. I have a very low tolerance for corruption within government because I believe in the values of the Constitution that the government is by, of, and for the people. It is not for the elected officials in office, it is for the people. Corruption occurs when officials put their own interests above those of the people. Call me an idealist, but these lofty ideals of servant leadership are what founded this country and it's absolute bullshit how far we have come from that if we are willing to give that up.

[GMDino]

(09-20-2019, 08:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know more than most about how the sausage is made. It infuriates me, but I still want people held accountable because I do not accept it. It violates western democratic principles and the values our country found so important that we fought a war over to become independent.


Well, the Special Counsel investigation took less than two years. During which time, multiple charges were filed against individuals who could have charges filed against them. Since there are policies in place that prevent charges being filed against a sitting POTUS, whether or not charges could have been brought against Trump were he not POTUS there would never be any charges. A constitutional duty of Congress is to provide oversight of the Executive Branch, and therefore it is their job to take the facts of the report on the investigation and determine whether or not impeachment proceedings are appropriate based on those and any other information they may gather through their own investigations. That is where we are now. The cry that "no charges have been brought" is meaningless because plenty of people have been charged and the person that the investigation is really about it unable to be charged.

The counter argument just shows the tolerance for corruption that some people have when it comes to elected officials, especially those they tend to side with. I have a very low tolerance for corruption within government because I believe in the values of the Constitution that the government is by, of, and for the people. It is not for the elected officials in office, it is for the people. Corruption occurs when officials put their own interests above those of the people. Call me an idealist, but these lofty ideals of servant leadership are what founded this country and it's absolute bullshit how far we have come from that if we are willing to give that up.

A-(expletive deleted)-men.

[*bfine32*]

(09-20-2019, 08:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know more than most about how the sausage is made. It infuriates me, but I still want people held accountable because I do not accept it. It violates western democratic principles and the values our country found so important that we fought a war over to become independent.


Well, the Special Counsel investigation took less than two years. During which time, multiple charges were filed against individuals who could have charges filed against them. Since there are policies in place that prevent charges being filed against a sitting POTUS, whether or not charges could have been brought against Trump were he not POTUS there would never be any charges. A constitutional duty of Congress is to provide oversight of the Executive Branch, and therefore it is their job to take the facts of the report on the investigation and determine whether or not impeachment proceedings are appropriate based on those and any other information they may gather through their own investigations. That is where we are now. The cry that "no charges have been brought" is meaningless because plenty of people have been charged and the person that the investigation is really about it unable to be charged.

The counter argument just shows the tolerance for corruption that some people have when it comes to elected officials, especially those they tend to side with. I have a very low tolerance for corruption within government because I believe in the values of the Constitution that the government is by, of, and for the people. It is not for the elected officials in office, it is for the people. Corruption occurs when officials put their own interests above those of the people. Call me an idealist, but these lofty ideals of servant leadership are what founded this country and it's absolute bullshit how far we have come from that if we are willing to give that up.

As I said, we would all like to see people of power held accountable, but "until you've walked a mile in my shoes....." I know this sentiment speaks of "tolerance for corruption that some people have when it comes to elected officials, especially those they tend to side with." I've seen you mention Washington. How many people today would say he turned his back on our allies when he endorsed the Jay Treaty?  I want to see everyone be a boy-scout, but I also have to accept some ugly facts from time to time to maintain the balance.  

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2019, 09:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said, we would all like to see people of power held accountable, but "until you've walked a mile in my shoes....." I know this sentiment speaks of "tolerance for corruption that some people have when it comes to elected officials, especially those they tend to side with." I've seen you mention Washington. How many people today would say he turned his back on our allies when he endorsed the Jay Treaty?  I want to see everyone be a boy-scout, but I also have to accept some ugly facts from time to time to maintain the balance.  

You're trying to compare a difference in opinion over what is best for the country with a person in office putting themselves over the good of the country. There is a reason I don't talk about other officials with whom I have disagreed like this. I may have different opinions on policy than them, but that is different than the self-serving nature of Trump.

[jj22]

As discussed through social media, and news outlets across the world, Mueller was vindicated with the second attempt of collusion by Trump to attack America on record.

This thread should officially be closed. What else is there to discuss?

Thank you Mueller, and I apologize for those "Americans" who put Politics over the National security of this great Nation.