The Mueller Report thread

[*michaelsean*]

(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.

Yeah I prefer it our way, but it just leads to, what appears to me, to be some tricky legal issues when you consider the unique position of the president. Can he perform a lawful act and be convicted of obstruction?

[Bengalzona]

How many GOP Senators are in states with Democrat Governors?

Just asking for a friend.

[*bfine32*]

(05-07-2019, 10:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I prefer it our way, but it just leads to, what appears to me, to be some tricky legal issues when you consider the unique position of the president. Can he perform a lawful act and be convicted of obstruction?

This is kinda where I'm at. He appears to be "guilty" of things he's allowed to do. It's part of checks and balances.

[hollodero]

(05-07-2019, 10:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I prefer it our way, but it just leads to, what appears to me, to be some tricky legal issues when you consider the unique position of the president. Can he perform a lawful act and be convicted of obstruction?

If not though, how is a president then not above the law? And no matter the system, this never should be the case. But it seems to be the case when a president simply can fire anyone that investigates him and there's no possibility to hold him responsible for that. Hypothetically speaking.

Btw. I guess it's about "intent" and that this aspect has to play a role to avoid said "above the law" conundrum.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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. 

So the Democrats should pursue a course of action you admit will fail so they can appear strong and competent while making Trump appear the opposite?

Will the Democrats appear strong and competent when the fail as you admit they will? No.

Will the Democrat's predetermined failure make Trump appear weak or guilty of a crime? No. It will do just the opposite.

[Dill]

(05-07-2019, 10:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.

I think there are a lot of Democrats, starting with Elizabeth Warren, who will do what they think is the right thing to do, regardless of what "helps" with an election.

I don't think they have to make sure they have the votes.

Let the House vote to impeach and let the Senate stop them.

That makes clear what each party stands for.

And Trump pays some price at least for criminal behavior.

[Dill]

(05-08-2019, 01:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So the Democrats should pursue a course of action you admit will fail so they can appear strong and competent while making Trump appear the opposite?

Will the Democrats appear strong and competent when the fail as you admit they will?  No.

Will the Democrat's predetermined failure make Trump appear weak or guilty of a crime? No. It will do just the opposite.

No one can say for sure how the public would react, since 40+% of voters think the Russian investigation was a "witch hunt."

But I think if the House votes to impeach, and the Senate refuses to impeach, that will not make Trump look strong or innocent.

It will mean the Dems stood up to him (and for principle) while the Republicans put party (and a bad president) before the country.

[*michaelsean*]

I guess my next question is, do you have to actually have obstructed justice? Do you actually have to have hampered the investigators' ability to do their job?

[Belsnickel]

(05-07-2019, 10:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I prefer it our way, but it just leads to, what appears to me, to be some tricky legal issues when you consider the unique position of the president. Can he perform a lawful act and be convicted of obstruction?

Which is why there is the impeachment process. The problem is that it only works when we have a functioning government that puts the interests of the people above their own. Because of decades of efforts to wrest power from the people, an ever decreasing level of representation in the legislature, and a reliance on tabloid style politics, we lack a Congress that puts that best interests of the country first.

As for your question: yes. Should he? No. Impeachment is an inherently political process, but it should be similar to a trial in that is relies on facts and evidence. The root of the question, though, is whether what he did was lawful.

What is in the Mueller report is enough to gain an indictment, at least according to 735 (as of right now) former federal prosecutors. It should be noted that an indictment is not saying he is guilty, it just moves the process to the next step. For impeachment proceedings, the House voting to impeach would be the same as a grand jury voting to indict.

The process then moves to a trial in the Senate overseen by the Chief Justice of the United States. Just like a criminal trial in the judicial system, this is intended to rely on the evidence before them during the trial. It provides an opportunity for a defense but it also allows questioning that can get at the root of intent. Corrupt intent can make lawful actions by the POTUS unlawful. The problem is that Trump's refusal to meet with Mueller or to cooperate fully with the investigation meant that intent was near impossible to ascertain during the investigation. If there were impeachment proceedings, then it would not be able to be avoided.

I've been against impeachment proceedings until the Mueller report came out, and have continued to be. I don't see the point when I know that it will be political theater instead of the serious process it is intended to be. I find my position harder to hold with the recent letter from prosecutors, but I'm still there.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2019, 08:38 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I guess my next question is, do you have to actually have obstructed justice? Do you actually have to have hampered the investigators' ability to do their job?

No. An attempt to obstruct justice, even if it fails, is still a felony.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-08-2019, 04:35 AM)Dill Wrote: No one can say for sure how the public would react, since 40+% of voters think the Russian investigation was a "witch hunt."

But I think if the House votes to impeach, and the Senate refuses to impeach, that will not make Trump look strong or innocent.

It will mean the Dems stood up to him (and for principle) while the Republicans put party (and a bad president) before the country.

Stand up to him with an electable candidate with a platform that will actually do something for the people and get him out of office then he is actually indictable. Once he is indictable, I suspect the star of New York has something waiting for dat ass.

If you impeach him then Pence is president. That guy doesn't trust himself to be alone in the same room with a woman who isn't his wife. No way do I want Pence to do to this country what he did to Indiana. He's like the Christian Taliban. Trump's a lot of things, but he isn't a conservative Christian. He only pretends to be. Poorly.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-08-2019, 08:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is why there is the impeachment process. The problem is that it only works when we have a functioning government that puts the interests of the people above their own. Because of decades of efforts to wrest power from the people, an ever decreasing level of representation in the legislature, and a reliance on tabloid style politics, we lack a Congress that puts that best interests of the country first.

As for your question: yes. Should he? No. Impeachment is an inherently political process, but it should be similar to a trial in that is relies on facts and evidence. The root of the question, though, is whether what he did was lawful.

What is in the Mueller report is enough to gain an indictment, at least according to 735 (as of right now) former federal prosecutors. It should be noted that an indictment is not saying he is guilty, it just moves the process to the next step. For impeachment proceedings, the House voting to impeach would be the same as a grand jury voting to indict.

The process then moves to a trial in the Senate overseen by the Chief Justice of the United States. Just like a criminal trial in the judicial system, this is intended to rely on the evidence before them during the trial. It provides an opportunity for a defense but it also allows questioning that can get at the root of intent. Corrupt intent can make lawful actions by the POTUS unlawful. The problem is that Trump's refusal to meet with Mueller or to cooperate fully with the investigation meant that intent was near impossible to ascertain during the investigation. If there were impeachment proceedings, then it would not be able to be avoided.

I've been against impeachment proceedings until the Mueller report came out, and have continued to be. I don't see the point when I know that it will be political theater instead of the serious process it is intended to be. I find my position harder to hold with the recent letter from prosecutors, but I'm still there.

Mueller didn't find any proof of collusion but discovered, to the shock of no one, that Trump was involved in some shady decision making.  What is demonstrably true is that he found no smoking gun.  This is important as the left and the Dems, to varying degrees, have been banging the impeachment drum from the day after the election.  In so doing they actually made doing so infinitely more difficult, as now any attempt to impeach, without the aforementioned smoking gun, will reek of partisanship and the Dems running with a predetermined outcome. 

I agree with your argument against impeachment and I would add this; impeachment proceedings will work 100% in Trump's favor.  It will allow him to further castigate the "deep state", paint the left and Dems as being against the democratic process (which is made even easier by their calls to abolish the EC and, by more radical voices "pack" the SCOTUS) and portray himself as a crusader against the "un-American" views of the left.  I guarantee you that Trump is praying for the House to vote to impeach.  Political theatre is his bailiwick , and impeachment, as you correctly state, would be only that.

[fredtoast]

(05-08-2019, 11:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree with your argument against impeachment and I would add this; impeachment proceedings will work 100% in Trump's favor.  It will allow him to further castigate the "deep state", paint the left and Dems as being against the democratic process (which is made even easier by their calls to abolish the EC and, by more radical voices "pack" the SCOTUS) and portray himself as a crusader against the "un-American" views of the left.  I guarantee you that Trump is praying for the House to vote to impeach.  Political theatre is his bailiwick , and impeachment, as you correctly state, would be only that.

This.

[Dill]

(05-08-2019, 11:29 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Stand up to him with an electable candidate with a platform that will actually do something for the people and get him out of office then he is actually indictable. Once he is indictable, I suspect the star of New York has something waiting for dat ass.

If you impeach him then Pence is president. That guy doesn't trust himself to be alone in the same room with a woman who isn't his wife. No way do I want Pence to do to this country what he did to Indiana. He's like the Christian Taliban. Trump's a lot of things, but he isn't a conservative Christian. He only pretends to be. Poorly.

Trump won't be impeached in that Senate.  The point is to stand up to him. 

I would take Pence over Trump though. He would likely pick a better War Cabinet and listen to them. Less danger of war with Iran or withdrawing from Korea.  A pretend Christian will then greatly help Dem chances in 2020.

[jj22]

(05-08-2019, 11:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Mueller didn't find any proof of collusion but discovered, to the shock of no one, that Trump was involved in some shady decision making.  What is demonstrably true is that he found no smoking gun.  This is important as the left and the Dems, to varying degrees, have been banging the impeachment drum from the day after the election.  In so doing they actually made doing so infinitely more difficult, as now any attempt to impeach, without the aforementioned smoking gun, will reek of partisanship and the Dems running with a predetermined outcome. 

I agree with your argument against impeachment and I would add this; impeachment proceedings will work 100% in Trump's favor.  It will allow him to further castigate the "deep state", paint the left and Dems as being against the democratic process (which is made even easier by their calls to abolish the EC and, by more radical voices "pack" the SCOTUS) and portray himself as a crusader against the "un-American" views of the left.  I guarantee you that Trump is praying for the House to vote to impeach.  Political theatre is his bailiwick , and impeachment, as you correctly state, would be only that.

Mueller found plenty of proof of collusion. Intent and the criminal evidence is what saved Trump. Plenty of people however get away with crimes because of technicalities in our legal system. No matter how much damaging information prosecutors have.

Jr's meeting with the Russians about "adoption" when they were really after the info they gathered via the hack. Trump claiming he didn't know but busted for being apart of writing the statement. This was a big part of the Mueller report, along with the decision of the RNC to remove tough Russia language from the platform in an attempt to repay them for the hack that happened DNC after Trump called for them to.

What the Mueller report does say is that there wasn't enough legal proof a crime was committed because Trump himself was found not to be involved with the polls provided to the Russians by members of his campaign that kept the Russians up to date as far as when to release harmful Hillary emails and fake news info via social media.

There's actually a lot in the Mueller report about the investigation of collusion and while it does lead to there not being enough information to charge Trump with collusion (if they could), the lay out plenty of info on what happened.

The moral of the Mueller report is the sitting POTUS can't be charged with a crime. Enough to make Trump supporters celebrate I understand, but a far cry from this notion of exoneration.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-08-2019, 12:26 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump won't be impeached in that Senate.  The point is to stand up to him. 

I would take Pence over Trump though. He would likely pick a better War Cabinet and listen to them. Less danger of war with Iran or withdrawing from Korea.  A pretend Christian will then greatly help Dem chances in 2020.

Pence's war cabinet would consist of the father, son, and holy ghost. Who knows what Pence will imagine the voices in his head will advise vs. the great Satan known as Iran? The Second Coming possibly? Not for nothing, but if someone hears voices that's psychosis. F that.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-08-2019, 04:29 AM)Dill Wrote: I think there are a lot of Democrats, starting with Elizabeth Warren, who will do what they think is the right thing to do, regardless of what "helps" with an election.

I don't think they have to make sure they have the votes.

Let the House vote to impeach and let the Senate stop them.

That makes clear what each party stands for.

And Trump pays some price at least for criminal behavior.

You already know the outcome of the vote. You already know what each party stands for: the power to control.

Trump isn't going to pay any price for criminal behavior via impeachment because he will not be impeached and he cannot be indicted while president (at least not without a court battle which will eventually need to be decided by the SCOTUS.)

The quickest way to punish him is to defeat him in the next presidential election.

[Aquapod770]

(05-08-2019, 12:51 PM)jj22 Wrote: Mueller found plenty of proof of collusion. Intent and the criminal evidence is what saved Trump. Plenty of people however get away with crimes because of technicalities in our legal system. No matter how much damaging information prosecutors have.

Jr's meeting with the Russians about "adoption" when they were really after the info they gathered via the hack. Trump claiming he didn't know but busted for being apart of writing the statement. This was a big part of the Mueller report, along with the decision of the RNC to remove tough Russia language from the platform in an attempt to repay them for the hack that happened DNC after Trump called for them to.

What the Mueller report does say is that there wasn't enough legal proof a crime was committed because Trump himself was found not to be involved with the polls provided to the Russians by members of his campaign that kept the Russians up to date as far as when to release harmful Hillary emails and fake news info via social media.

There's actually a lot in the Mueller report about the investigation of collusion and while it does lead to there not being enough information to charge Trump with collusion (if they could), the lay out plenty of info on what happened.

The moral of the Mueller report is the sitting POTUS can't be charged with a crime. Enough to make Trump supporters celebrate I understand, but a far cry from this notion of exoneration.

Do you listen to yourself dewd?

[Dill]

(05-08-2019, 12:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:
Pence's war cabinet would consist of the father, son, and holy ghost. Who knows what Pence will imagine the voices in his head will advise vs. the great Satan known as Iran?  The Second Coming possibly?  Not for nothing, but if someone hears voices that's psychosis. F that.

  I'm ok with Jesus.  Not the father though. Old Testament guy. Which one is the NSC advisor?

[jj22]

(05-08-2019, 01:26 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote:

Do you listen to yourself dewd?

Did you read the report?

Mueller didn't absolve him of anything. Plenty of people with what you'd think would be enough evidence to convict get let off due to technicalities. In laymen's terms, this is what happened.

The issue with collusion from a legality standpoint isn't giving information to Russia (which the Trump campaign did), or trying to get information from Russia, which the Trump campaign did, or even calling for them to attack an American (which Trump did). It's working DIRECTLY with them on the attack on America (which they didn't help them hack the DNC, or give them the emails to release a timely moments of the campaign).

The report really breaks it all down. Trump wasn't charged, and Trump supporters think that is the underlining point (and it is), but ignoring the moral of the story (a sitting POTUS can't be charged) and ignoring what is "wrong" may not always mean criminal by the letter of the law (conning someone for example).

Plenty of people get away with crimes due to the letter of the law and our legal system. If you sat on a jury, you know how hard it is to convict, even with what people with no legal backgrounds see as overwhelming evidence.

The picture the report paints is Trump and his campaign was "in the know" about the attack and hack, the RNC worked to reward them for the attack, members of the campaign provided Russia operatives information about polling and were in direct communication with them on sanctions and other "perks" of supporting Trump. All done indirectly (which legally isn't criminal) but it's clear collusion if not the criminal definition took place.