Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[GP270watch]

 The Presidency of The United States is an office that is not only granted tremendous powers, it is also insulated from the normal justice and accountability systems every other American is subjected to. This is why you don't screw around and elect a scumbag to be President in the first place.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Lawfare's excellent as usual summary of the report: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis

[J. J.]

There is something in Mueller for everyone.

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank. 

2.  The Russians certainly did try to interfere in the 2016 election.

3.  Trump certainly wanted the investigation to end.

4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

Some of Trump's comments, at least, are natural and not obstruction.  He was angry that an investigation into something that was false.  It is very reasonable for someone who is under investigation to be angry, especially when it is for something that didn't happen. 

The problem is that Trump said he wanted something that would be OoJ done, his staff said no, and he didn't push it.  Pushing for it would have been OoJ; asking about it and effectively being talked out of it, may not be.

This, however, creates a problem for the Democrats.  They cannot overplay it.  The can't claim obstruction, because there wasn't actual obstruction.  They can't claim collusion, because there wasn't any collusion.  The only thing that the Democrats could claim is that Trump wanted to obstruct justice, but didn't. 

It is the same legally as you saying to someone "Tell the police I was with you last Tuesday," with the response being "No."  If you did not commit a crime last Tuesday, does that even rise to the level of obstruction? 

Politically, that is a hard sell.  (I think it would be a hard sell for a jury, for that matter.)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Lester Holt and the NBC team are currently discussing the report "falling with a thud" for Democrats.

Of course, the opposite of the Atlas Forum

I was watching NBC a few minutes ago. I did not get that impression at all.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2019/04/18/disappointed-nbc-mueller-report-falling-thud-democrats

There's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_7zCmW6k1o

2:06:00 onward is Lester Holt and the gang. First off, the coverage started almost immediately after the report was released. So they were still reading during the coverage. But secondly, this coverage isnt  "democrats are disappointed, the report isn't serious". They make multiple mentions of congress and impeachment. So, your really grasping at straws here.

Don't bother. Naso is a borderline illiterate who will never read the report, and believes all sorts of things that aren't true.

It's a conspiracy by big-nosed people.

[Virginiá]

4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.”

You can keep saying he didn't obstruct justice, but that doesn't make it true. Trump walked because he is president and Mueller was not going to try and challenge the opinion of indicting a sitting president.

You're right about one thing though, the report does have something for everyone. Since Mueller didn't try to indict Trump, he clearly did not obstruct justice! Clearly!

Oh, except for these times I suppose:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

[LBJer]

There is something in Mueller for everyone.

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank. 

2.  The Russians certainly did try to interfere in the 2016 election.

3.  Trump certainly wanted the investigation to end.

4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

Some of Trump's comments, at least, are natural and not obstruction.  He was angry that an investigation into something that was false.  It is very reasonable for someone who is under investigation to be angry, especially when it is for something that didn't happen. 

The problem is that Trump said he wanted something that would be OoJ done, his staff said no, and he didn't push it.  Pushing for it would have been OoJ; asking about it and effectively being talked out of it, may not be.

This, however, creates a problem for the Democrats.  They cannot overplay it.  The can't claim obstruction, because there wasn't actual obstruction.  They can't claim collusion, because there wasn't any collusion.  The only thing that the Democrats could claim is that Trump wanted to obstruct justice, but didn't. 

It is the same legally as you saying to someone "Tell the police I was with you last Tuesday," with the response being "No."  If you did not commit a crime last Tuesday, does that even rise to the level of obstruction? 

Politically, that is a hard sell.  (I think it would be a hard sell for a jury, for that matter.)

I suggest you actually, you know, read the report. 

[Hindsight was 2020]

There is something in Mueller for everyone.

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank. 

2.  The Russians certainly did try to interfere in the 2016 election.

3.  Trump certainly wanted the investigation to end.

4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

Some of Trump's comments, at least, are natural and not obstruction.  He was angry that an investigation into something that was false.  It is very reasonable for someone who is under investigation to be angry, especially when it is for something that didn't happen. 

The problem is that Trump said he wanted something that would be OoJ done, his staff said no, and he didn't push it.  Pushing for it would have been OoJ; asking about it and effectively being talked out of it, may not be.

This, however, creates a problem for the Democrats.  They cannot overplay it.  The can't claim obstruction, because there wasn't actual obstruction.  They can't claim collusion, because there wasn't any collusion.  The only thing that the Democrats could claim is that Trump wanted to obstruct justice, but didn't. 

It is the same legally as you saying to someone "Tell the police I was with you last Tuesday," with the response being "No."  If you did not commit a crime last Tuesday, does that even rise to the level of obstruction? 

Politically, that is a hard sell.  (I think it would be a hard sell for a jury, for that matter.)

The Mueller report says the Trump campaign knew about the hacking in advance, was in contact with Wikileaks, and welcomed the hacking to their benefit. But because collusion says they needed to be in on the hacking and they weren’t. That’s some pretty important context to the issue

[Thatkat04]

There is something in Mueller for everyone.

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank. 

2.  The Russians certainly did try to interfere in the 2016 election.

3.  Trump certainly wanted the investigation to end.

4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

Some of Trump's comments, at least, are natural and not obstruction.  He was angry that an investigation into something that was false.  It is very reasonable for someone who is under investigation to be angry, especially when it is for something that didn't happen. 

The problem is that Trump said he wanted something that would be OoJ done, his staff said no, and he didn't push it.  Pushing for it would have been OoJ; asking about it and effectively being talked out of it, may not be.

This, however, creates a problem for the Democrats.  They cannot overplay it.  The can't claim obstruction, because there wasn't actual obstruction.  They can't claim collusion, because there wasn't any collusion.  The only thing that the Democrats could claim is that Trump wanted to obstruct justice, but didn't. 

It is the same legally as you saying to someone "Tell the police I was with you last Tuesday," with the response being "No."  If you did not commit a crime last Tuesday, does that even rise to the level of obstruction? 

Politically, that is a hard sell.  (I think it would be a hard sell for a jury, for that matter.)

The delusion.

[Nyvin]

There is something in Mueller for everyone.

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank.  


4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

These two are wrong.    We already knew of the "collusion" with Russia (Collusion is not a legal term, so it's pretty vague).   Barr's summary just stipulated that the Trump Campaign didn't actively coordinate with the Russian Government,  which is practically meaningless since the Russian government simply had third party operatives do all the dirty work.  

It doesn't matter if Trump attempts to interfere with the investigation were "successful" it just matters that he tried to interfere...which is VERY plainly written out in the report multiple times.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

There is something in Mueller for everyone.

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank. 


4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

These two are wrong.    We already knew of the "collusion" with Russia (Collusion is not a legal term, so it's pretty vague).   Barr's summary just stipulated that the Trump Campaign didn't actively coordinate with the Russian Government,  which is practically meaningless since the Russian government simply had third party operatives do all the dirty work.   

It doesn't matter if Trump attempts to interfere with the investigation were "successful" it just matter that he tried to interfere...which is VERY plainly written out in the report multiple times.

Mueller's report states that conspiracy and collusion are synonyms and that the conspiracy between Russians and Trump's team wasn't established. No?

[Nyvin]

There is something in Mueller for everyone.

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank. 


4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

These two are wrong.    We already knew of the "collusion" with Russia (Collusion is not a legal term, so it's pretty vague).   Barr's summary just stipulated that the Trump Campaign didn't actively coordinate with the Russian Government,  which is practically meaningless since the Russian government simply had third party operatives do all the dirty work.   

It doesn't matter if Trump attempts to interfere with the investigation were "successful" it just matter that he tried to interfere...which is VERY plainly written out in the report multiple times.

Mueller's report states that conspiracy and collusion are synonyms and that the conspiracy between Russians and Trump's team wasn't established. No?

That hasn't been established, most of the data involving Russia are still redacted.

[J. J.]

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank.  What was claimed to have been some type of grand conspiracy wasn't.

The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.”

You can keep saying he didn't obstruct justice, but that doesn't make it true. Trump walked because he is president and Mueller was not going to try and challenge the opinion of indicting a sitting president.

You're right about one thing though, the report does have something for everyone. Since Mueller didn't try to indict Trump, he clearly did not obstruct justice! Clearly!

Oh, except for these times I suppose:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

I didn't say that there was no obstruction.  I said that there was no collusion. 

The obstruction case is difficult, even with an arguably lower standard of being an impeachable offense.  Trump would not need to be indicted for it for it to be impeachable.  The problem is trying to sell the American public that there was an attempt at obstruction when no obstruction occurred, and when the investigator were not interfered with in any way. 

[MasterJedi]

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank.  What was claimed to have been some type of grand conspiracy wasn't.

The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.”

You can keep saying he didn't obstruct justice, but that doesn't make it true. Trump walked because he is president and Mueller was not going to try and challenge the opinion of indicting a sitting president.

You're right about one thing though, the report does have something for everyone. Since Mueller didn't try to indict Trump, he clearly did not obstruct justice! Clearly!

Oh, except for these times I suppose:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

I didn't say that there was no obstruction.  I said that there was no collusion. 

The obstruction case is difficult, even with an arguably lower standard of being an impeachable offense.  Trump would not need to be indicted for it for it to be impeachable.  The problem is trying to sell the American public that there was an attempt at obstruction when no obstruction occurred, and when the investigator were not interfered with in any way. 

They said they couldn't prove he colluded not that he didn't.

[J. J.]

There is something in Mueller for everyone.

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank. 

2.  The Russians certainly did try to interfere in the 2016 election.

3.  Trump certainly wanted the investigation to end.

4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

Some of Trump's comments, at least, are natural and not obstruction.  He was angry that an investigation into something that was false.  It is very reasonable for someone who is under investigation to be angry, especially when it is for something that didn't happen. 

The problem is that Trump said he wanted something that would be OoJ done, his staff said no, and he didn't push it.  Pushing for it would have been OoJ; asking about it and effectively being talked out of it, may not be.

This, however, creates a problem for the Democrats.  They cannot overplay it.  The can't claim obstruction, because there wasn't actual obstruction.  They can't claim collusion, because there wasn't any collusion.  The only thing that the Democrats could claim is that Trump wanted to obstruct justice, but didn't. 

It is the same legally as you saying to someone "Tell the police I was with you last Tuesday," with the response being "No."  If you did not commit a crime last Tuesday, does that even rise to the level of obstruction? 

Politically, that is a hard sell.  (I think it would be a hard sell for a jury, for that matter.)

The delusion.

Like Steny Hoyer's? 

[Crumpets]

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank.  What was claimed to have been some type of grand conspiracy wasn't.

The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.”

You can keep saying he didn't obstruct justice, but that doesn't make it true. Trump walked because he is president and Mueller was not going to try and challenge the opinion of indicting a sitting president.

You're right about one thing though, the report does have something for everyone. Since Mueller didn't try to indict Trump, he clearly did not obstruct justice! Clearly!

Oh, except for these times I suppose:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

I didn't say that there was no obstruction.  I said that there was no collusion.

The obstruction case is difficult, even with an arguably lower standard of being an impeachable offense.  Trump would not need to be indicted for it for it to be impeachable.  The problem is trying to sell the American public that there was an attempt at obstruction when no obstruction occurred, and when the investigator were not interfered with in any way. 

I mean, you wrote "nobody actually obstructed justice" in #4.

[J. J.]

 Deleted

[J. J.]

They said they couldn't prove he colluded not that he didn't.

That is all that they can do.  If there was something there, it is very likely to have been discovered. 

[Badger]

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank.  What was claimed to have been some type of grand conspiracy wasn't.

The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.”

You can keep saying he didn't obstruct justice, but that doesn't make it true. Trump walked because he is president and Mueller was not going to try and challenge the opinion of indicting a sitting president.

You're right about one thing though, the report does have something for everyone. Since Mueller didn't try to indict Trump, he clearly did not obstruct justice! Clearly!

Oh, except for these times I suppose:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

I didn't say that there was no obstruction.  I said that there was no collusion. 

The obstruction case is difficult, even with an arguably lower standard of being an impeachable offense.  Trump would not need to be indicted for it for it to be impeachable.  The problem is trying to sell the American public that there was an attempt at obstruction when no obstruction occurred, and when the investigator were not interfered with in any way. 

They said they couldn't prove he colluded not that he didn't.

This. Prove it Beyond A Reasonable Doubt specifically. However, there is evidence Galore of collusion with Russian sources in attempts to alter the election. Again, there was no statement whatsoever that the evidence didn't exist, merely that it could not prove an actual criminal conspiracy case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt in court.

Saying there's no evidence of collusion point blank as you did, JJ, is a flat-out falsehood. Not a difference of opinion, just two plus two equals five factually incorrect.

[Badger]

They said they couldn't prove he colluded not that he didn't.

That is all that they can do.  If there was something there, it is very likely to have been discovered. 

And. They. Did.

Lots and lots of somethings. All thoroughly documented in this report you obviously haven't read or even reviewed excerpts from in-depth. The only difference was that the report concluded the more than several instances combined we're not sufficient to prove criminal conspiracy Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

[Virginiá]

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank.  What was claimed to have been some type of grand conspiracy wasn't.

The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.”

You can keep saying he didn't obstruct justice, but that doesn't make it true. Trump walked because he is president and Mueller was not going to try and challenge the opinion of indicting a sitting president.

You're right about one thing though, the report does have something for everyone. Since Mueller didn't try to indict Trump, he clearly did not obstruct justice! Clearly!

Oh, except for these times I suppose:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

I didn't say that there was no obstruction.  I said that there was no collusion. 

The obstruction case is difficult, even with an arguably lower standard of being an impeachable offense.  Trump would not need to be indicted for it for it to be impeachable.  The problem is trying to sell the American public that there was an attempt at obstruction when no obstruction occurred, and when the investigator were not interfered with in any way. 

I only quoted the wrong text. You said exactly that:

4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

And what you said was simply not true. Mueller said that because they declined to prosecute, they would not make a conclusion, and punted the matter to Congress but listed 10 ways Trump acted to impede the investigation.

AT THE VERY LEAST, you should have said as much. But somehow deciding that Trump & co didn't obstruct based purely on what Mueller said is wrong and misconstrues what the report actually said. You're just picking what you want from it.

[Nyvin]

They said they couldn't prove he colluded not that he didn't.

That is all that they can do.  If there was something there, it is very likely to have been discovered.  

It's not that they "Didn't find collusion" it's that they literally CANNOT SAY that there was collusion because that would equate to an indictment of a sitting president which the OLC says the special council cannot do.

If the special council spelled out in black and white that Trump committed a crime they would be indicting him, so they can't say that he committed a crime,  that's you're "no collusion".

What the special council "could've" done is say there was "no collusion" at all, which they didn't.   That's not an indictment so they'd be free to do that, they didn't.  That tells you all you need to know.

[J. J.]

I mean, you wrote "nobody actually obstructed justice" in #4.

Obstruction would have to be with the investigators or someone at Justice.  You would actually have to interfere with the investigation.  Trump's aides did not carry that order, and Trump did not push them.

Had they, you could be talking obstruction, at least from a legal sense.

Like I said, I think Trump wanted to take actions that would have been obstruction, but they were not carried out.  Further, Trump didn't press it when they were not carried.  They were not attempted.

Trying to charge someone, or impeach someone, for "Thinking about obstructing justice, but not actually trying to influence the investigators," is exceptionally difficult.

Like I've said, Hoyer has it right. 

[Nyvin]

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank.  What was claimed to have been some type of grand conspiracy wasn't.

The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.”

You can keep saying he didn't obstruct justice, but that doesn't make it true. Trump walked because he is president and Mueller was not going to try and challenge the opinion of indicting a sitting president.

You're right about one thing though, the report does have something for everyone. Since Mueller didn't try to indict Trump, he clearly did not obstruct justice! Clearly!

Oh, except for these times I suppose:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

I didn't say that there was no obstruction.  I said that there was no collusion. 

The obstruction case is difficult, even with an arguably lower standard of being an impeachable offense.  Trump would not need to be indicted for it for it to be impeachable.  The problem is trying to sell the American public that there was an attempt at obstruction when no obstruction occurred, and when the investigator were not interfered with in any way. 

They said they couldn't prove he colluded not that he didn't.

incorrect.

[Nyvin]

I mean, you wrote "nobody actually obstructed justice" in #4.

Obstruction would have to be with the investigators or someone at Justice.  You would actually have to interfere with the investigation.  Trump's aides did not carry that order, and Trump did not push them.

Wrong.   Success doesn't matter, intention is what matters in court of law.

[Person Man]

I mean, you wrote "nobody actually obstructed justice" in #4.

Obstruction would have to be with the investigators or someone at Justice.  You would actually have to interfere with the investigation.  Trump's aides did not carry that order, and Trump did not push them.

Wrong.   Success doesn't matter, intention is what matters in court of law.

There’s a bunch of lonely guys on the wrong side of town that want that to be true.