Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[Landslide Lyndon]

Obviously you guys don't know who JJ is.

[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.

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

This would not be a court of law; this would be an impeachment.  It is a different standard. 

 Trump didn't talk to the investigators or anyone with oversight or that could have had oversight, neither directly nor indirectly.  That is the entire problem, even from trying to make a legal case. 

In a criminal case, this would be like asking you secretary to talk to the DA, a friend of hers, and your secretary saying "no."

[riceowl]

Obviously you guys don't know who JJ is.

[Person Man]

Obviously you guys don't know who JJ is.

[J. J.]

I remember how well everyone here did on the Kavanaugh confirmation. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I see J.J. is bringing his usual gold standard of analysis.

[Badger]

I remember how well everyone here did on the Kavanaugh confirmation. 

Yes. Far far far better than you.

[Person Man]

I see J.J. is bringing his usual gold standard of analysis.

He can be vaguely right sometimes.  The quintessential JJism is predicting an Obama presidency would be followed by him losing reelection and being replaced by W-style Republicans in both elected branches and houses. Eventually we got a hard right regime but it took until 2016 and was based on ethnic than religious nationalism and was also a one Congress wonder.

[Badger]

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.

This would not be a court of law; this would be an impeachment.  It is a different standard. 

 Trump didn't talk to the investigators or anyone with oversight or that could have had oversight, neither directly nor indirectly.  That is the entire problem, even from trying to make a legal case. 

In a criminal case, this would be like asking you secretary to talk to the DA, a friend of hers, and your secretary saying "no."

That's not even remotely close. But you are one of the most stubbornly, obstinately, and habitually wrong posters on this forum. So I'm just going to sit back with some chips and watch you make a blithering fool out of yourself per usual.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

This would not be a court of law; this would be an impeachment.  It is a different standard. 

 Trump didn't talk to the investigators or anyone with oversight or that could have had oversight, neither directly nor indirectly.  That is the entire problem, even from trying to make a legal case. 

In a criminal case, this would be like asking you secretary to talk to the DA, a friend of hers, and your secretary saying "no."

That's not even remotely close. But you are one of the most stubbornly, obstinately, and habitually wrong posters on this forum. So I'm just going to sit back with some chips and watch you make a blithering fool out of yourself per usual.

That's about like watching the Knicks play basketball.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I can understand (though I disagree with) that you disregard Barr's opinion on OOJ as partisan, but why disregard Rosenstein's?


As I have already written,

he is the one who appointed Mueller,
he is the one who has been very supportive and defended Mueller during the whole investigation (right?),
he is the one who allegedly was freaking out about Trump going to obstruct the justice and therefore talking about invoking the 25th,
he is resigning soon, and basically has nothing to lose, but his reputation.


Why would he covering up President Trump who's gone in 2-6 years?
Does his opinion not mean anything? Nothing?

[Thatkat04]

I can understand (though I disagree with) that you disregard Barr's opinion on OOJ as partisan, but why disregard Rosenstein's?


As I have already written,

he is the one who appointed Mueller,
he is the one who has been very supportive and defended Mueller during the whole investigation (right?),
he is the one who allegedly was freaking out about Trump going to obstruct the justice and therefore talking about invoking the 25th,
he is resigning soon, and basically has nothing to lose, but his reputation.


Why would he covering up President Trump who's gone in 2-6 years?
Does his opinion not mean anything? Nothing?

What opinion? As far as I can tell, he hasn't done or said anything. Yes, he was standing behind Barr during the press conference but he is the Deputy Attorney General.

Edit: If you mean about him agreeing with Barr on Obstruction of Justice, again, he is Deputy Attorney General. Its not his job to take a stand.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Mueller infamous decision for lack of indictment of Trump Jr, is the worst decision of this report, which could of supported impeachment for Trump, should he have dangled a pardon in front of his own son. That's why its a bad report.

[Nyvin]

I can understand (though I disagree with) that you disregard Barr's opinion on OOJ as partisan, but why disregard Rosenstein's?


As I have already written,

he is the one who appointed Mueller,
he is the one who has been very supportive and defended Mueller during the whole investigation (right?),
he is the one who allegedly was freaking out about Trump going to obstruct the justice and therefore talking about invoking the 25th,
he is resigning soon, and basically has nothing to lose, but his reputation.


Why would he covering up President Trump who's gone in 2-6 years?
Does his opinion not mean anything? Nothing?

Rosenstein hasn't made any public statement about the report since it's release (that I know of...?).   Why would he?   AG Barr is in charge of the department now and isn't recused,  it'd be incredibly awkward for Rosenstein to make any contradictory statement about the report.

[Joe Republic]

I’m so glad that if I ask my buddy to help me murder somebody, my buddy says no, and the cops find out about it anyway, I’ll get away with it like nothing happened because hey, nobody got murdered!

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I can understand (though I disagree with) that you disregard Barr's opinion on OOJ as partisan, but why disregard Rosenstein's?


As I have already written,

he is the one who appointed Mueller,
he is the one who has been very supportive and defended Mueller during the whole investigation (right?),
he is the one who allegedly was freaking out about Trump going to obstruct the justice and therefore talking about invoking the 25th,
he is resigning soon, and basically has nothing to lose, but his reputation.


Why would he covering up President Trump who's gone in 2-6 years?
Does his opinion not mean anything? Nothing?

What opinion? As far as I can tell, he hasn't done or said anything. Yes, he was standing behind Barr during the press conference but he is the Deputy Attorney General.

Edit: If you mean about him agreeing with Barr on Obstruction of Justice, again, he is Deputy Attorney General. Its not his job to take a stand.

Yes, I talked about him agreeing with Barr.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice, Mr. Barr said, so he made his own decision. The attorney general and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators had insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed that offense.

Mr. Barr’s letter said that the Mueller report identified no actions that, in his and Mr. Rosenstein’s minds, “constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent.” Mr. Barr did not consult Mr. Mueller in writing his letter to leaders of the congressional judiciary committees, a Justice Department official said on Sunday.

Also, Rosenstein wrote about Barr for Time 100
http://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2019/5567756/william-barr/

Sort of endorsement.

[Nyvin]

I can understand (though I disagree with) that you disregard Barr's opinion on OOJ as partisan, but why disregard Rosenstein's?


As I have already written,

he is the one who appointed Mueller,
he is the one who has been very supportive and defended Mueller during the whole investigation (right?),
he is the one who allegedly was freaking out about Trump going to obstruct the justice and therefore talking about invoking the 25th,
he is resigning soon, and basically has nothing to lose, but his reputation.


Why would he covering up President Trump who's gone in 2-6 years?
Does his opinion not mean anything? Nothing?

What opinion? As far as I can tell, he hasn't done or said anything. Yes, he was standing behind Barr during the press conference but he is the Deputy Attorney General.

Edit: If you mean about him agreeing with Barr on Obstruction of Justice, again, he is Deputy Attorney General. Its not his job to take a stand.

Yes, I talked about him agreeing with Barr.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice, Mr. Barr said, so he made his own decision. The attorney general and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators had insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed that offense.

Mr. Barr’s letter said that the Mueller report identified no actions that, in his and Mr. Rosenstein’s minds, “constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent.” Mr. Barr did not consult Mr. Mueller in writing his letter to leaders of the congressional judiciary committees, a Justice Department official said on Sunday.

Also, Rosenstein wrote about Barr for Time 100
http://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2019/5567756/william-barr/

Sort of endorsement.

That's not a public statement, that's Barr saying that Rosenstein was involved....huge difference. 

And that "endorsement" is just a generic piece in a magazine, pretty much worthless.

[pbrower2a]

There is something in Mueller for everyone.

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank. 

Wrong. Trump's campaign was in collusion with Russian intelligence, Russian plutocrats, and perhaps even with Russian crime syndicates. The report indicates that even supplying intelligence against the opposition is a violation of campaign-finance laws.

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

The Russians had their dupe and knew it. Undeniably true.

3.  Trump certainly wanted the investigation to end.

Criminal investigations end quickly if there is nothing worthy of prosecution.

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

People lied to investigators (which is obstruction of justice) on his behalf.
 

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. 

Denying guilt is not obstruction of justice. Attempts to deceive or deflect an investigation, or destruction of evidence, is obstruction of justice.  J. Edgar Hoover put it clearly enough: find the liars and you find the crime. That is how Robert Mueller works.  

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.

 

Gangster bosses from Al Capone to Antichrist Hitler have typically let subordinates do the dirty work without giving explicit instructions. There is no written order by Capone for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and no document ordering the Holocaust that has the signature of you-know-who. Trump has connections to organized crime, so he has learned a few things that have influenced his style of management.

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.

The Mueller Report begins with serious violations of campaign-finance law. In a close election, such could constitute electoral fraud. Trump has collaborated with the intelligence service of a regime hostile to democracy. Of course there will be marginal cases in campaign contributions, as when they come from the US citizen spouse of a foreigner who has interests in the electoral process in America. This goes far beyond that.  

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? 

No crime, no obstruction. Truth that leads nowhere does not get followed. Police and DAs
have better things to do than to investigate non-offenses.

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

Had I been a juror on some of the cases already resolved, I would have voted "guilty" rather early, perhaps voting "not guilty" only to discuss more testimony and evidence before coming to a decision. Jury decisions are definitive on facts of a case unless testimony is perjured or evidence is fabricated.

[emailking]

I can understand (though I disagree with) that you disregard Barr's opinion on OOJ as partisan, but why disregard Rosenstein's?


As I have already written,

he is the one who appointed Mueller,
he is the one who has been very supportive and defended Mueller during the whole investigation (right?),
he is the one who allegedly was freaking out about Trump going to obstruct the justice and therefore talking about invoking the 25th,
he is resigning soon, and basically has nothing to lose, but his reputation.


Why would he covering up President Trump who's gone in 2-6 years?
Does his opinion not mean anything? Nothing?

I'm fine with his opinion and don't think it's partisan. Mueller appears to disagree with him though. It appears Mueller thinks all elements of an obstruction charge are met for 6 of the 10 instances he looked at. But he thinks he does not have the authority to bring charges against the President. Barr and Rosenstein don't think it meets that burden. But Mueller's opinion counts too.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1119324901259661312

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

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.

This would not be a court of law; this would be an impeachment.  It is a different standard. 

 Trump didn't talk to the investigators or anyone with oversight or that could have had oversight, neither directly nor indirectly.  That is the entire problem, even from trying to make a legal case. 

In a criminal case, this would be like asking you secretary to talk to the DA, a friend of hers, and your secretary saying "no."

That's not even remotely close. But you are one of the most stubbornly, obstinately, and habitually wrong posters on this forum. So I'm just going to sit back with some chips and watch you make a blithering fool out of yourself per usual.

That's about like watching the Knicks play basketball.

I know first hand .

[Sestak]

Huh, it seems there was actually a good bit more in there than I was expecting after Barr’s statement.

[Inmate Trump]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

[T'Chenka]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

Yep. It absolutely will not though. Modern Americans prefer blind loyalty to unwavering principles.

[SteveRogers]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1119324901259661312

Yes yes. As usual, Republican Senators are “very concerned” by the President’s behavior but unwilling to do a damn thing about it.