Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Sep 17 17:35:22 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / proof Republicans are corrupt (Mueller)
the wanderer
Thu May 30 13:00:32
Mueller: 'i can't charge Trump because ruled unconstitutional to indict a sitting president, i can't clear Trump as too much incriminating evidence, only Congress can proceed'

Republicans: 'well, i guess that's case closed!'

...and acting like it's crazy for Dems to want to take up the process

...also, fuck you, AG Barr
Thu May 30 14:21:56
"I didn't prove a negative"

the wanderer
Thu May 30 15:16:40
the idea Mueller wasn't supposed to exonerate Trump is a red herring

his saying he couldn't clear Trump was significant in concert w/ him saying he can't indict because of the OLC ruling and unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there would be no resolution

it is amazingly clear that he's handing it off to congress (or a prosecutor after Trump yanked out of the WH by whatever other means)
the wanderer
Thu May 30 15:18:01
there is no argument for R's claiming 'well, that's that'

unfortunately Barr's bullshit helped give them cover to do so
Thu May 30 17:10:08
Forty two members of the House of Representatives are calling for impeachment as of now. So your whatever other means is going to have to be the 2020 election.

The Democrats don't need another hearing. They have a comprehensive report. They should either use what is in the report to start impeachment procedures or shut up about it and move on.

Shouting we gotta impeach when there is no intention at all of actually proceeding is just grandstanding for attention.
Thu May 30 22:35:49
Trump clearly did impeachable crimes to anyone with a brain. But those with a brain are a minority in this country so it's best to wait until Trump is gone in 2020 (hopefully).

He is going to prison anyways with all the stuff New York Southern District has on him alone.

Which is why Trump will pull out every stop possible to try and cheat to win the election.
Fri May 31 06:39:53
Mueller inadvertently confirms William Barr didn't misrepresent his report
by Tiana Lowe

| May 29, 2019 11:55 AM

In Robert Mueller's first and only public remarks regarding the special counsel investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election, Mueller reiterated that the office declined to come to a conclusion about whether President Trump committed any obstruction of justice offenses.

"If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime, we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed both to inconclusive evidence as well as his assertion that charging a sitting president with a crime was "prohibited" and "unconstitutional."

None of this is explicitly new information, but that Mueller found it necessary to use his lone eight minutes of public speaking time out of the past three years is telling. It also further counters the charge that Attorney General William Barr misrepresented the outcome of the special counsel investigation.

Outside of Mueller's specific request that Barr use the executive summaries and introductions from the report as the initial summary of the investigation to the public — a move that was practically improbable and functionally impossible, given Barr's duty to decide after Mueller punted the obstruction question — Mueller's statement today only further bolsters the accuracy of Barr's framing in his letter summarizing the principle conclusions of the Mueller report.

Just 48 hours after receiving the Mueller report, Barr wrote:

The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.
applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

Compare this to the Executive Summary of Volume II of the Mueller report:

Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source.
Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

Even if Barr had subscribed to the exact same legal theories on obstruction and the criminal prosecution of a sitting president as Mueller does, his and Rosenstein's decision not to prosecute falls squarely in line with Mueller's. Perhaps Mueller wanted Barr to explain that Congress could still impeach Trump as a form of checks and balances on Trump, but why would Barr need to say so? He didn't exactly hide the ball that the evidence simply would not successfully clear the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required to convict Trump or any of his associates.

Barr's job is not to encourage Congress to use impeachment proceedings as a criminal trial. High crimes and misdemeanors posit a political reading, not a strictly legal one. Mueller couldn't have his cake (refusing to charge the president with a crime) and eat it too (fairly setting the stage for Congress to impeach Trump).

Even if Mueller's read of the law is accurate, Congress would have to reasonably believe that Trump committed some sort of political crime to then begin proceedings. Investigators aren't supposed to look for exculpatory evidence and then impugn a suspect when there isn't any, even more so when it's a politically charged body aimlessly searching for an underlying crime.

Barr's letter may have been cursory, but it certainly wasn't dishonest, and Mueller proved that on Wednesday.

Fri May 31 11:28:53
Why don’t they arrest Trump now?

Fri May 31 11:31:23
Nice to see NowThis news has dropped even the pretense of being anything other than. Democratic Party propaganda outlet.

Also, Robert De Niro hasn't made a good movie in decades.
the wanderer
Fri May 31 11:40:49
garbage article

He once again pointed both to inconclusive evidence as well as his assertion that charging a sitting president with a crime was "prohibited" and "unconstitutional."

Mueller said 'inconclusive evidence' in regards to conspiracy (collusion), not obstruction

and i agree Barr didn't technically lie in his memo just deliberately misled

Barr said this:
"The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. "

Barr is in no better position to make the call than Mueller (worse in every way, really... including expecially how he got the job by writing an 18-page memo about how Trump didn't obstruct). Mueller clearly saying (as he did in press conference) the Justice Dept can't address Trump's crimes, not just Mueller himself. So NO, Mueller NOT leaving it to the AG to make the call.

Barr repeatedly insinuated the OLC opinion was not critical when in fact it was 100% the reason Mueller didn't make a conclusion. Barr did it in his summary, in his testimony under oath, & that press conference before releasing report.

snippet of question/answer (full text lower)

So could you explain for us the special counsel's articulated reason for not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice and if it had anything to do with the department's long-standing guidance on not indicting a sitting president? "

(the correct answer is "YES, it was ENTIRELY because of the OLC opinion, Full Stop.")

Barr's answer, a twisted, lengthy answer avoiding the truth and concluding with:
"He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime."

which may be true... but Mueller's point is he made no conclusion because of the OLC ruling, so he didn't even go there. A listener to Barr would think Mueller didn't think enough evidence & wouldn't have charged... ** NOT THE CASE, AT ALL ** with strong evidence he WOULD have charged as that's why he keeps saying the OLC ruling prevented him, he's preserving evidence for future prosecutors, congress can take up, etc.


full text of Q/A so not accused of pulling snippets (it clearly leaves a misleading message)
Reporter: "Mr. Attorney General, we don't have the report in hand. So could you explain for us the special counsel's articulated reason for not reaching a decision on obstruction of justice and if it had anything to do with the department's long-standing guidance on not indicting a sitting president? And you say you disagree with some of his legal theories. What did you disagree with and why?"

Barr: "I would leave it to his description in the report, the special counsel's own articulation of why he did not want to make a determination as to whether or not there was an obstruction offense. But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed o'Callaghan, who is the principal associate deputy, on March 5th. We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime."

Barr also misled congress when a similar question asked (& even more of a wrong answer by Barr)

find one time Barr has said that Mueller didn't reach a conclusion because of the OLC ruling, good luck (and that is the 100% clear truth, said in report & by Mueller yesterday)

(you have Barr's memo, press conference, congressional testimony & at least 2 press interviews... ALL of them he misleads)
the wanderer
Fri May 31 11:46:34
*also substantial in believing Mueller would've charged is he laid out the 3 elements of the crime and analyzed the merits for each of Trump's obstructive behaviors, and found Trump to meet all 3 multiple times

...which as i've said before is why it's not shocking at all that ~1,000 prosecutors have said Trump would've been charged

and Justin Amash, rare R w/ a spine

...so again, fuck you, AG Barr
(for letting it simmer for weeks that Mueller didn't find clear obstruction

plus it allowed R's to ignore report altogether as the public already heard Barr's misleading summary)
Fri May 31 13:21:43
"Justin Amash, rare R w/ a spine"

Must be weird to have flashbacks from when you liked libertarian conservatives
Fri May 31 15:24:10
"Trump clearly did impeachable crimes to anyone with a brain."
So you won't mind educating us by listing the crime committed, providing proof of the crime and giving us a link to the law that he broke. After you present all those facts in a clear and concise way that can be easily verifiable maybe more will join the impeach Trump movement.
the wanderer
Fri May 31 16:22:30
obstruction of justice for starters

here's a diagram of which acts in Mueller report most fit obstruction
they don't do a great job of summarizing Mueller's analysis but you won't pay attention anyway

he is also in violation of the emoluments clause, and has committed numerous types of fraud
Fri May 31 21:24:04
Read that a while back tumbleweed. It starts with "The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice."

May have.

It is then filled with a lot of personal suppositions. He assumes a whole lot of intent.

What I asked for is the crime committed the evidence supporting that crime and the law that it broke.
Not a personal opinion based on what the author thinks the motives might have been.

"he is also in violation of the emoluments clause"

Examples? And remember the courts have ruled President Trump the person and Trump the brand are separate entities.
the wanderer
Fri May 31 22:10:23
so if 'Joe may have murdered his wife' do you say, 'well, case closed' or do you investigate it further?

Mueller said he was prohibited from making the call because of the OLC ruling & also that it would be unfair to accuse someone who would not have opportunity to defend themselves (something Barr REPEATEDLY misleads about... and why the 'if not for the OLC...' anecdote Barr keeps repeating is completely irrelevant)

and Mueller specifically noted unable to clear Trump (yes, not the job to clear someone, but COMBINED w/ him being unable to charge it has new meaning), & said preserving evidence for future prosecutors & noted Congress is able to act... it's very clear urging that the matter IS NOT OVER


out of curiosity, do you still have the ridiculous belief that Putin didn't prefer Trump to Hillary?

as to emoluments, Trump is receiving the money so yes it's going from foreign gov'ts to his pockets
the wanderer
Fri May 31 22:15:29
as to the intent question, yes Mueller had to give opinion along w/ actions by Trump... as anyone would have to do

Mueller wanted to interview Trump, but the fraud's lawyers were never going to let the perjury machine testify & Mueller didn't want to delay the report for months/years especially since he knew he could never charge anyway

but hey, guess what, if Congress takes up the ball, as he CLEARLY intended, they can force the issue

(although anyone who can't tell Trump acts w/ corrupt intent is an idiot)
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share