Mueller Investigation pt 6

[tanabear]

This section?

"...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof..."

That sounds like the Mueller "investigation"(coup attempt). I wonder when we're going to go after the people who launched a coup to overthrow a duly elected President?

He tried to help him win, at the very least, with a dedicated online disinformation and propaganda campaign.

Did you even read all those intelligence findings? Again as I said before, keeping yourself ignorant of the evidence doesn't magically make you correct when you pretend that the evidence doesn't exist.

Why the addition of "widely"? You asked how Russia helped, and now you're raising the bar, presumably because you know how easily the previous one will be cleared.

Stop playing games.

Okay, so you cannot name one thing that Americans came to believe that was false due to a "dedicated online disinformation and propaganda campaign." This doesn't sound like much a disinformation campaign to me. If you cannot give one example you don't have any evidence.

Said on another forum and I can't word it any better than this:

"Trump obstructed the investigation into an attack on American democracy by a foreign adversary. Not too long ago, nearly everyone in the country would have been calling for Trump's impeachment over that -- including most Republicans."

What specifically did Trump do to obstruct the investigation? How did Russia "attack our democracy"? Name one piece of disinformation that Americans believed due to Russian influence?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some people need a little spoon-feeding. Double negatives can be confusing.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable....

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

If Trump really was exonerated Mueller would have said so.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision...

Mueller didn't make a determination, NOT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE BUT BECAUSE:

Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

Charging the POTUS Could not be considered. Notice the difference between could not and would not.

This is complicated, pay attention:

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

IOW, Mueller thought it would be unfair to Trump to come right out and say, in Mueller's opinion, Trump should be indicted on the obstruction charge. Mueller passed the baton to Congress.

From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime.

Do you see that W? That does not say "could not" it says would not.

Pesky legalese is great for Trumpers, they can pretend they didn't see that "would not" and instead spread throughout the whole right-wing blogosphere and talk shows that Mueller said there wasn't enough evidence. That is not what Mueller said.

We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.

Too bad he didn't point out that Barr muddied the water in his summary before he released the report.

 

[smartcooky]

it's in direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

Really? Show me where!

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Thank God we live in a Country where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It seems many believe that one is presumed guilty until exonerated. God Bless America and President Trump.

Chris B.

 

[Paul2]

That is the wrong follow up to your post. Regardless of whether the president can or cannot be charged, you argued for a law changing it. But the president has his own take care clause. Congress doesn't have a power to tell him his interpretation is wrong and have it change policy

I'm no lawyer, that's for sure, but the executive branch takes care that the laws - passed by Congress - are faithfully executed. Doesn't the law come first?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm no lawyer, that's for sure, but the executive branch takes care that the laws - passed by Congress - are faithfully executed. Doesn't the law come first?

That is like saying a law that restricts his pardon power or his prosecutorial discretion power is the law coming first. He has an independent source of executive power and an independent duty to defend the Constitution. A law can't override that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Okay, so you cannot name one thing that Americans came to believe that was false due to a "dedicated online disinformation and propaganda campaign." This doesn't sound like much a disinformation campaign to me. If you cannot give one example you don't have any evidence.

Mueller found an entire conspiracy, he just didn't connect the Trump campaign to the planning or executing the plan. It's in Mueller's transcript.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system....

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election....

How did Russia "attack our democracy"? Name one piece of disinformation that Americans believed due to Russian influence?

[I changed the order of your quote to make answering more concise]
You might want to read that a couple times. You keep forgetting what Mueller found, maybe if you repeat it it will sink in.

You should stop listening to Trump repeating there was no conspiracy. Trump cannot accept that he didn't win the election without the help of the Russians. That's one reason he keeps downplaying the election interference.

... What specifically did Trump do to obstruct the investigation?

He tried multiple times to fire Mueller and Rosenstein, and even admitted on public TV that he fired Comey to stop the investigation. He railed against Sessions publicly because Sessions recused himself. Trump wanted Sessions to stop the investigation.

You'll never get it as long as you make excuses for this or say because he failed he didn't try or because he failed he didn't obstruct the investigation. Or there was no crime to obstruct the investigation into.

Look broader. Think about this country. Do you really want Russia's thumb on our elections:

"Trump obstructed the investigation into an attack on American democracy by a foreign adversary. Not too long ago, nearly everyone in the country would have been calling for Trump's impeachment over that -- including most Republicans."

 

[BobTheCoward]

Thank God we live in a Country where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It seems many believe that one is presumed guilty until exonerated. God Bless America and President Trump.

Chris B.

This is not accurate. For example, prosecutors say people are guilty all the time during trial. It would make no sense if they presumed the defendant was Innocent.

 

[Stacyhs]

Thank God we live in a Country where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It seems many believe that one is presumed guilty until exonerated. God Bless America and President Trump.

Chris B.

OH, come on. One is LEGALLY presumed innocent unless proved guilty. That doesn't make them FACTUALLY innocent. Or do you think OJ didn't kill Nicole or Ron Goldman just because a jury acquitted him?

Do you really need a court of law to convict Trump of perjury to know that he's a massive liar?

 

[Bob001]

This is not accurate. For example, prosecutors say people are guilty all the time during trial. It would make no sense if they presumed the defendant was Innocent.

And cops could never arrest anybody if they had to presume the suspect was innocent. "Presumption of innocence" is only about the legal process that must be observed before official punishment may be imposed. It doesn't apply anywhere else in life.

 

[Paul2]

That is like saying a law that restricts his pardon power or his prosecutorial discretion power is the law coming first. He has an independent source of executive power and an independent duty to defend the Constitution. A law can't override that.

This has just moved beyond my legal expertise, I hope others can weigh in to confirm or correct.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It is disturbing to witness the lengths you went to in concocting all these hypothetical situations in an effort to prove me wrong about something you should have learned in 6th grade Civics class. I don't know how you did in that class but you've failed here.

Then you really should be aware of the difference between "Pleading the 5th" and your 5th amendment right to not answer questioning. You still seem to not understand the difference between these.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-righ...r-questions-asked-by-law-enforcement-officers

From the ACLU:

"Do I have to answer questions asked by law enforcement officers? No. You have the constitutional right to remain silent. In general, you do not have to talk to law enforcement officers (or anyone else), even if you do not feel free to walk away from the officer, you are arrested, or you are in jail. You cannot be punished for refusing to answer a question. It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer before agreeing to answer questions. In general, only a judge can order you to answer questions."

This agrees entirely with what I stated. If you don't think so, care to show me where this contradicts me?

Excuse me while I do yet another victory lap to the seething dismay of Liberals everywhere.

Chris B.

I'd make it a very short lap.... because...

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the US, the right to remain silent. The "cops" can ask questions but there is no requirement to answer them. In fact one could simply declare their 5th Amendment rights at the beginning of questioning and quickly end the session.
Chris B.

Highlighted part is incorrect. As a witness there is no need to declare 5th amendment rights to end the interview, and as a suspect declaring such will not end the interview. Declaring that you want a lawyer will suspend the interview, but you have no rights as a suspect to terminate one.

Declaring you are pleading the 5th on the stand in court will also not terminate questioning.

That's exactly how it works in the U.S. Once a citizen invokes the 5th at the beginning of questioning, the session is over. Likewise for testimony in criminal cases. The accused is not required to take the stand.

As long as one does not waive this Right either directly or by prior action or testimony indirectly, a citizen CANNOT be compelled to testify against himself if he feels that testimony may be used in some way to incriminate him.

And that's a fact.

Chris B.

Again, the highlighted part is incorrect. Again, as a witness there is no need to declare 5th amendment rights to end the interview, and as a suspect declaring such will not end the interview. Declaring that you want a lawyer will suspend the interview, but you have no rights as a suspect to terminate one.

Declaring you are pleading the 5th on the stand in court will also not terminate questioning.

Yes I am repeating myself, to make sure it sinks in.

You made false claims, and now you seem to be changing your argument to agree with what you have been being told from the start, then you claim victory. Sadly for you, the forum has a memory.

I will also point out, that under no circumstances can you ask or demand that another person refuse to speak with LE or to testify.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Retweets

Kayleigh McEnany
‏Verified account
@kayleighmcenany
“Now it’s time to turn to the origins of the Russia hoax and get to the bottom of why the Trump campaign was spied on by the Obama-era DOJ and FBI.”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... What specifically did Trump do to obstruct the investigation?

This was posted upthread:
NBC: Flynn told Mueller that people tied to Trump and Congress tried to obstruct probe

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn told investigators that people linked to the Trump administration and Congress reached out to him in an effort to interfere in the Russia probe, according to newly unredacted court papers filed Thursday.

The court filing from special counsel Robert Mueller is believed to mark the first public acknowledgement that a person connected to Capitol Hill was suspected of engaging in an attempt to impede the investigation into Russian election interference.

“The defendant informed the government of multiple instances, both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could’ve affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation," says the newly revealed section of a sentencing memo originally filed in December.

 

[Belz...]

They'll call Trump to testify. He'll say no. They'll say he has to. He'll throw down a reverse card from a pack of Uno. They'll bring in the Supreme Court. He's still say no. What do we do then call Boba Fett?

I'm no expert but I'd say go ahead with the Impeachment and Conviction, then get Pence to the office and get Trump physically out of the building to his trials in NYC and elsewhere.

 

[Belz...]

"If we had had confidence that he clearly did commit a crime we would have said so,"

Making up quotes now?

 

[Stacyhs]

This section?

"...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof..."

That sounds like the Mueller "investigation"(coup attempt). I wonder when we're going to go after the people who launched a coup to overthrow a duly elected President?



Okay, so you cannot name one thing that Americans came to believe that was false due to a "dedicated online disinformation and propaganda campaign." This doesn't sound like much a disinformation campaign to me. If you cannot give one example you don't have any evidence.



What specifically did Trump do to obstruct the investigation? How did Russia "attack our democracy"? Name one piece of disinformation that Americans believed due to Russian influence?

My first inclination was to try and actually deal with your post in a serious manner. But I quickly realized that it would be a massive waste of my time. Sometimes you just have to accept that some people are much happier living in their own version of reality.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, so you cannot name one thing that Americans came to believe that was false due to a "dedicated online disinformation and propaganda campaign."

Don't play childish games. You're not fooling anyone. You asked me what they did to help, and I answered you. Your slippery weasel words designed to move the bar up and down at your leisure are of no interest to me.

What specifically did Trump do to obstruct the investigation?

He fired the FBI director, remember?

How did Russia "attack our democracy"?

Asked and answered already. I suggest you read the Mueller report.

 

[Belz...]

Thank God we live in a Country where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

What does have to do with anything?

Oh yeah. Nothing.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Then you really should be aware of the difference between "Pleading the 5th" and your 5th amendment right to not answer questioning. You still seem to not understand the difference between these.



This agrees entirely with what I stated. If you don't think so, care to show me where this contradicts me?



I'd make it a very short lap.... because...



Highlighted part is incorrect. As a witness there is no need to declare 5th amendment rights to end the interview, and as a suspect declaring such will not end the interview. Declaring that you want a lawyer will suspend the interview, but you have no rights as a suspect to terminate one.

Declaring you are pleading the 5th on the stand in court will also not terminate questioning.



Again, the highlighted part is incorrect. Again, as a witness there is no need to declare 5th amendment rights to end the interview, and as a suspect declaring such will not end the interview. Declaring that you want a lawyer will suspend the interview, but you have no rights as a suspect to terminate one.

Declaring you are pleading the 5th on the stand in court will also not terminate questioning.

Yes I am repeating myself, to make sure it sinks in.

You made false claims, and now you seem to be changing your argument to agree with what you have been being told from the start, then you claim victory. Sadly for you, the forum has a memory.

I will also point out, that under no circumstances can you ask or demand that another person refuse to speak with LE or to testify.

You can keep repeating yourself yet you can never prove me wrong no matter the angle. I realize you're butt hurt but get on with something else. You know I was right then and you know I am right now. Argue with the ACLU if you please, we have the exact same opinion on the 5th Amendment.

Chris B.