Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm most curious about the Counterintelligence side of the Mueller report: from what we know as a fact, from lawsuits, reports and Mueller, it that the Intelligence vulnerabilities of the Election Systems, Social Media and the Trump Campaign were unprecedented and monumental. There is a lot that requires investigating, not in order to get a conviction, but to prevent another case like this.
But the IC has no one it can trust to report the results to, since Republicans in the Gang of Eight have leaked their confidential briefings to subjects of the investigation, i.e. Trump and his Team.
The FBI CI is in exactly the same boat as Mueller: all they can do is collect evidence and wait for Congress (or the next President) to circumvent Trump so that they can do their job without having to report their results to the target of their investigation.
 
Belz... said:
Maybe Trump believes that this is exactly what they're going to do.
Click to expand...

That could be true, he is a moron.

The Great Zaganza said:
I'm most curious about the Counterintelligence side of the Mueller report: from what we know as a fact, from lawsuits, reports and Mueller, it that the Intelligence vulnerabilities of the Election Systems, Social Media and the Trump Campaign were unprecedented and monumental. There is a lot that requires investigating, not in order to get a conviction, but to prevent another case like this.
But the IC has no one it can trust to report the results to, since Republicans in the Gang of Eight have leaked their confidential briefings to subjects of the investigation, i.e. Trump and his Team.
The FBI CI is in exactly the same boat as Mueller: all they can do is collect evidence and wait for Congress (or the next President) to circumvent Trump so that they can do their job without having to report their results to the target of their investigation.
Click to expand...

I agree in that I think the most important thing to get from all of this is how can we stop it in the future? What do we have to do to "shore up the defenses"?
 
plague311 said:
What I'd like to learn is, in no particular order:

Why have so many investigations been closed since the report was issued?

Does Mueller believe those investigations should have been closed, and what evidence was used to begin the investigations in the first place?

Was there any pressure by Barr to limit the investigation after taking over?

Lastly, I would like the details of the obstruction laid out in layman's terms so that the average individual can understand what happened. Put a rest to that "No Obstruction" nonsense.
Click to expand...
Personally I would like Mueller to answer one question:

"If you were a prosecutor, and Trump were not president, and you were presented with the evidence as provided in the report, would you have prosecuted him."

You can point out all the evidence you want, but it will always leave the republicans with an 'out'.... "We don't think it warrants impeachment/laying charges". Answering the above question would make it pretty much impossible for the republicans to hide.
 
Segnosaur said:
Personally I would like Mueller to answer one question:

"If you were a prosecutor, and Trump were not president, and you were presented with the evidence as provided in the report, would you have prosecuted him."

You can point out all the evidence you want, but it will always leave the republicans with an 'out'.... "We don't think it warrants impeachment/laying charges". Answering the above question would make it pretty much impossible for the republicans to hide.
Click to expand...
Why do you think Mueller will change his answer (I assume you expect a change or there would be no point in asking). He is still a DOJ employee. (ETA that turns out to be wrong I think, but it still seems his reasons for his prior answer would apply).
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Personally I would like Mueller to answer one question:

"If you were a prosecutor, and Trump were not president, and you were presented with the evidence as provided in the report, would you have prosecuted him."

You can point out all the evidence you want, but it will always leave the republicans with an 'out'.... "We don't think it warrants impeachment/laying charges". Answering the above question would make it pretty much impossible for the republicans to hide.
Click to expand...

For that reason I think Mueller will stay as far away from that question as possible. I know he'll be asked it, but I would expect the most top notch non-answer, answer ever. He stated that the report was his testimony and he refused to make that distinction in the report.

Make no mistake, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm just keeping my expectations exceptionally low.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Highly conflicted Robert Mueller should not be given another bite at the apple. In the end it will be bad for him and the phony Democrats in Congress who have done nothing but waste time on this ridiculous Witch Hunt. Result of the Mueller Report, NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION!...

....But the questions should be asked, why were all of Clinton’s people given immunity, and why were the text messages of Peter S and his lover, Lisa Page, deleted and destroyed right after they left Mueller, and after we requested them(this is Illegal)?
Click to expand...

Oh, so many things in that one infantile tweet:

1. Mueller was not 'conflicted'.
2. 'Phony Democrats'? They're not really Democrats?
3. Mueller did not find there was 'no obstruction'.
4. Were ALL of Clinton's people given immunity?
5. Why the childish continued use of the word 'lover' whenever Peter S or Page is mentioned?
6. What evidence is there that their 'emails were destroyed right after they left Mueller'?


The more Trump tweets, the more idiotic he looks.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Personally I would like Mueller to answer one question:

"If you were a prosecutor, and Trump were not president, and you were presented with the evidence as provided in the report, would you have prosecuted him."
Click to expand...
Why do you think Mueller will change his answer (I assume you expect a change or there would be no point in asking). He is still a DOJ employee. (ETA that turns out to be wrong I think, but it still seems his reasons for his prior answer would apply).
Click to expand...
Was he ever asked that exact question? Yes, he's pretty evasive for the most part, but I never remember him being presented with that sort of scenario before.
 
Segnosaur said:
Was he ever asked that exact question? Yes, he's pretty evasive for the most part, but I never remember him being presented with that sort of scenario before.
Click to expand...

No, he answered it without being asked since it's so obvious.

ETA:

Mueller said:
And beyond Department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.
Click to expand...
https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644237/robert-mueller-remarks-transcript
 
Last edited:
Does it actually matter if we close loopholes to election meddling? To me it feels like the damage has been done. There's a solid 40% of the population brainwashed (brainfilthed?) already, and little if any leadership from the remaining marginally-less-crazy conservatives to throw their support elsewhere. Without massive voter turnout and a whole lotta Rust Belt center-right Democrats coming back to the fold, potus waltzes to another electoral college victory, no?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
No, he answered it without being asked since it's so obvious.

ETA:


https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644237/robert-mueller-remarks-transcript
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Segnosaur, but from my point of view (and what I think might be suggestion from Seg) it really seems like Mueller's reluctance to comment in crimes is directly tied to Trump's position as president. That quote about fairness is a perfect example of that: he seems to be saying that because he didn't believe he could indict the president, the president couldn't defend himself in court, and thus, it wouldn't be fair to say if Trump committed a crime or not.

That's why something like "if Trump weren't president, would you charge him with a crime?" is a valid and important thing to ask Mueller - his answer about whether or not Trump committed crimes could very well be different because the condition removes the protections that have led to his conclusions. As far as I know, he hasn't really addressed anything like it yet, only the position of basically "I can't charge him with a crime, so I don't think it would be fair to say if this stuff was illegal, but here are some things that might be considered crimes if looked at by a party that could charge Trump in a court."
 
ArchSas said:
I can't speak for Segnosaur, but from my point of view (and what I think might be suggestion from Seg) it really seems like Mueller's reluctance to comment in crimes is directly tied to Trump's position as president. That quote about fairness is a perfect example of that: he seems to be saying that because he didn't believe he could indict the president, the president couldn't defend himself in court, and thus, it wouldn't be fair to say if Trump committed a crime or not.

That's why something like "if Trump weren't president, would you charge him with a crime?" is a valid and important thing to ask Mueller - his answer about whether or not Trump committed crimes could very well be different because the condition removes the protections that have led to his conclusions. As far as I know, he hasn't really addressed anything like it yet, only the position of basically "I can't charge him with a crime, so I don't think it would be fair to say if this stuff was illegal, but here are some things that might be considered crimes if looked at by a party that could charge Trump in a court."
Click to expand...

"That is a hypothetical situation that has no bearing in this hearing."
 
The Shrike said:
Does it actually matter if we close loopholes to election meddling? To me it feels like the damage has been done. There's a solid 40% of the population brainwashed (brainfilthed?) already, and little if any leadership from the remaining marginally-less-crazy conservatives to throw their support elsewhere. Without massive voter turnout and a whole lotta Rust Belt center-right Democrats coming back to the fold, potus waltzes to another electoral college victory, no?
Click to expand...

I think it make make a huge difference, as long as voter turnout also improved. Maybe that's just me being hopeful, but Trump did lose the popular vote (only 28% of the country or so voted for him), and in the states he actually did win, it was by a small margin, usually smaller than the percentage that voted for third party candidates (ex: 47% Hillary, 48% Trump, 3% Stein). A bigger, more motivated voter base, especially one that might be more conscious about trolls trying to influence them, could easily reverse many Trump states.
 
alfaniner said:
"That is a hypothetical situation that has no bearing in this hearing."
Click to expand...

I mean, yeah, that's about the response I'd expect. But there might be value phrasing the question like that publicly - even an evasive answer provides a nice soundbite that demonstrates Mueller didn't really "exonerate" Trump and was only making a conclusion based on the idea he couldn't charge him with crimes in the first place.

For a lot of the public that probably isn't even aware of the conditions Mueller placed in his conclusion, that could be pretty eye-opening. Hypothetically, of course.
 
ArchSas said:
That's why something like "if Trump weren't president, would you charge him with a crime?" is a valid and important thing to ask Mueller - his answer about whether or not Trump committed crimes could very well be different because the condition removes the protections that have led to his conclusions.
Click to expand...


But that's exactly the hypothetical he was addressing.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
But that's exactly the hypothetical he was addressing.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something, but in what way?

As far as I'm aware, Mueller has exclusively commented on Trump's actions as he believes the law currently applies to him (ie, that he can't be indicted, and can't defend himself in court). Are you aware of him commenting about a hypothetical where Trump wasn't president? If not, do you mind explaining how his current statements cover the hypothetical? I'm asking seriously here, I'm not a lawyer and am fully aware I could be wrong, and I also want to make sure I actually understand what you're arguing for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom