Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Cavemonster]

People that think no criticism of Mueller is reasonable. Stop me at the point where you disagree.

1) Because of the deparmental memo, and because a loyal Trump appointee is in the top spot, the DOJ was never going to be able to indict Trump.

2) Thus the only methods available to address Trump's crimes would be impeachment or voting him out.

3) Both options in #2 are what you might call "political". They are dependent on the US public's view of the situation either directly through votes for POTUS, or indirectly through members of congress reflecting their constituets views.

4) No matter what Mueller does or says, there would always be two spins from Trump and his camp. For anything that isn't a slam dunk in plain language, it would be a nothingburger or "what it really means is it exhonerates the President". For anything that really clearly in plain language shows the President committed crimes, it would be fake news from a lying partisan.

5) Mueller has been just as aware of all of the above as the rest of US.

6) As a citizen and someone who claims to follow rule of law and the well-being of this country, and as someone with a unique access to evidence and a unique opportunity to speak at a crucial moment, Mueller has/had an ethical duty to do what was within his power to make the solutions outlined in #2 as well supported as he could. This is where I suspect I'd lose some of you if you made it this far.

7) Mueller ddn't do what was outlined in #6.

 

[wareyin]

Wasn't Mueller avoiding making a judgement? Saying that someone lied or committed perjury requires knowing that the act was intentional. In the mind of a prosecutor or investigator, that would be something left up to a judge or jury to decide.

So what you are saying is that Mueller did not make a clear statement that Trump committed perjury? If so, I we're in agreement.

I think Mueller was a bit too careful in how he phrased everything in order to appear perfectly impartial. Just like with American news media, far more leeway is given to the worst actor when trying to hard to not be partisan, with the result being too favorable to the most egregious actors.

 

[jadebox]

So what you are saying is that Mueller did not make a clear statement that Trump committed perjury? If so, I we're in agreement.

I think Mueller was a bit too careful in how he phrased everything in order to appear perfectly impartial. Just like with American news media, far more leeway is given to the worst actor when trying to hard to not be partisan, with the result being too favorable to the most egregious actors.

What I am suggesting is that he wasn't trying to be impartial so much as trying not to draw conclusions beyond what could be demonstrated as facts. When Mueller's team brought cases against those who said things that weren't true, it was the court that decided if the acts were perjury based on the evidence. In other words, I think he was being careful not to act as a judge in the report and his testimony.

I do have a problem with his testimony, though. I don't think it is right for a witness to unilaterally say that they are only going to provide answers that are already in a report. Unless there is some agreement in place, and with obvious exceptions for answers that would affect ongoing investigations or reveal sources or whatever, he should have been compelled to answer whatever questions were asked.

 

[xjx388]

What I am suggesting is that he wasn't trying to be impartial so much as trying not to draw conclusions beyond what could be demonstrated as facts. When Mueller's team brought cases against those who said things that weren't true, it was the court that decided if the acts were perjury based on the evidence. In other words, I think he was being careful not to act as a judge in the report and his testimony.

I think this is exactly it. His job was to gather facts and prosecute what he could. He couldn't prosecute Trump; ergo, there's nothing for him to say outside the facts he gathered.

I do have a problem with his testimony, though. I don't think it is right for a witness to unilaterally say that they are only going to provide answers that are already in a report. Unless there is some agreement in place, and with obvious exceptions for answers that would affect ongoing investigations or reveal sources or whatever, he should have been compelled to answer whatever questions were asked.

What else is he supposed to do? If he had anything else to say, he would have put it in the report. The report is his testimony and that's all anyone can compel him to give.

 

[smartcooky]

I think this is exactly it. His job was to gather facts and prosecute what he could. He couldn't prosecute Trump; ergo, there's nothing for him to say outside the facts he gathered.

What else is he supposed to do? If he had anything else to say, he would have put it in the report. The report is his testimony and that's all anyone can compel him to give.

This is where Trump and his entourage of buttkissing disciples get it wrong - they think its binary; they think not enough evidence for a prosecution means total exoneration. It doesn't work like that. If you become a person of interest in a criminal inquiry, and the investigators cannot eliminate you from that inquiry, then you have NOT been exonerated.

Mueller made it quite clear in his testimony before the House that Trump could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice once he leaves office. No matter how you slice it, that means the only thing keeping Mueller from indicting Trump immediately was the DOJ's OLC memo. Even if Mueller didn't specifically state this, the answers he gave to other questions about that made it abundantly clear.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You're correct that I couldn't say you failed at the task of installing cable. My point is that you would have failed ethically and as a citizen. My point is to see if we can reach the baseline agreement that people CAN be criticized for failures of things other than the law and a job description.

The thing is though, that you are wanting to criticize Mueller for things that are related to the law and his job description. You can't have it both ways.

Not meant as an analogy. You keep responding to everything by bringing us back to the legal and professional parameters. If you don't acknowledge that any other basis for judgement exists, then there's no point in wasting any breath making the case for the specific criteria that I think applies.

Yes, there is a really good reason to return it to the legal and professional parameters. Because that is where Mueller's responsibilities and his legal duties lie, and you are criticizing him for acting within those. That you claim you aren't shows that you clearly have no idea what his boundaries were even though they are clearly spelled out in the legislation. We're not talking a person that stumbled over criminal and just didn't do anything about it, we talking about a person who's team was looking for criminal activity and had to determine what to do about it, and then, by Law, could only write a confidential legal report on how they made those decisions, and then must give that report to the USAG.

Those were his and his teams duties and they were bound by law from doing anything else. What you seem to believe he and his team should have done would have been a violation of the legislation, but you seem to continue to ignore that. So either you are ignorant to that legislation, despite it having been posted multiple times, or you you are feinting ignorance because it doesn't suit your arguments.

 

[PhantomWolf]

6) As a citizen and someone who claims to follow rule of law and the well-being of this country, and as someone with a unique access to evidence and a unique opportunity to speak at a crucial moment, Mueller has/had an ethical duty to do what was within his power to make the solutions outlined in #2 as well supported as he could. This is where I suspect I'd lose some of you if you made it this far.

This is exactly where you lose people. Mueller was bound by the law to do certain things and was not allowed to do other things. He did what he was bound by the law to do. That was to determine if to take prosecutions for any crimes found, and then to write a legal report outlining the legal processes and reasons for why, or why not, prosecutions were undertaken. He also included all of the evidence he gathered, even in cases he could not prosecute. That report was then given to the USAG, because that was the law, and beyond that he was bound in his duties by the law.

It was not his ethical or legal duty to make things easy for Congress or to write a report that the public could understand, but they actually did that too by going out of their way to creating summaries of each part of the report that were easy to read and understand. Nor was it his ethical or legal duty to have a press conference to call Trump and/or Barr liars. In fact under the legislation, he would have been violating the law to do those things because he is required by the law to act on behalf of, and under the instructions of the DoJ, and he would have been overstepping those bounds to call out Barr or Trump. This is why he took advice from the DoJ and was extremely careful as to his testimony before the committees, because legally he wasn't representing himself, he was there representing the DoJ. You and others here seem to fail to understand this.

7) Mueller ddn't do what was outlined in #6.

Yes, because he couldn't legally do so.

try and read and understand this....

(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
Again in case you still don't get it...

All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
Get it yet?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't see how you made a point on this:

If Mueller was worried about being misquoted, quoting the Report would have been the safest option.

No,. Mueller was worried about being too clear in the hearing.

I disagree, I think that he was quite clear in the hearings. What he was more worried about, and why he didn't read from the report himself, was that he was astute enough to understand that if he did, that footage would be used for political purposes, and so to retain his appearance of neutrality and impartiality, he made sure that there were no, or very few, sound bytes that could be used a partisan manner.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So what you are saying is that Mueller did not make a clear statement that Trump committed perjury? If so, I we're in agreement.

I think Mueller was a bit too careful in how he phrased everything in order to appear perfectly impartial. Just like with American news media, far more leeway is given to the worst actor when trying to hard to not be partisan, with the result being too favorable to the most egregious actors.

Mueller was acting as a gather and presenter of facts, so no he didn't say that Trump committed perjury, he merely presented the facts for others to draw conclusions and make judgement from. That's how he saw his job as a representative of the DoJ. This wasn't a trial and so he was not there to draw conclusions from the facts as would be done in a trial.

It's like saying

Jonathon was seen with a can of red paint standing beside the house in question on the morning in question.
The house in question was seen to be white prior to Jonathon's arrive.
The house in question was seen to be red shortly after Jonathon departed.
A can that looked identical to the one Jonathon was seen carrying was found beside the house and was empty.

It's up to you to decide if Jonathon painted the house red.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Mueller was acting as a gather and presenter of facts, so no he didn't say that Trump committed perjury, he merely presented the facts for others to draw conclusions and make judgement from. That's how he saw his job as a representative of the DoJ. This wasn't a trial and so he was not there to draw conclusions from the facts as would be done in a trial.

Sure, but he wasn't a beep boop just the facts machine, either. He had substantial leeway to determine the scope and aims of his investigation. For example, he was charged with investigating Russian collusion, so it was up to him to define what "collusion" actually meant... and he chose the narrowest possible definition. I speculate that was because a) he was desperate not to have to accuse Trump himself, and Trump was very obviously colluding under every other interpretation of the term, and b) he had Trump dead to rights on obstruction anyway.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I disagree, I think that he was quite clear in the hearings. What he was more worried about, and why he didn't read from the report himself, was that he was astute enough to understand that if he did, that footage would be used for political purposes, and so to retain his appearance of neutrality and impartiality, he made sure that there were no, or very few, sound bytes that could be used a partisan manner.

That wasn't his call to make.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That wasn't his call to make.

Of course it was, who else's call would it have been?

 

[Cavemonster]

This is exactly where you lose people. Mueller was bound by the law to do certain things and was not allowed to do other things. He did what he was bound by the law to do. That was to determine if to take prosecutions for any crimes found, and then to write a legal report outlining the legal processes and reasons for why, or why not, prosecutions were undertaken. He also included all of the evidence he gathered, even in cases he could not prosecute. That report was then given to the USAG, because that was the law, and beyond that he was bound in his duties by the law.

It was not his ethical or legal duty to make things easy for Congress or to write a report that the public could understand, but they actually did that too by going out of their way to creating summaries of each part of the report that were easy to read and understand. Nor was it his ethical or legal duty to have a press conference to call Trump and/or Barr liars. In fact under the legislation, he would have been violating the law to do those things because he is required by the law to act on behalf of, and under the instructions of the DoJ, and he would have been overstepping those bounds to call out Barr or Trump. This is why he took advice from the DoJ and was extremely careful as to his testimony before the committees, because legally he wasn't representing himself, he was there representing the DoJ. You and others here seem to fail to understand this.



Yes, because he couldn't legally do so.

try and read and understand this....

(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
Again in case you still don't get it...

All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.
Get it yet?

Which is it? Was he fully legally constrained from any other speach or action, or did he make choices so as not to appear partisan as you've said elsewhere, or was it his demearnor as you've said yet elsewhere.

Those are contradictory explanations, so I guess I don't get it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Sure, but he wasn't a beep boop just the facts machine, either. He had substantial leeway to determine the scope and aims of his investigation. For example, he was charged with investigating Russian collusion, so it was up to him to define what "collusion" actually meant... and he chose the narrowest possible definition. I speculate that was because a) he was desperate not to have to accuse Trump himself, and Trump was very obviously colluding under every other interpretation of the term, and b) he had Trump dead to rights on obstruction anyway.

So, first off, he was not charged to investigate and define "collusion" his job was to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." These being criminal matters. Collusion is not a criminal offence, so in determining whether there were matters that could be prosecuted, he had to refer to a criminal statue. The closest statue to Collusion is a Conspiracy charge, so that is what he measured the actions of the Campaign and Russia against when determining if their actions had broken the law.

I am unsure what else he would have been expected to do. He showed clearly where those in the Campaign had worked with people connected to Russia, but determined that none of it reached the level of Criminal Conspiracy.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Which is it? Was he fully legally constrained from any other speach or action, or did he make choices so as not to appear partisan as you've said elsewhere, or was it his demearnor as you've said yet elsewhere.

Those are contradictory explanations, so I guess I don't get it.

They aren't contradictory at all. Mueller's disposition makes him one to follow the rules, the rules which were set out by the DoJ based on what is in the legislation. Why is this so hard for you to be able to follow?

Let me try again cause you seem to be having problems.

The Legislation and DoJ policy set out a bunch of rules about how the Special Council has to operate, including how they deliver their findings and decisions, and what they can say about those things publicly.

There are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Part 600.4-10.

You still with me?

Mueller's principles and character make him a rule follower, so he follows those directions in the legislation to the letter, and would find it unhonourable to not do so, and especially to violate those rules. He also follows the DoJ rules on not appearing to be partisan, but to remain impartial which you can find in the DoJ's Ethics guidelines.

It's not one thing or the other, and nor are they contradictory. Rather it is all three things together and those things are complementary.

 

[Cavemonster]

Mueller's principles and character make him a rule follower, so he follows those directions in the legislation to the letter, and would find it unhonourable to not do so, and especially to violate those rules. He also follows the DoJ rules on not appearing to be partisan, but to remain impartial which you can find in the DoJ's Ethics guidelines.

Which one of those guidelines precluded him from using plain language to state that both Trump and Barr clearly and intentionally misrepresented the findings and implications of his report?

Which one of those rules would have made it illegal for him to craft the language of his report with an eye towards how it would be read by the public and congress?

I'm having trouble finding it because it all looks like common sense conflict of interest and not wearing political buttons stuff.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Which one of those guidelines precluded him from using plain language to state that both Trump and Barr clearly and intentionally misrepresented the findings and implications of his report?

That would be the guideline of how write a legal report like a lawyer. Seriously, why do you think that a lawyer who is writing a confidential legal document would write it in any form other than as a legal document?

Which one of those rules would have made it illegal for him to craft the language of his report with an eye towards how it would be read by the public and congress?

Um, the rule that says that the report is confidential and for the USAG, not for the Public and Congress?

I'm having trouble finding it because it all looks like common sense conflict of interest and not wearing political buttons stuff.

 

[Cavemonster]

Um, the rule that says that the report is confidential and for the USAG, not for the Public and Congress?

The report has been released to the public.

Were you unaware of that?

 

[PhantomWolf]

The report has been released to the public.

Were you unaware of that?

Something that is totally irrelevant. The report was not written for the public, nor for Congress, it was written as a confidential legal document.

Now having said that, the Mueller team did actually include summaries in the report because they were aware that there was public interest and so the summaries were created and added to allow for those to be released, but they were under no obligations to do and there was no legal requirement for the USAG to release the report to the public.

You are complaining that a legal document was written as a legal document in legal language. Next you might as well start demanding Lawyers and Judges stop writing legal documents in legal terms because they are released to the public too. Your complaint is nonsensical.

 

[Cavemonster]

Something that is totally irrelevant. The report was not written for the public, nor for Congress, it was written as a confidential legal document.

Now having said that, the Mueller team did actually include summaries in the report because they were aware that there was public interest and so the summaries were created and added to allow for those to be released, but they were under no obligations to do and there was no legal requirement for the USAG to release the report to the public.

You are complaining that a legal document was written as a legal document in legal language. Next you might as well start demanding Lawyers and Judges stop writing legal documents in legal terms because they are released to the public too. Your complaint is nonsensical.

Ok, you keep going in circles and pretending that each posts starts the day anew.

A minute ago you were saying Mueller was legally barred from doing what I suggested. You've left that goal post far behind without even a wave.