Mueller Investigation pt 7

[dirtywick]

He was too worried about saying the wrong thing that he didn’t say the right thing.

 

[Segnosaur]

There is nothing Mueller could've said to convince the GOP to convict. Trump was right when he said he could commit murder and lose no vote.

Quite likely that even if Mueller were more forceful, the GOP still wouldn't convict.

However, it might have put more pressure on the republicans to actually deal with Russian election interference. Perhaps caused a few GOP members to decide that tying themselves to Trump might be problematic. Maybe even cause them to lose some voter support.

Instead, allowing Barr and Trump to control the messaging around the report (and thus more or less sweep it under the rug) meant that there was no reason for the republicans to clean up their act.

(I do think there were other things Mueller did wrong... allowing Trump to avoid testifying, not going after the Trump hell-spawn.)

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yes, we're probably all familiar with that particular ruling.

Note that "ruling" may not be the best word here. That's a policy, not a law. A prosecutor can indict a President, it's just clear how far he'd get. The policy has an exception, but it requires the AG to agree (that would have been Barr in this case). It's also not clear the policy is constitutional, it's never been tested. I am not a lawyer, but there is some dispute as whether the policy even applied to Mueller, he apparently may not be the class of employee the memo covers.

And this is hypothetical since Mueller found no crime to indict on.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He was too worried about saying the wrong thing that he didn’t say the right thing.

That's a good summation.

 

[Cavemonster]

I always found the idea that Mueller couldn't have behaved otherwise because of his character to be unsatisfying.

To me it made me think of a neighbor who watches your house burn down while you're out, and why you ask why he didn't call the fire department, somebody says "Oh, everyone knows Bob doesn't like to talk on the phone, what did you expect?".

In extreme situations, there is often a call to go beyond one's comfort zone or typical character. If you're typically a quiet person, you may find yourself in a situation where the right thing to do is yell.

Unless we're saying Mueller's staidness is a pathological condition, it's appropriate to judge him for failing to go beyond his comfort zone.

 

[Cavemonster]

He did say that. It's not his fault if people are dense.

I'd say that everyone who has a responsibility to communicate has a responsibility to communicate effectively to their audience, even understanding and compensating for imperfections in that audience.

To keep torturing the metaphor for my last post-

If a house is on fire and the people in the living room are blasting loud music, quietly mumbling "Hey guys, there's a fire and you should probably leave" at a volume you know will be drowned out by the music isn't effective communication.

Mueller isn't a dumb guy, I think it would be an insult to his intelligence to suggest he couldn't predict how his measured language and dry prose could be far more easily spun than simpler direct statements he was perfectly capable of making.

Sure, I'm happy to say that Trump's fans can get their share of the blame for being so willing to be spun at (spun to?). But we're talking about Bob's role.

If you know people won't here a mumble because they're pumping their heavy metal or whatever and it's a matter of safety, the responsible thing to do is wave your arms and yell, not mumble anyway and say to yourself "They're be able to get out safely if they weren't playing that loud music. This is really their fault.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes, we're probably all familiar with that particular ruling.

Note that "ruling" may not be the best word here. That's a policy, not a law.

You're right, its not an actual law. (I was using 'ruling' it in a more generalized way, although policy does fit better.)

A prosecutor can indict a President, it's just clear how far he'd get. The policy has an exception, but it requires the AG to agree (that would have been Barr in this case). It's also not clear the policy is constitutional, it's never been tested.

True. And we also don't know if charges will be 'tolled' while the president is in office.

Perhaps they could use Trump as a test case... charge him with crimes from earlier in his term (past the point where the statute of limitations had run out). Get the supreme court to rule on whether the charges can proceed. If they say "yes", then the policy is constitutional. If the supreme court says "nope, statute of limitations has expired", then the implication is that the president COULD have been charged earlier and the policy is bunk.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If the supreme court says "nope, statute of limitations has expired", then the implication is that the president COULD have been charged earlier and the policy is bunk.

I think this part is probably not correct. The SC would say the case was moot and simply leave the question unanswered.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Charging Trump as a 'test case' for the "no presidential indictment policy"

If the supreme court says "nope, statute of limitations has expired", then the implication is that the president COULD have been charged earlier and the policy is bunk.

I think this part is probably not correct. The SC would say the case was moot and simply leave the question unanswered.

Well, no... I don't really think there is a way they could say "the case is moot", because it would be a criminal case involving a real, living person. There isn't much leeway there.

They declare things as moot if proceeding with the case would have no effect regardless of the results... but since Trump would potentially be facing jail time and/or fines, there would definitely be an effect.

ETA: They could simply refuse to hear the case, but then they would proceed according to whatever the lower court ruled.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, no... I don't really think there is a way they could say "the case is moot", because it would be a criminal case involving a real, living person. There isn't much leeway there.

They declare things as moot if proceeding with the case would have no effect regardless of the results... but since Trump would potentially be facing jail time and/or fines, there would definitely be an effect.

Maybe you could clarify your scenario then. I thought you were saying these charges would be beyond their statute of limitations. That would make it moot.

 

[Segnosaur]

Maybe you could clarify your scenario then. I thought you were saying these charges would be beyond their statute of limitations. That would make it moot.

Let me give you an example:

The statute of limitations for many federal crimes is 5 years. As part of the Mueller investigation, Trump submitted questions in 2018. It is widely thought that Trump lied in his answers, which would be a federal crime (perjury).

For a non-president, they would have until 2023 to bring charges, otherwise its past the statute of limitations. But lets say they tried to charge Trump with perjury in 2024. Assuming it made its way to the supreme court, there would be 2 options:

- If they say "The charges can proceed", it suggests that the crimes were 'tolled' (i.e. the statute of limitations was suspended while Trump was president). This would imply that the policy of not indicting a sitting president is correct

- If they say "you can't proceed because the statute of limitations has run out", then that implies the policy of not indicting a sitting president is invalid, since the only way to have charged him is to have indicted him when president

You can't have it both ways... you can't both say "the statute of limitations runs in real time" AND "you can't charge a sitting president" because it would allow a sitting president to avoid prosecution for crimes that occurred early in his tenure (or immediately prior to taking office, if he wasn't indicted prior to being sworn in.)

 

[Aridas]

Note that "ruling" may not be the best word here. That's a policy, not a law.

I think that it's also worth repeating that that policy in question was created specifically to guide the situation then at hand to a specific political end, which it worked just fine to do. Personally, I have no problem with it having been used that way for that situation, but for the more recent situations involving Trump, it just made things worse all around.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You can't have it both ways... you can't both say "the statute of limitations runs in real time" AND "you can't charge a sitting president" because it would allow a sitting president to avoid prosecution for crimes that occurred early in his tenure (or immediately prior to taking office, if he wasn't indicted prior to being sworn in.)

It can be both ways if the current laws are written that way. And

I don't believe that current statute of limitation laws have an exception for the president.

I think the way your scenario would play out is that the SC would reject the case as moot since the clock had run out and then leave it up to Congress to write new laws.

I'm out of my depth here but I'd expect something along the lines of Congress suing the DOJ for not enforcing laws is the right avenue for this.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That is not what Mueller said. He said How is that not wishy-washy?

Seems pretty clear to me. If he was innocent they would have said so, they didn't say it so it means that they clearly didn't think he was.

Mueller could have said what he did find. If he thought Dump needed to be able to rebut the 'circumstantial evidence' he certainly could have.

He did say what he did find, he wrote an entire report on what he found.

Mueller said he didn't want to be unfair to Dump. How about not wanting to be unfair to democracy and the American public? Was he hired by Dump to represent Dump like Barr?

Yeah, there is this thing called Due Process, it applies to everyone, not just to the people you like. We don't just declare people guilty without a trial, that is being fair to democracy and the American people.

Fine, so has the report yet been before Congress in a public hearing? Nope.

That sounds like a Congress problem to me.

This judge had little trouble calling Barr a liar using polite terms

Yeah, it's quite funny that we don't hear of investigators standing on the courthouse steps and calling out a DA for lying because they misrepresented their reports, but for some reason that doesn't stop Judges from doing it. I wonder why that is? I mean it couldn't be because investigative bodies need to remain as non-partisan parties in the events, while Judges can pretty much say whatever they darn well like, could it? Heck the fact the commission released a letter pretty much expressing their view that Barr was talking out his ass was rather precedential in these sorts of things

 

[Belz...]

Quite likely that even if Mueller were more forceful, the GOP still wouldn't convict.

However, it might have put more pressure on the republicans to actually deal with Russian election interference.

Given that Russian interference has helped them, I doubt it.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

So many “what if’s”.

One thing I know - some pretty reasonable friends of mine were left saying, “What a waste. All that money and they found nothing to charge him with”.

So, to that extent all the obfuscation worked. Those folks did not even read Part 2 of the report, nor did they know that with all the forfeitures the investigation at least broke even. Or that many guilty parties were charged and convicted. And they don’t seem to care to be informed along those lines.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It is not proper for a prosecutor to pronounce the guilt or innocence of a suspect.

A jury does that.

A prosecutor makes an indictment (or recommends doing so to their institution) or doesn't. There's 8000 moving parts on that decision, of course.

But I have no issue with Mueller's constrained wording in terms of maintaining that impartiality and propriety.

 

[Segnosaur]

It is not proper for a prosecutor to pronounce the guilt or innocence of a suspect.

A jury does that.

Mueller didn't have to pronounce guilt or innocence of Trump to be more explicit in his statements.

Something like "As a former prosecutor, I would feel charges would be warranted if this case did not involve the president".

See? No "Trump is guilty!". But, it does make it a lot clearer than "my report does not exonerate" (since "does not exonerate" could also mean it doesn't make a case FOR charging him either.)

And saying "trump is lying about exoneration" is a statement of fact.

 

[Segnosaur]

That is not what Mueller said. He said How is that not wishy-washy?

Seems pretty clear to me. If he was innocent they would have said so, they didn't say it so it means that they clearly didn't think he was.

I think its that little bit that is highlighted is the cause of the failure.

Yes, it seems obvious to you that Mueller's point was clear. But, you are probably more politically motivated than the majority of people, who might only catch the occasional news story on TV.

He did say what he did find, he wrote an entire report on what he found.

Yes, a big, impressive report. That Trump and his minions were able to hide much of from the public, at a time when knowing what was in it would have been most relevant.

Yeah, there is this thing called Due Process, it applies to everyone, not just to the people you like. We don't just declare people guilty without a trial, that is being fair to democracy and the American people.

Yes, there is due process.

And if Mueller had said "as a former prosecutor, I feel criminal charges would have been warranted if Trump were not the sitting president" would fit under "due process". Its would have been an expert opinion, based on both his experience and on facts, and would not have definitively said "Trump is guilty" (because only a jury can do that), but would at least give a clear indication about what would be warranted.

Fine, so has the report yet been before Congress in a public hearing? Nope.

That sounds like a Congress problem to me.

Yes, congress was a problem. So was Barr. So was Trump. Nobody is absolving them of their wrongdoing.

Mueller has the opportunity to counteract at least some of their wrongdoing, but he chose not to.

 

[Segnosaur]

Quite likely that even if Mueller were more forceful, the GOP still wouldn't convict.

However, it might have put more pressure on the republicans to actually deal with Russian election interference.

Given that Russian interference has helped them, I doubt it.

Russian interference helped them because the republicans were able to get their help while minimizing the knowledge of their involvement.

If Mueller had been more forceful, if the fact that Trump was more compromised by the Russians than many people thought, then Russian help becomes a lot more problematic for the republicans.

The Democrats can shout "Russian Involvement" until they are blue in the face, and republicans can dismiss it as "just political bias". Mueller was in a unique position... someone with a republican background who was seen to be acceptable to both sides, and a clear statement from him that Trump should face prosecution would have had more weight a hundred Democrats saying the same thing.