Mueller Investigation pt 6

[smartcooky]

Mueller didn't charge the President with a crime.

Mueller was always constrained by the OLC memo that says a president cannot be criminally indicted or charged. He actually states that in at least two places in his report

Does that mean Mueller did not do his job? Or does it mean Mueller did his job but did not attain the outcome the other sides were hoping for.

Neither, it means that Mueller was prevented from doing his job by the stupid, arbitrary policy stance of the DoJ. There is nothing in Law, or in the US constitution that prevents POTUS bring be criminally indicted.

Its is worth noting that the states have no such policy and the DoJ have no jurisdiction over them. Congress, the DoJ and Trump could well find themselves blind-sided by the New York state AG who is proceeding with investigations of Trump's finances & business dealings. There is nothing to prevent her from seeking a Grand Jury indictment against Trump - in fact, they may already have done so.

Barr released the report. If Congress finds there is evidence to Impeach they should do so without delay. They won't, because the evidence is not there.

They don't know if the evidence is there, because Barr is hiding evidence under redactions. The House will need the full, unredacted report to commence impeachment.

However, Barr himself has already lied under oath, and it would not surprise me if they began impeachment proceedings against him soon.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Totally bizarre interpretation of my post. Let me try to clarify.

You don't know if he views his actions as protecting the president. He could just view them as acting as an independent AG. You actually need evidence of intent to make that determination.

I understood your post, Bob.

If you don't understand my answer, I have no desire to try again. Maybe if you re-read what I said keeping your comment in mind.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I understood your post, Bob.

If you don't understand my answer, I have no desire to try again. Maybe if you re-read what I said keeping your comment in mind.

You mentioned nobility out of nowhere. It didn't seem his actions were being qualified as such. I certainly wasn't attempting to evaluate it by that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You mentioned nobility out of nowhere. It didn't seem his actions were being qualified as such. I certainly wasn't attempting to evaluate it by that.

It was sarcasm.

 

[Frank Newgent]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.72ba165d741e

 

[Checkmite]

Trump, Putin discussed Mueller report and agreed no collusion, White House says

Well I guess that settles that.

 

[Brainache]

Trump, Putin discussed Mueller report and agreed no collusion, White House says

Well I guess that settles that.

In other news: Bonny and Clyde agree that they never robbed a bank...

 

[CapelDodger]

So if Barr views his role as protecting the POTUS who has committed crimes then Barr's intent was noble.

Not something you can reasonably infer from Bob's post. Very few reasonable inferences follow an introductory "So..."; when you find yourself employing it, pause and ponder.

 

[Belz...]

Mueller was always constrained by the OLC memo that says a president cannot be criminally indicted or charged. He actually states that in at least two places in his report

Yeah but who has time to read that, amirite?

 

[CapelDodger]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.72ba165d741e

"Is you taking notes on a criminal freakin' conspiracy?".


Word of McGahn's notes galvanised a Trumpian reaction that was, I think, very telling.



What frightens Trump isn't what he knows will have been noted but that he hasn't actually got a clue what might have been noted, by whom, where, when, about what now? It's a fog to him.

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah but who has time to read that,

I do... I've read it twice, and I'm about 120 pages into my third reading.

... amirite?

If you mean what I think you mean... then yes!

 

[smartcooky]

"Is you taking notes on a criminal freakin' conspiracy?".


Word of McGahn's notes galvanised a Trumpian reaction that was, I think, very telling.

What frightens Trump isn't what he knows will have been noted but that he hasn't actually got a clue what might have been noted, by whom, where, when, about what now? It's a fog to him.

Trump hates the idea of anyone keeping a written record of what he says & does, because he knows written records can not only come back and bite you in the arse, they are also very difficult to refute.

 

[alfaniner]

Trump hates the idea of anyone keeping a written record of what he says & does, because he knows written records can not only come back and bite you in the arse, they are also very difficult to refute.

Yet he has no problem saying all the **** he does on TV...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump hates the idea of anyone keeping a written record of what he says & does, because he knows written records can not only come back and bite you in the arse, they are also very difficult to refute.

You do know this is Trump you are talking about here, right?

Pretty sure it is only certian specific records he wants hidden.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

“They wanted to know what Trump was up to with the Russians - which of course is nonsense. This whole thing was a complete setup.” George Papadopoulos to @seanhannity

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Mueller was always constrained by the OLC memo that says a president cannot be criminally indicted or charged. He actually states that in at least two places in his report



Neither, it means that Mueller was prevented from doing his job by the stupid, arbitrary policy stance of the DoJ. There is nothing in Law, or in the US constitution that prevents POTUS bring be criminally indicted.

Its is worth noting that the states have no such policy and the DoJ have no jurisdiction over them. Congress, the DoJ and Trump could well find themselves blind-sided by the New York state AG who is proceeding with investigations of Trump's finances & business dealings. There is nothing to prevent her from seeking a Grand Jury indictment against Trump - in fact, they may already have done so.



They don't know if the evidence is there, because Barr is hiding evidence under redactions. The House will need the full, unredacted report to commence impeachment.

However, Barr himself has already lied under oath, and it would not surprise me if they began impeachment proceedings against him soon.

It appears you are full of Schiff.

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Trump, Putin discussed Mueller report and agreed no collusion, White House says

Well I guess that settles that.

I think the Mueller Report settled it first.

Chris B.

 

[Belz...]

I do... I've read it twice, and I'm about 120 pages into my third reading.

Boo! Don't ruin the joke!

 

[smartcooky]

It appears you are full of Schiff.

Chris B.

I think the Mueller Report settled it first.

Chris B.

 

[Craig4]

Sure, quoting sources that were taken from CNN and Wapo.
I'm not certain those media outlets are Right Wing?

Anyway, the facts are facts regardless who found them or who tries to bury them. You'll need to put on your skeptic hat every now and then of course.

I realize you may not have received the outcome you were hoping for, however denying facts is never a wise course of action.

Chris B.

The outcome in the investigation is fine. It proved collusion, it proved obstruction. Cherry picking what fix any of that. It's just the kind of dishonest thing a Trump supporter would do. Yet again we see Trump supporters aren't patriotic Americans.