Mueller Investigation pt 6

[ponderingturtle]

No, he is not and was never "enormously popular." He was winning primaries with 20% of the vote because the 80% of Republicans who wanted somebody else were split 16 different ways.

But he was most voters second or third choice. In terms of picking the most popular he won fair and square.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If they already are disposed not to vote for Trump, not many of them will change their minds. However, you might ask, why would any of them at all change their minds?

First of all, of those people not inclined to vote for Trump some of them would not vote for him ever, ever, ever. Others have varying degrees of dislike. Of those, some of them only have a minor dislike. If their dislike of the Democrats could be increased a bit, it might exceed their dislike for Trump.

I think that when the Democrats lay out Trump's crimes, an awful lot of people will say, "Huh? Those aren't crimes." They'll be upset at the anti-Trump forces who wasted their time.

Yep presidents define justice and as such are incapable of obstructing it. If only Nixon had held to his guns he would have gone on to at least a third term.

 

[Crossbow]

Why do we use the phrase "the Constitution is not a suicide pact?"

If it is obvious it isn't, the phrase is redundant.

If it is in response to a part of the Constitution that looks like a suicide pact, it isn't a logical retort.

Once again, I have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

[Ziggurat]

He did not and could not indict Trump.

But what he could do is state that a crime occurred. And he explicitly refused to do so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As we are seeing right now, in a climate like this one, a lot of people can get caught up in something and whether or not it's legal, bad things can happen to them. I can't read McGahn's mind, but the source of the problem is that there's some real ambiguity in the law, such that it's hard to say when perfectly legal interactions become illegal interference. McGahn didn't want to even go near the grey areas.

However, what was really happening with the McGahn situation was that Trump thought Mueller was on a "witch hunt". Trump thought Mueller was biased and was being unfair. He thought the investigation was a waste of time and money. Now, in the course of this investigation and the media coverage thereof, we have heard it said many times that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. I want to flip that around, and note that no American's constitutional rights can be denied, not even those of the President of the United States. How could President Trump express his opinion that Mueller was off the rails? What would it be legal to do? What he actually did was to tell his lawyer that his lawyer ought to talk to the Deputy Attorney General, and tell that official that it was the President's opinion that Mueller had gone too far, and that the Deputy Attorney General ought to replace Mueller with somebody else.

And ordering him fired is not just an opinion about his fairness, it is an attempt to obstruct justice. Up next Trump will win the Nobel Prize for attempted peace.

Of course Kusherner's dad got convicted on both the crimes and obstructing justice in the investigation of the crimes something that clearly should be impossible right, because if he obstructed justice then the crime couldn't be charged.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yep. you read one section, came to the wrong conclusion, and then made arguments based on being wrong. I do not recommend doing that.

You really should read the whole thing, but the parts that lay out, in excruciating detail, how Trump broke the law is Volume II, Section II. I mean, that's the bulk of Volume II. The rest of it is an explanation of how a country deals with a law-breaking President and legal justification for those methods.

And just because you seem to have missed this at some point, I will re-iterate it loudly: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A CRIME. DOING OBSTRUCTION MAKES ONE A CRIMINAL, EVEN IF THAT ONE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

(That's laid out in Volume II as well.)

Meadmaker subscribes to the Nixon doctrine "It's legal when the president does it"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a LawFare article from January discussing the question.

The issues raised and conclusions are much the same as your conjectures.

Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case?

Short answer, if McConnell really wanted to blow the whole thing off, there are ways that he could. If he was willing to take the chance that it wouldn't be political suicide.

There's an ap a solution for this:

Going ahead with impeachment in light of the Senate can be handled properly if the Democrats hang a lampshade on it.

Unrealistic Plot Point? Just Hang A Lampshade On It

Make the GOP Senate look corrupt, (because they are), by pointing out the House intends to show Trump's impeachable crimes knowing the Senate will cover the evidence up.

 

[Upchurch]

But what he could do is state that a crime occurred. And he explicitly refused to do so.

Again, no. What the report said is that if the office could state that Trump did not commit a crime, it would do so. It was unable to do so on obstruction.

I highly recommend educating yourself on a topic before commenting on it.

 

[Belz...]

But what he could do is state that a crime occurred. And he explicitly refused to do so.

No, he said the report speaks for itself, and that if there was a conclusion that a crime had not been commited, he would've said so.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Again, no. What the report said is that if the office could state that Trump did not commit a crime, it would do so. It was unable to do so on obstruction.

I highly recommend educating yourself on a topic before commenting on it.

But that would make the narative they need harder. It is simple Mueller would not say a crime was committed when he couldn't get an indictment for the crime. And he felt that he could not indict the president so stating the president committed a crime when that crime can not be indicted was not his place.

Now does Zig thinks that he should have indicted the president I guess instead of waiting for an impeachment?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, he said the report speaks for itself

And the report explicitly refused to conclude that a crime had occurred. There's no "No" involved. You should have said "Yes", because what I said is true.

and that if there was a conclusion that a crime had not been commited, he wouldn't said say so.

FTFY. Yes, but that doesn't contradict what I said.

 

[Upchurch]

And the report explicitly refused to conclude that a crime had occurred. There's no "No" involved. You should have said "Yes", because what I said is true.

That answers that. You still haven't read the report.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, no.

Again, yes.

What the report said is that if the office could state that Trump did not commit a crime, it would do so. It was unable to do so on obstruction.

You say that like it contradicts what I said. But it doesn't. It's possible to not reach a conclusion in either direction. Refusing to say no crime occurred is not at all the same as saying that a crime did occur. The inference that it did is not logically valid, and is explicitly denied by the report.

I highly recommend educating yourself on a topic before commenting on it.

I could say the same of you. Except I would be right, and you would be wrong.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Mueller made it clear that, according to his interpretation, he cannot say that someone who cannot defend himself in court committed a crime.
That is why he 'only' made clear that Trump did not not commit crimes.

It is quite possible that Mueller has a faulty interpretation of the OLC guideline, but until a court decides its limits, he is staying on the safe side.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now does Zig thinks that he should have indicted the president I guess instead of waiting for an impeachment?

It was not within Mueller's power to indict Trump. It was within Mueller's power to conclude that Trump committed a crime. Mueller refused to do so, and refused explicitly.

 

[Upchurch]

I could say the same of you. Except I would be right, and you would be wrong.

You aren't. If you'd bothered to do the homework, you'd know that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Mueller made it clear that, according to his interpretation, he cannot say that someone who cannot defend himself in court committed a crime.

No. Mueller's interpretation is that he should not, not that he cannot.

 

[Ziggurat]

You aren't. If you'd bothered to do the homework, you'd know that.

I have done my homework, which is why I know you're wrong. Do you need quotes from the report?

 

[Upchurch]

No. Mueller's interpretation is that he should not, not that he cannot.

He should not because he was following DOJ guidelines. You are correct that he could have broken those guidelines, but Mueller is by-the-book.

Do you think it is reasonable to expect Mueller to break DOJ guidelines?

 

[Meadmaker]

Y'all need to step outside your echo chamber.

Trump is not going to be convicted on anything in the Mueller report, either by the Senate, or by a jury after he leaves office.

I am less confident of the political ramifications, but I think if the Dems pursue impeachment it will be unpopular politically.

(Barring new revelations.)

Feel free to say I told you so if I turn out to be wrong, but until then, I have nothing more to say on the subject.