Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
The "can't indict the President" rule does not prohibit Mueller (or any other investigator) from concluding that the President committed an otherwise prosecutable offense.
Click to expand...

It doesn't preclude it, but don't you think that it would make it unadviseable? If the president can't be indicted, then talking about presecution directly would be unfair. It's best to just lay out the evidence and let DAs and districts and Congress deal with it.
 
Ziggurat said:
The "can't indict the President" rule does not prohibit Mueller (or any other investigator) from concluding that the President committed an otherwise prosecutable offense.
Click to expand...
That is precisely what it does. Mueller explains in gory detail that the DOJ actively accusing a sitting president of a crime does not allow the president a venue in which to attempt to clear his name. As the report puts it, it wouldn't be fair.

Ziggurat said:
And the rule in question isn't about who can be indicted. It's about whether to use the standard of whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a crime (Volume I) or the standard of whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a lack of crime (Volume II). Those standards are not the same, at all.
Click to expand...
*double facepalm*

You're bound and determined to cherry pick rather than read the actual report, aren't you?

Ziggurat said:
And that was a choice Mueller made, it was not imposed on him by any federal law or regulation.
Click to expand...
MUELLER FOLLOWED DOJ POLICY. IT IS DOJ POLICY THAT THEY CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.

You think Mueller wasn't going to do things by the book? That's why they chose him.

I'm just really embarrassed for you, now. Look: Free audio book version of the Mueller report. You don't even have to read it. You can just listen to it instead. It's only 19 hours long. I found that 1.5x to 2x speed was perfectly understandable.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Seriously???
Click to expand...

Seriously that is what is in the Cohen documents. Seriously it is anyone other than Trump? Of course not. But according to the rules they could not say the President committed crimes and so they didn't, it was Individual One.

" . From in or around 2007 through in or around January 2017 ,
MICHAEL COHEN , the defendant , was an attorney and employee of a
Manhattan- based real estate company (the " Company" ) . COHEN held
the title of " Executive Vice President " and "Special Counsel " to
the owner of the Company (" Individual 1 ""


https://www.justice.gov/file/1115596/download To the Cohen plea deal.

They went out of their way to not say Trump committed Crimes they can not indict him for there. Everyone knows that is what it says but it does not specifically say President Trump committed these crimes. That is different from say the un indicted co-conspirator like Christy.
 
Upchurch said:
That is precisely what it does. Mueller explains in gory detail that the DOJ actively accusing a sitting president of a crime does not allow the president a venue in which to attempt to clear his name. As the report puts it, it wouldn't be fair.
Click to expand...

And that is why Mueller thinks he shouldn't do it. But shouldn't and can't are very different things. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?

MUELLER FOLLOWED DOJ POLICY. IT IS DOJ POLICY THAT THEY CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT.
Click to expand...

That isn't what's in dispute. And as a matter of fact, no, Mueller didn't follow DOJ policy. From page 214 of the PDF:

"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."

In other words, Mueller didn't use Justice Manual standards of prosecution and declination decisions.

Furthermore, his press conference was not even close to DOJ policy.

I'm just really embarrassed for you, now. Look: Free audio book version of the Mueller report. You don't even have to read it. You can just listen to it instead. It's only 19 hours long. I found that 1.5x to 2x speed was perfectly understandable.
Click to expand...

You keep appealing to the report, yet I'm the one who actually quotes from it to support my case. You never do. Strange, that.
 
Ziggurat said:
You keep appealing to the report, yet I'm the one who actually quotes from it to support my case. You never do. Strange, that.
Click to expand...

Remember when TBD used to take out of context snips from his sources in order to claim they said what he wanted them to say? That appears to be becoming standard conservative practice, sadly.
 
Belz... said:
Sure, in the same way that it's my choice to run a red light.
Click to expand...

Not equivalent. There are laws against running a red light. There is no law or even rule against Mueller deciding whether or not Trump committed a prosecutable crime. There's a rule against indicting him, but you don't need to indict him to make that determination.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not equivalent. There are laws against running a red light. There is no law or even rule against Mueller deciding whether or not Trump committed a prosecutable crime. There's a rule against indicting him, but you don't need to indict him to make that determination.
Click to expand...

Already addressed upthread. Mueller would have to accuse the president of a crime without indicting him. He had a choice, sure, but there was only one correct solution.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not equivalent. There are laws against running a red light. There is no law or even rule against Mueller deciding whether or not Trump committed a prosecutable crime. There's a rule against indicting him, but you don't need to indict him to make that determination.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to get at here? Are you trying to say that Mueller didn't indict Trump because there was nothing to indict him for OR that Mueller didn't indict him because he followed DOJ policy?
 
Upchurch said:
What are you trying to get at here? Are you trying to say that Mueller didn't indict Trump because there was nothing to indict him for OR that Mueller didn't indict him because he followed DOJ policy?
Click to expand...

I'm getting at the fact that determining the president committed a crime is different than indicting the president. DOJ policy prohibits the latter. It does not prohibit the former.
 
Upchurch said:
I know this is hard for you, but you had to keep reading. Was I expecting too much?
Click to expand...

If your intention was to demonstrate that you quoted from the report, why the hell would you link to a post where you didn't quote from the report rather than to a post where you did quote from the report?

*I* expected too much.
 
tanabear said:
In the 2012 election it was the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, who expressed more hostility to Russia than Obama. Four years later both Republicans and Democrats assumed Russia to be a "hostile foreign power". However, I don't care about mainstream thought, which is largely just propaganda for the war machine. How does Russia threaten Americans?
Click to expand...
I will accept for the sake of argument and for the time being, that Russia threatens the US in all the ways the conventional wisdom says it does.

Now, I have a question for you: *if* Russia is a threat to the US, would this change your opinion about the wisdom of countering a foreign adversary's surreptitious efforts to influence one of our elections?
 
Ziggurat said:
If your intention was to demonstrate that you quoted from the report, why the hell would you link to a post where you didn't quote from the report rather than to a post where you did quote from the report?

*I* expected too much.
Click to expand...

If one micro-analyzes too much, one tends to forget about the importance of context, wouldn't you say?

:rub:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom