Mueller Investigation pt 7

Aridas said:
Depends. Question, do you know what the actual rules and standard practices related to such are, for example? If there are normal data saving requirements, was a backup/digital image made first?

It wouldn't be the first time that groups jumped to spurious conclusions of wrongdoing based on cherry picked facts that don't represent the whole picture well - and the people who have been trying to delegitimize what was actually done by the Mueller investigation have a history of forwarding a set of almost identical failed claims related to Hillary's e-mails.
Click to expand...

Among the reasons given was that people had forgotten their passcodes, there was irreversible screen damage or people had lost them.


Andrew Weissman, Mueller's deputy, 'accidentally wiped' his phone on two occasions after entering the wrong passcode too many times in March 2018, and lawyer James Quarles' phone 'wiped itself' without his intervention, the documents claim.

A phone belonging to FBI lawyer Lisa Page - who was caught exchanging anti-Trump texts with FBI agent Peter Strzok - had also been wiped by the time it was handed over.
Click to expand...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...including-FBI-lover-Lisa-Page-info-wiped.html
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1314367289295331329



Document embedded in tweet.

I can't find Trump's original tweet on his account, but here's a tweet with a screencap: https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1314374166552821761
Click to expand...


I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1313640512025513984

All Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago. Unfortunately for our Country, people have acted very slowly, especially since it is perhaps the biggest political crime in the history of our Country. Act!!!
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1313650640699224069
 
Have a question....

We know that major sections of the Mueller report were redacted for various reasons... one such reason was to prevent interference with on-going criminal cases. (Over time, some of the redacted sections have been un-redacted, so I am not sure how much remained secret.)

With Trump engaging in pardon-palooza for his henchmen (YOU get a pardon! And YOU get a pardon!), does anyone know if that will affect any parts of the Mueller report? Since being pardoned means you can't be prosecuted, will they be able to release other sections of the report because people they could have investigated can't be charged anymore?
 
It's been a bit since there was interesting news related to the Mueller Report, but... this likely does count.

Court Finds Barr Lied About Mueller Report

U.S. District Judge: Release the Memo Barr Used to Clear Trump from Mueller

Really short version of some of the most relevant findings? Barr and the DOJ lied brazenly and put forth seriously bad faith arguments to try to hide that and the evidence is apparently very clear on that.

To poke at some remarkable quotes...

“while CREW had never laid eyes on the document, its summary was considerably more accurate than the one supplied by the Department’s declarants.”
Click to expand...

...That's quite the statement.

The court noted a presumption in favor of the truth agency affidavits when “they are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith.” The court then blistered the DOJ’s hide saying “but here, we have both.” That’s both contradictory evidence AND bad faith. The court found “the affidavits are so inconsistent with evidence in the record, they are not worthy of credence.” The allegation of dishonesty towards the court is then made more clear:

“DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege. The agency’s redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time.”
Click to expand...

Ouch. It would be nice if charges were to follow, in addition to the memo being released.
 
You mean Barr LIED about the Mueller Report saying Trump didn't obstruct justice? That's not exactly new news. Mueller told us that himself not long after Barr's statement came out. But still it's nice to have a court officially tell us that. Not that anything will come of it.
 
Stacyhs said:
You mean Barr LIED about the Mueller Report saying Trump didn't obstruct justice? That's not exactly new news. Mueller told us that himself not long after Barr's statement came out. But still it's nice to have a court officially tell us that. Not that anything will come of it.
Click to expand...

I think lying to the public was reprehensible. But lying to a court is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Perhaps an actionable kettle of fish.

For those with next-day access to Rachel Maddow’s show on MSNBC, last night’s show began with a fairly deep analysis of the matter. Anyone should be able to access her podcast of the previous night’s show, through their podcast aggregator of choice.
 
What has been the Republican response to the court's slamming of Barr and his DOJ's handling of Mueller's report? None that I can find. Anyone else find anything?
 
Stacyhs said:
What has been the Republican response to the court's slamming of Barr and his DOJ's handling of Mueller's report? None that I can find. Anyone else find anything?
Click to expand...

I expect they're mostly examining their fingernails.
 
Stacyhs said:
You mean Barr LIED about the Mueller Report saying Trump didn't obstruct justice? That's not exactly new news. Mueller told us that himself not long after Barr's statement came out.
Click to expand...
Actually I think that's part of the problem... Mueller didn't tell us that Trump obstructed justice. Instead, he always phrased his statements along the lines of "My report didn't exonerate Trump", which muddied the waters.

If he came right out and said "Trump broke the law", it would have been much harder for the republicans to sweep things under the rug. But Mueller's weak phrasing allowed the republicans to spin things dishonestly.
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually I think that's part of the problem... Mueller didn't tell us that Trump obstructed justice. Instead, he always phrased his statements along the lines of "My report didn't exonerate Trump", which muddied the waters.

If he came right out and said "Trump broke the law", it would have been much harder for the republicans to sweep things under the rug. But Mueller's weak phrasing allowed the republicans to spin things dishonestly.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you in spirit, I think Mueller was caught between a rock and a hard place. It was not Mueller's job nor his place to say "Trump broke the law". He did say that was Congress's job.
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually I think that's part of the problem... Mueller didn't tell us that Trump obstructed justice. Instead, he always phrased his statements along the lines of "My report didn't exonerate Trump", which muddied the waters.

If he came right out and said "Trump broke the law", it would have been much harder for the republicans to sweep things under the rug. But Mueller's weak phrasing allowed the republicans to spin things dishonestly.
Click to expand...

Well, for anyone who took the time to read Part 2 of his report, he did clearly lay out roughly a dozen cases of obstruction, clearly laying out the 3 elements required to establish each charge.

But after Barr misled the public, and “No Obstruction” became a Trump rallying cry repeated ad nauseum, I think Mueller had an obligation to speak out loudly and clearly about what Part 2 actually established. I’m at a loss as to why he held back.
 
Stacyhs said:
While I agree with you in spirit, I think Mueller was caught between a rock and a hard place. It was not Mueller's job nor his place to say "Trump broke the law". He did say that was Congress's job.
Click to expand...
Not buying it. As much as I agree with almost everything you post, Mueller had the choice between standing up for principles of democracy and some copout it wasn't his place or his job.

Dump's using Russia to boost his chances of winning the election was akin to treason if not outright treason. And Dump took action to benefit Russia during the election (supporting changing the GOP platform and some actions after). Surely Mueller knew this. Pretty easy to just claim it wasn't your job as opposed to taking a stand on principles.

And what's coming out now from the judge evaluating the Barr 'memo' is pretty telling about what Mueller knew at the time about Barr's covering up the report.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Well, for anyone who took the time to read Part 2 of his report, he did clearly lay out roughly a dozen cases of obstruction, clearly laying out the 3 elements required to establish each charge.

But after Barr misled the public, and “No Obstruction” became a Trump rallying cry repeated ad nauseum, I think Mueller had an obligation to speak out loudly and clearly about what Part 2 actually established. I’m at a loss as to why he held back.
Click to expand...

My guess is it's the same as whatever kept him from fully investigating the charges and then pursuing any criminal charges for the few crimes he did choose to investigate. I'm not sure what that thing is, most people say it's some sense of honor that he punted that over to Congress. Which is fine, except for everyone knew that an acquittal was guaranteed no matter what that report contained. Then he let those same people not only get away with everything they did drag the whole thing through the mud afterwards.

So I have no idea what sense of honor that fulfilled or why he would sit back and watch it unfold the way it did.
 
Mueller could and should have said clearly that what Trump did was grounds for Impeachment. He didn't make it clear that Congress had to take over from him and continue - after all, many congressional investigations where put on hold in the expectation that Mueller would do it.

No, Mueller dropped the ball intentionally, because he made himself believe that honest Republicans would pick it up.
After what Barr did it should have been obvious to him that his job wasn't done.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Mueller could and should have said clearly that what Trump did was grounds for Impeachment. He didn't make it clear that Congress had to take over from him and continue - after all, many congressional investigations where put on hold in the expectation that Mueller would do it.

No, Mueller dropped the ball intentionally, because he made himself believe that honest Republicans would pick it up.
After what Barr did it should have been obvious to him that his job wasn't done.
Click to expand...

After what Barr did? I'd take it back further, really. After what Rosenstein did to outright shield Trump from being directly investigated, red alarms should have been blaring. Mueller's version of what constituted campaign finance law violations was also problematic.

Mueller intentionally dropped the ball, sure, but the problem causing Republicans seem like they're pretty ubiquitous.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not buying it. As much as I agree with almost everything you post, Mueller had the choice between standing up for principles of democracy and some copout it wasn't his place or his job.
Dump's using Russia to boost his chances of winning the election was akin to treason if not outright treason. And Dump took action to benefit Russia during the election (supporting changing the GOP platform and some actions after). Surely Mueller knew this. Pretty easy to just claim it wasn't your job as opposed to taking a stand on principles.

And what's coming out now from the judge evaluating the Barr 'memo' is pretty telling about what Mueller knew at the time about Barr's covering up the report.
Click to expand...

Mueller didn't say that, I did. And it wasn't Mueller's job to say that Trump broke the law: he was not a court of law nor a judge. It was his place to present the facts in the report and that alone. This speculation that he 'intentionally dropped the ball' is based on no evidence at all. I understand the disappointment in the results of the report but I think you're projecting that onto Mueller. As are several of the other posters here.

That "Muelller could and should have said clearly that what Trump did was grounds for Impeachment" and "He didn't make it clear that Congress had to take over from him and continue" is nonsense. What are grounds for impeachment is up to Congress, not Mueller and what Congress "has" to do is equally not up to Mueller. If Mueller had done either, it would seriously have undermined his position of neutrality as the Special Counsel. Can you imagine the apoplectic fits of screaming coming from the Republicans if he had done either? There were enough accusations of 'witch hunt' as it was.


If you want to know why Mueller did what he did, read the following:

Former special counsel Robert Mueller testified Wednesday that he did not indict President Donald Trump on obstruction of justice charges because of Department of Justice guidelines barring a sitting president from being indicted — but later clarified his remarks.

The confusion came amid questioning from Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California during Mueller's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee.

Lieu recounted the three elements needed for the crime of obstruction of justice.

"I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Lieu asked. "That is correct," Mueller asked.
Former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara — an Obama appointee who was initially asked to stay on the job by Trump before the president changed his mind and fired him — tweeted the exchange was "very very close to Mueller saying that but for the OLC memo, Trump would have been indicted."

MSNBC legal analyst Ari Melber was less sure about the meaning of the exchange.

"Lieu's suggestion is along the lines that 'a crime was found but could not be charged.' But that’s not what the report says. So there may be further debate about what Mueller meant by his reply to Lieu," Melber wrote.

The former FBI director had said in his report he never reached a decision on whether Trump could or should be charged with obstruction because of the OLC guidance. In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to "correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu. "That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said.
Click to expand...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ump-could-be-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom