fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
Well, just look at the results of Pence’s crack investigative team who proved large scale voter fraud. Oh. Wait. Nvm.
Red
Well-Known Member
Let's try to understand what Mueller said yesterday, because he could not say the president was innocent of obstruction, but the reason he could not say he committed crimes was NOT insufficient evidence, as some here claim, but because guidelines were such that the Mueller team decided at the very start, that they could not even consider the question at all.
But first, some folks think obstruction is not in the cards for Trump if he did not commit an underlying crime, in this case conspiracy, therefore obstruction is factored out. No, that is not the case. Here is why considering obstruction was important.
Everything that follows in my comment, that is in quotes, is Mueller.
This is why obstruction of justice does not require an underlying crime:
"The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.
That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."
----------------------------------------------
Now, let's look at what Mueller said about part 2, the obstruction investigation:
"And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.
The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President."
--------------------------------------------
OK, read his above comments carefully. 1. If it was clear that Trump did not commit a crime, Mueller would have said as much. He could not say that. 2. He could not say he did commit a crime, NOT because of insufficient evidence, as some on this site claim, but because DOJ policy forbids charging the president with a crime. In fact, he says it is unconstitutional to charge the president with a crime. So, Mueller decided at the start that they were not going to consider, AT ALL, if Trump committed a crime. 3. Beyond those limitations imposed by DOJ policy, it would not be fair to charge anyone with a crime if they could not have their day in court. 4. Mueller clearly states that DOJ "opinion states that the Constitution requires a process other then the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing"( translation: it requires the process known as impeachment)
(Note: Barr misled Americans by saying DOJ policy was not the reason Mueller could not say Trump committed crimes. But, Mueller said that is EXACTLY the reason. Some are putting this huge difference bluntly: Barr LIED. Therefore, in yesterday's statement, Mueller REPUDIATED what Barr said weeks ago when he released the Mueller report.)
------------------------------------------------
So, in summary. if the report could say the president did not commit a crime, the report would say so. But, the report could not even consider if he did commit a crime, because the Constitution does not allow it. The Constitution requires impeachment hearings to determine if there was wrongdoing on the part of the president.
"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime." That is not the equivalent of saying insufficient evidence!! It is saying that is not our job, per DOJ guidelines, and, in Mueller's view, the Constitution.
Here is a full transcript. There are people on this site misinterpreting what Mueller said. Read the transcript!
http://time.com/5597514/robert-mueller-statement/?amp=true
And here is Mueller's statement, as recorded. Understand what the man said! He repudiated Barr's claims. And he passed the ball to Congress! Get it right, and stop the spin!:
But first, some folks think obstruction is not in the cards for Trump if he did not commit an underlying crime, in this case conspiracy, therefore obstruction is factored out. No, that is not the case. Here is why considering obstruction was important.
Everything that follows in my comment, that is in quotes, is Mueller.
This is why obstruction of justice does not require an underlying crime:
"The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.
That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."
----------------------------------------------
Now, let's look at what Mueller said about part 2, the obstruction investigation:
"And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.
The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President."
--------------------------------------------
OK, read his above comments carefully. 1. If it was clear that Trump did not commit a crime, Mueller would have said as much. He could not say that. 2. He could not say he did commit a crime, NOT because of insufficient evidence, as some on this site claim, but because DOJ policy forbids charging the president with a crime. In fact, he says it is unconstitutional to charge the president with a crime. So, Mueller decided at the start that they were not going to consider, AT ALL, if Trump committed a crime. 3. Beyond those limitations imposed by DOJ policy, it would not be fair to charge anyone with a crime if they could not have their day in court. 4. Mueller clearly states that DOJ "opinion states that the Constitution requires a process other then the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing"( translation: it requires the process known as impeachment)
(Note: Barr misled Americans by saying DOJ policy was not the reason Mueller could not say Trump committed crimes. But, Mueller said that is EXACTLY the reason. Some are putting this huge difference bluntly: Barr LIED. Therefore, in yesterday's statement, Mueller REPUDIATED what Barr said weeks ago when he released the Mueller report.)
------------------------------------------------
So, in summary. if the report could say the president did not commit a crime, the report would say so. But, the report could not even consider if he did commit a crime, because the Constitution does not allow it. The Constitution requires impeachment hearings to determine if there was wrongdoing on the part of the president.
"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime." That is not the equivalent of saying insufficient evidence!! It is saying that is not our job, per DOJ guidelines, and, in Mueller's view, the Constitution.
Here is a full transcript. There are people on this site misinterpreting what Mueller said. Read the transcript!
http://time.com/5597514/robert-mueller-statement/?amp=true
And here is Mueller's statement, as recorded. Understand what the man said! He repudiated Barr's claims. And he passed the ball to Congress! Get it right, and stop the spin!:
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Trump just admitted this morning that Russia helped him get elected. Look at what “liberal” George Conway wrote about it:
Red
Well-Known Member
In other words, the Mueller probe was INVESTIGATORY, not PROSECURTORIAL. The latter is the responsibility of Congress. Nonetheless, as Mueller stated, if Mueller could say with confidence that Trump did not commit crimes, he would have said that. He could not say that. And DOJ policy, and the Constitution, and fairness, did not permit Mueller to say he that Trump committed crimes. That is the job of Congress.
And that is why it is ridiculous to claim "case closed".
And that is why it is ridiculous to claim "case closed".
You've changed the goalposts again. There's a difference between 'he did things that are not acceptable in his private sphere' and 'his investigation was unprofessional'. Evidence of the former is not evidence of the latter. You can try to bang someone else without risking your job.
Legally, ethically, morally or publicly?
In fact, as their opinions change, they are often inclined to say that their new opinion is the opinion they have always had.
The hate I see is another personal attack from you. You've heaped abuse on Thriller.
Thriller does a good job of calling out Trumps nonstop BS. IMO his posts are not about hate for the right but the fact that republicans are putting party(or their own self interests) over country in protecting him.
I have a robot that puts water into a glass. I want the glass of water to be full.
Do you consider overfilling the glass to be a problem?
Have you considered the size of the glass?
There isn't really a wrong answer. We should be intimately familiar with what our answers are, but we need to consider what other people's answers are.
The Thriller is strongly partisan, and he does come across as hateful (I agree with him 99% of the time on the substance of what he writes). However, I don't think he posts very much that is worthy of being reported.
Trump is an ocean waiting to be filled. Thriller is just doing his small part.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Trump is the ocean. His hurricanes are giving you the baths you need.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
I dont agree with Thriller. But I dont have a problem with his content. Its typical liberl hate, but Ive seen worse. He seems like he is coming from a good place I guess.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
And just like OJ. You need a tall glass of it in the morning. But it might kill you in the long run.
Are you purposefully avoiding the questions, or generally as clueless as hack to how they apply here?
Last edited:
Lol, I’m not defending the Rs. They suck and are putting party before country. Trump is a national embarrassment and most of his policies are stupid at best. Something most posters here point to and discuss normally. Yourself included. Glad we got that settled.
But none of that has was the point of my post. Im pointing to his constant hate of anyone or thing on the right. It’s disgusting and tolerated simply because it’s popular to hate on the right at this point in time. I take none of it back nor apologize for it.
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I haven't heard Trump worry about what the Dems will "uncover" either. Guess we ought to just drop that investigation as well.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
He's saying that he could figure out your position in advance on every single argument simply by knowing which side the dems are on and which side the republicans are on. It's amazing that you're so blind to it, but the sort of explanation that you are making above can be made both ways as long as you come from a partisan position.
If you haven't understood what his version of "witch hunt" "hoax" and "no collusion" mean, perhaps you deserve a totalitarian leader.