I get your point. We'll have to see though. The report doesn't say "we found these crimes but couldn't indict because of the DOJ's policy". I mean, we can all assume that they didn't indict Trump because the DOJ's policy and we're right but i don't think Meuller can say he committed a crime (i'm not a lawyer). I think he'll say that determination is up to congress. Because he'll say Trump committed a crime without actually uttering those words.
Mueller will testify Trump committed Obstruction.[UPDATE-5/10 Committe Testimony]
- Thread starter dasmybikepunk
- Start date
I get your point. We'll have to see though. The report doesn't say "we found these crimes but couldn't indict because of the DOJ's policy". I mean, we can all assume that they didn't indict Trump because the DOJ's policy and we're right but i don't think Meuller can say he committed a crime (i'm not a lawyer). I think he'll say that determination is up to congress. Because he'll say Trump committed a crime without actually uttering those words.
Don't be an idiot and look at the context of my point. Clearly "plead 5th" in this context is synonymous with "no comment"
Man this shit has so many twists and turns to it
there is no "no comment"
Mueller collected, examined the underlying evidence and wrote the report
the only things he will be able to avoid comment on in open session currently is grand jury (becomes wide open during impeachment) on going investigations (also wide open during impeachment) and national security (wide open in closed session and impeachment)
EVERYTHING not redacted on the report released - he is compelled to testify about
Anything that he determined needed no redaction - might be grey area- he can choose to answer on case by case
Answering if the AG shut down the probe - is open
Answering in detail why he chose not to charge Trump Jr - is open
Answering why he didn't pursue a subpoena for Trump interview - is open
etc - etc -etc
You, my friend, are hitting the nail on the head
"The report doesn't say "we found these crimes but couldn't indict because of the DOJ's policy".
dude - that's exactly what the report said
It depends on how the question is asked
All fair points and none of it contradicts my overall point. He will stay within facts and what the investigation revealed.
you have no point... only the naieve expect him to speculate or opine in front of Congress
I suggest you actually read the report for yourself - to truly comprehend how dangerous and damaging the facts presented in it are
Mueller presenting only the facts and evidence contained in the report and nothing else
but he will also be compelled to give more info like: what was his budget before Barr - and what did it become in March 2019?
Also consider that the Butina case is no longer an ongoing investigation
Come on man... The report doesn't say they couldn't indict him before of the DOJ's policy. The report doesn't even say they were going to indict him at all. It does say that Trump has/had troubling behaviors and listed them.
I don't think it matters. He can't say that unfortunately... He can hint at it but can't outright say it.
you have no point... only the naieve expect him to speculate or opine in front of Congress
I suggest you actually read the report for yourself - to truly comprehend how dangerous and damaging the facts presented in it are
Mueller presenting only the facts and evidence contained in the report and nothing else
but he will also be compelled to give more info like: what was his budget before Barr - and what did it become in March 2019?
Also consider that the Butina case is no longer an ongoing investigation
What's "naieve ?"
I have serious doubts that Donald Trump will even run in 2020
#good.....#fuck him
That's the only thing that's protecting him from all the legal work that's waiting for him as soon as he leave office. Make no mistake about it Trump has no intention of leaving office even if he loses a relatively "fair" election.
- Mueller wrote that under DoJ's legal framework it was not Mueller's job to determine if potus commited a crime
just collect all the evidence and present it.
To Mueller's understanding only congress could determine if potus committed crimes - and he expected his report to be presented to congress
why not?
I have been listening to legal opinions all day, and there is a
man, claiming to have been trained by Mueller, who claims
to be his friend, who is saying that Mueller will say he would
have charged Trump with obstruction of justice if DOJ guide
lines allowed him to.
Last edited:
sic / misspelled
Mueller went to the DOJ and asked if he could charge Trump. He was told he could not.
under DoJ's legal framework it was not Mueller's job to determine if potus commited a crime
just collect all the evidence and present it.
To Mueller's understanding only congress could determine if potus committed crimes - and he expected his report to be presented to congress
Rod Rosenstein told Mueller, to not condemn someone he could not charge, and hence
he wrote the report the way he did, and said he thought the only way to hold Trump
accountable was to hand off the matter to Congress. Barr then lied that Mueller had
handed off the matter for his decision, which he did not do. Many legal experts expressed
doubts about Barr's claims, and the suspicions were vindicated by the report itself which
said Mueller wanted Congress to decide the matter. Barr then changed his tune, saying
regardless of what Mueller wanted, the matter ended the day Mueller submitted his report,
and at that point it became "his baby". Barr then shockingly stated that Mueller should
have made a charging decision, if he so felt, otherwise the matter was for Barr to decide.
How could he charge the president if he was not allowed to?
Well Barr and Trump have now opened the door for Mueller to answer the simple hypothetical
question: "If there was no DOJ policy to not charge the president with obstruction of justice,
would you have done so?"
Yearsssssssss fam. This roast seems neverending and without real justice.
under DoJ's legal framework it was not Mueller's job to determine if potus commited a crime
just collect all the evidence and present it.
To Mueller's understanding only congress could determine if potus committed crimes - and he expected his report to be presented to congress
Come on man...
"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."
Meaning, yes, we found a crime. We just can't charge him.
"the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,"
under DoJ's legal framework it was not Mueller's job to determine if potus commited a crime
just collect all the evidence and present it.
To Mueller's understanding only congress could determine if potus committed crimes - and he expected his report to be presented to congress
Found this:
"Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations ... this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction,"
You're right.
"We recognize that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting president would place burdens on the president's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential conduct."
=We have evidence of a crime, we are not allowed to charge him with it.
_________________________________________________________
Mueller can't nor does he intend to escape his own words.......................
I said this before, Barr did Trump a disfavour. He should have let the bugger
face the music. Even if he was impeached in the house, he would have been
acquitted in the Senate and kept his presidency. Now, if Mueller and McGahn
both attest to obstruction of justice, the image of Trump will be irreparably
impaired. Everything ever alleged against him will become more believable,
and in the election season, it will be easier to make a case against him. The
Republicans will see his numbers drop and bolt from him, except those in
extreme right wing districts. Trump will find himself with a very narrow
constituency.
The manner in which he and Barr have shown contempt for Congress will lend
itself easily to the accusation of dictatorship. Even, at their most skeptical and
basest instincts, Americans are inured to the idea of freedom from tyranny, will
not countenance despotism...
Imagine the Democrats making the charge that "America will never be under a
dictatorship" as one of their campaign slogans... The notion of a dictator running
the country will be so offensive to Americans that anyone campaigning as a
Republican, never mind Trump, had better have a good explanation.
To this the Democrats could add the slogan "We refuse enabling laws"; an enabling
law being the means by which Hitler was legally bequeathed with dictatorial
powers by the Reichstag in 1933...and this slogan would be implicitly accusing the
Republican party of acquiescing to Trump much the same way as the Nazi Party
did, when it bullied everyone in giving Hitler those dictatorial powers...
Last edited:
that is not what is being said in that sentence
that sentence is saying, "we cannot exonerate potus because of the evidence and testimony we have collected"
This faggit is scared of something
Trump now says Mueller should not testify before Congress
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tentative-date-muellers-house-panel-testimony-160651159--politics.html
Trump now says Mueller should not testify before Congress
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tentative-date-muellers-house-panel-testimony-160651159--politics.html
I'm not worried about Mueller. All indications are he wants clarity. He may be limited to what he can say in open session but I'm not worried about him dodging a question for nefarious reasons.
We need to know if Barr cut investigations short, if he agrees with the guidance that a sitting president can't be indicted, if he would have issued indictments if not for that guidance, and if his intent was for congress to follow up on his findings. Also if DOJ is considering not pursuing any of the cases that sprouted from this, such as Roger Stone, or if they are substituting any of the prosecutors that normally would have handled it in an effort to help the defendant.
Somebody is worried about something
Yep They tried to bury this report but there was too many eyes and ears involved
When you actually read it, that's the conclusion that you draw and he does reference DOJ policy regarding that. It's just not clear if he's specifically referencing that specifically for this case or just making a general guidelines statement.
Someone like Harris needs to word that in a very precise, legal fashion because Barr could have shut it down without explicitly shutting it down in a direct sense. When I read that he forced Mueller (don't know if it's true) to break his cooperation agreement with Flynn, I took that as Barr effectively shutting it down. Mueller couldn't make any future cases against anyone at the top of the food chain without using Flynn and Gates as leverage.
Similar threads
