Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Mueller Report Out Next Week?

Recommended Posts

The report also contains a summary of a Trump meeting with Don McGahn. During that meeting, Trump asked McGahn why he was taking notes, saying "his" other attorneys (Trump mentioned the disbarred Roy Cohn and was apparently also referring to the now admitted criminal and also disbarred Michael Cohen) never took notes when he spoke with them. McGahn replied, "I'm a REAL attorney." :rotflmfao:

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) the OLC was tasked with two things - Finding out the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election and if there was any collusion between Russia & the trump campaign 

2) The OLC passed on criminal findis to outside jurisdictions which is where the indictments of Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Stone, Gates, Papadopoulos, van der Zwaan, Pinedo and others came down for their various crimes discovered during the investigation 

3) The OLC report confirmed Russian involvement in the 2016 election cycle 

4) The OLC report, despite what AG barr said, does not exonerate trump from obstruction 

5) The OLC found evidence of trumps obstruction of justice but due to OLC guidelines that a sitting president can't be indicted, opted to leave it to congress 

6) The OLC report leaves the door open for a possible indictment when trump leaves office 

7) After all this is said and done, trump & clan have more to worry about from the SDNY & NY State investigations - those are outside the protection of presidential pardons and could be the most damaging things trump faces in the coming months & years 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fox's Napolitano: Mueller report 'might be enough to prosecute' Trump

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/439770-foxs-napolitano-mueller-report-might-be-enough-to-prosecute-trump

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said Thursday that evidence detailed in special counsel Robert Mueller's report “might be enough to prosecute” President Trump. 

“Depending upon how you look at them, it might be enough to prosecute,” Napolitano said on his series “Judge Napolitano’s Chambers.”

“But it did show a venal, amoral, deceptive Donald Trump, instructing his aides to lie and willing to help them do so. That’s not good in the president of the United States,” he added. 

“On obstruction of justice … the president is not exactly cleared,” he also said on the show, pointing to nearly a dozen instances of potential obstruction detailed in the report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis

 

The report identifies and analyzes 10 episodes of concern in the obstruction investigation:

  1. conduct involving then-FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn;
  2. the president’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation;
  3. the president’s termination of Comey;
  4. the appointment of a special counsel and efforts to remove him;
  5. efforts to curtail the special counsel’s investigation;
  6. efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence;
  7. further efforts to have the attorney general take control of the investigation;
  8. efforts to have White House Counsel Don McGahn deny that the president had ordered him to have the special counsel removed;
  9. conduct toward Flynn, Manafort, and a redacted individual (likely Roger Stone); and
  10. conduct involving Michael Cohen.

Each episode includes a detailed set of factual findings and then analyzes how the evidence maps onto the criminal charge of obstruction, which requires (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus with an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent. We have summarized all of the episodes and Mueller’s analysis of them under the obstruction statutes here.

For present purposes, the critical point is that in six of these episodes, the special counsel’s office suggests that all of the elements of obstruction are satisfied: Trump’s conduct regarding the investigation into Michael Flynn, his firing of Comey, his efforts to remove Mueller and then to curtail Mueller’s investigation, his campaign to have Sessions take back control over the investigation and an order he gave to White House Counsel Don McGahn to both lie to the press about Trump’s past attempt to fire Mueller and create a false record “for our files.” In the cases of Comey’s firing, Trump’s effort to fire Mueller and then push McGahn to lie about it, and Trump’s effort to curtail the scope of the investigation, Mueller describes “substantial” evidence that Trump intended to obstruct justice. Only in one instance—concerning Trump’s effort to prevent the release of emails regarding the Trump Tower meeting—does the special counsel seem to feel that none of the three elements of the obstruction offense were met. It is not entirely clear how Mueller would apply his overarching factual considerations, discussed above, to the specific cases, but he does seem to be saying that the evidence of obstruction in a number of these incidents is strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, toonkee said:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis

1)conduct involving then-FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn;

 

 

1) Trump giving direction to an employee.  Just as he is expected to do as chief executive.

17 minutes ago, toonkee said:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis

2}the president’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation;

2) who cares?  

18 minutes ago, toonkee said:

3)  A normal function of the presidency and his prerogative alone.

Quote
  1. 4) the appointment of a special counsel and efforts to remove him;

4) again who cares.

Quote
  1.  
  2. 5) efforts to curtail the special counsel’s investigation;

5)  Supervision of his underlings a duty of the president.

Quote
  1. efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence;

6)  you mean like lying to the American people about a 9/11 attack.

As ;long as he didn't hide evidence from prosecutors Trump was golden.   The actions of a normal politician to burnish his reputation is a common activity and certainly not criminal.

Quote
  1. further efforts to have the attorney general take control of the investigation;

Again normal supervision of the executive branch.

Obama would never appoint a special counsel for any of his dozen events of criminality so he avoided that.

Quote
  1.  
  2. efforts to have White House Counsel Don McGahn deny that the president had ordered him to have the special counsel removed;

He could have 10 special counsels removed it wouldn't be a crime.  Now congress might impeach him for it.

Quote
  1. conduct toward Flynn, Manafort, and a redacted individual (likely Roger Stone); and

What conduct?   The only crimes they committed were process or decades old and had nothing to do with Trump and the Russians.

Quote
  1.  
  2. conduct involving Michael Cohen.

Trump had nothing to do with Cohens crimes.  He wasn't a partner in the taxi business, he didn't cheat on his taxes, he didn't lie to the FBI.

 

The whole list amounts to nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

The whole list amounts to nothing.

The list is a steaming pile of poo.  It really is pathetic watching these last gasps.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, toonkee said:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis

 

The report identifies and analyzes 10 episodes of concern in the obstruction investigation:

  1. conduct involving then-FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn;
  2. the president’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation;
  3. the president’s termination of Comey;
  4. the appointment of a special counsel and efforts to remove him;
  5. efforts to curtail the special counsel’s investigation;
  6. efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence;
  7. further efforts to have the attorney general take control of the investigation;
  8. efforts to have White House Counsel Don McGahn deny that the president had ordered him to have the special counsel removed;
  9. conduct toward Flynn, Manafort, and a redacted individual (likely Roger Stone); and
  10. conduct involving Michael Cohen.

Each episode includes a detailed set of factual findings and then analyzes how the evidence maps onto the criminal charge of obstruction, which requires (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus with an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent. We have summarized all of the episodes and Mueller’s analysis of them under the obstruction statutes here.

For present purposes, the critical point is that in six of these episodes, the special counsel’s office suggests that all of the elements of obstruction are satisfied: Trump’s conduct regarding the investigation into Michael Flynn, his firing of Comey, his efforts to remove Mueller and then to curtail Mueller’s investigation, his campaign to have Sessions take back control over the investigation and an order he gave to White House Counsel Don McGahn to both lie to the press about Trump’s past attempt to fire Mueller and create a false record “for our files.” In the cases of Comey’s firing, Trump’s effort to fire Mueller and then push McGahn to lie about it, and Trump’s effort to curtail the scope of the investigation, Mueller describes “substantial” evidence that Trump intended to obstruct justice. Only in one instance—concerning Trump’s effort to prevent the release of emails regarding the Trump Tower meeting—does the special counsel seem to feel that none of the three elements of the obstruction offense were met. It is not entirely clear how Mueller would apply his overarching factual considerations, discussed above, to the specific cases, but he does seem to be saying that the evidence of obstruction in a number of these incidents is strong.

Keep swinging that bat! The worst thing the dems can do is to keep swinging this bat! 😛

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

 

1) Trump giving direction to an employee.  Just as he is expected to do as chief executive.

2) who cares?  

3)  A normal function of the presidency and his prerogative alone.

4) again who cares.

5)  Supervision of his underlings a duty of the president.

6)  you mean like lying to the American people about a 9/11 attack.

As ;long as he didn't hide evidence from prosecutors Trump was golden.   The actions of a normal politician to burnish his reputation is a common activity and certainly not criminal.

Again normal supervision of the executive branch.

Obama would never appoint a special counsel for any of his dozen events of criminality so he avoided that.

He could have 10 special counsels removed it wouldn't be a crime.  Now congress might impeach him for it.

What conduct?   The only crimes they committed were process or decades old and had nothing to do with Trump and the Russians.

Trump had nothing to do with Cohens crimes.  He wasn't a partner in the taxi business, he didn't cheat on his taxes, he didn't lie to the FBI.

 

The whole list amounts to nothing.

 

15 hours ago, modestobulldog said:

The list is a steaming pile of poo.  It really is pathetic watching these last gasps.

 

54 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Keep swinging that bat! The worst thing the dems can do is to keep swinging this bat! 😛

It's very obvious to you guys didn't read anything beyond the "list". I mean FFS you couldn't even be bothered to read the text underneath I copied and pasted from the piece, much less read the piece itself.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pokebball said:

Keep swinging that bat! The worst thing the dems can do is to keep swinging this bat! 😛

To say the 10 points amount to nothing as did BR shows him to once again be plain wrong. However, those points don't amount to obstruction, going maybe just halfway there.

In my opinion, the country needs to hear from Mueller if for no other reason than to have history further discredit William Barr's disingenuous summary of Mueller's report. Jeff Sessions understood that the AG isn't the president's personal attorney and so should not be acting as the president's advocate. That has been the job of Michael Cohen, Jay Sekulow and Rudy Guiliani. The AG is the COUNTRY'S top attorney and so is supposed to act in a manner which is in the best interest of the United States. Mischaracterizing so much of the Meuller report in the way Barr did amounted to acting not in the interests of the country but in the interests of a terrible president. 

If Trump disagrees with Mueller's testimony in some manner, let him go testify himself as he apparently refused to do with regard to the Mueller inquiry. Of course, Trump won't handle his displeasure that way, he will handle it like the emotional equivalent of a 12 year old like he has everything else tweeting overcapitalized nonsense and even profanity, something his predecessors confined to the privacy of the West Wing.

My further opinion is that, BARRing (pun intended) something unexpected coming out, the House Democrats should end their investigation there. That shouldn't take more than a few months during which they will have added to the historical record and embarrassed the slimy Barr to such an extent that he will have to step down and won't be able to engage in further mischief on behalf of his even more slimy non-client.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

To say the 10 points amount to nothing as did BR shows him to once again be plain wrong. However, those points don't amount to obstruction, maybe going maybe just halfway there.

In my opinion, the country needs to hear from Mueller if for no other reason than to have history further discredit William Barr's disingenuous summary of Mueller's report. Jeff Sessions understood that the AG isn't the president's personal attorney and so should not be acting as the president's advocate. That has been the job of Michael Cohen, Jay Sekulow and Rudy Guiliani. The AG is the COUNTRY'S top attorney and so is supposed to act in a manner which is in the best interest of the United States. Mischaracterizing so much of the Meuller report in the way Barr did amounted to acting not in the interests of the country but in the interests of a terrible president. 

If Trump disagrees with Mueller's testimony in some manner, let him go testify himself as he apparently refused to do with regard to the Mueller inquiry. Of course, Trump won't handle his displeasure that way, he will handle it like the emotional equivalent of a 12 year old like he has everything else.

My further opinion is that, BARRing (pun intended) something unexpected coming out, the House Democrats should end their investigation there. That shouldn't take more than a few months during which they will have added to the historical record and embarrassed the slimy Barr to such an extent that he will have to step down and won't be able to engage in further mischief on behalf of his even more slimy non-client.

It sounds like you are comparing Barr to Holder and Lynch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

It sounds like you are comparing Barr to Holder and Lynch. 

Lynch was indeed awful, with that tarmac meeting with Slick Willy while he was being investigated for possible perjury about Lewinsky taking the cake. She didn't hold that position for too long so I will otherwise leave her along. As to Holder, I wouldn't expect you to recall but on multiple occasions I have criticized the guy for having abjectly refused to implement Obama's commitment to go after Wall Street scumbags who basically stole the retirement savings of commoners like you and I.

But please stop with the deflection. The fact Holder and Lynch were slimy doesn't mean that Barr hasn't been doing a damn good job of that himself.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Lynch was indeed awful, with that tarmac meeting with Slick Willy while he was being investigated for possible perjury about Lewinsky taking the cake. She didn't hold that position for too long so I will otherwise leave her along. As to Holder, I wouldn't expect you to recall but on multiple occasions I have criticized the guy for having abjectly refused to implement Obama's commitment to go after Wall Street scumbags who basically stole the retirement savings of commoners like you and I.

But please stop with the deflection. The fact Holder and Lynch were slimy doesn't mean that Barr hasn't been doing a damn good job of that himself.

AGs are supposed to act independent of the president. Unfortunately, that usually isn’t the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barr has seen the entire report and has talked to Mueller thoroughly, I'm sure, about the investigation. None of us know what else is in there. I suspect that there is some dirt on the Dems regarding how the investigation began. We may or may not ever know.

I think we will see some additional investigations and possible indictments. I think I'm going to wait to see what else comes out of this, if anything. I don't think this is over.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

To say the 10 points amount to nothing as did BR shows him to once again be plain wrong. However, those points don't amount to obstruction, going maybe just halfway there.

In my opinion, the country needs to hear from Mueller if for no other reason than to have history further discredit William Barr's disingenuous summary of Mueller's report. Jeff Sessions understood that the AG isn't the president's personal attorney and so should not be acting as the president's advocate. That has been the job of Michael Cohen, Jay Sekulow and Rudy Guiliani. The AG is the COUNTRY'S top attorney and so is supposed to act in a manner which is in the best interest of the United States. Mischaracterizing so much of the Meuller report in the way Barr did amounted to acting not in the interests of the country but in the interests of a terrible president. 

If Trump disagrees with Mueller's testimony in some manner, let him go testify himself as he apparently refused to do with regard to the Mueller inquiry. Of course, Trump won't handle his displeasure that way, he will handle it like the emotional equivalent of a 12 year old like he has everything else tweeting overcapitalized nonsense and even profanity, something his predecessors confined to the privacy of the West Wing.

My further opinion is that, BARRing (pun intended) something unexpected coming out, the House Democrats should end their investigation there. That shouldn't take more than a few months during which they will have added to the historical record and embarrassed the slimy Barr to such an extent that he will have to step down and won't be able to engage in further mischief on behalf of his even more slimy non-client.

They amount to nothing, they are normal activities of the president mostly or not even related to the president at all like Cohen and Manafort's crimes.

This is just an example of how biased you are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2019 at 2:06 PM, CV147 said:

I'm thinking, after the report, the House will impeach and the Senate will shut it down.

There will be no removal from office, but Democratic members of Congress can say that they demanded his removal, while tying the Republican Party closer to him.

I would even say it's probably good (if ineffectual) politics for them to impeach, but it will also further solidify Trump's base.

My prediction is holding pretty strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, CV147 said:

My prediction is holding pretty strong.

 

regarding #3...Trump's base will always be what it is.  If they had a line in the sand it would have been crossed long ago. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CV147 said:

My prediction is holding pretty strong.

Impeachment would be extremely stupid of the Democrat party. First, there is no real basis to impeach. Second, it wouldn’t succeed. Third it would set a very bad precedent to bring impeachment proceedings against future presidents essentially because you don’t like them. Fourth you are naive if you think Trump and his supporters would rollover and there wouldn’t be a massive backlash. Fifth, the next election isn’t that far off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pokebball said:

Barr has seen the entire report and has talked to Mueller thoroughly, I'm sure, about the investigation. None of us know what else is in there. I suspect that there is some dirt on the Dems regarding how the investigation began. We may or may not ever know.

I think we will see some additional investigations and possible indictments. I think I'm going to wait to see what else comes out of this, if anything. I don't think this is over.

Having now seen today's Smirconish show and pondered the matter further, what the House absolute canNOT do is anything which the worst president in history would advocate, in this instance, to assure this kind of "witch hunt" (lmao) never happens to another president.

Trump is so devious, as is Barr the more I consider it, that I'm fully prepared to take a chance on Trump getting reelected if that would mean the full gamut of his attempts at obstruction of justice are exposed. Because I think if they are, even if the guy gets reelected, he will be impeached thereafter and the evidence against him will be so overwhelming that he won't need to be convicted by the Senate (if that's the right word), like Nixon he will be forced to step down.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Having now seen today's Smirconish show and pondered the matter further, what the House absolute canNOT do is anything which the worst president in history would advocate, in this instance, to assure this kind of "witch hunt" (lmao) never happens to another president.

Trump is so devious, as is Barr the more I consider it, that I'm fully prepared to take a chance on Trump getting reelected if that would mean the full gamut of his attempts at obstruction of justice are exposed. Because I think if they are, even if the guy gets reelected, he will be impeached thereafter and the evidence against him will be so overwhelming that he won't need to be convicted by the Senate (if that's the right word), like Nixon he will be forced to step down.

Has Obama said what he would advocate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Impeachment would be extremely stupid of the Democrat party. First, there is no real basis to impeach. Second, it wouldn’t succeed. Third it would set a very bad precedent to bring impeachment proceedings against future presidents essentially because you don’t like them. Fourth you are naive if you think Trump and his supporters would rollover and there wouldn’t be a massive backlash. Fifth, the next elections isn’t that far off. 

First, I would say the president asking subordinates to lie to people investigating a foreign attack on our presidential election is impeachable, crime or not. He tried to obstruct.

Second, impeachment would be successful. Removal from office likely would not.

Third, see first.  

Fourth, will Bikers for Trump do donuts on my lawn or something?

Fifth, yes, that is definitely part of the calculus.

Trump violated the oath of office super hard.  He deserves censure at a minimum.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...