Robert Mueller investigation

[B-Fly]

He absolutely is. There can be no obstruction without a crime underlying the investigation. Trump's primary defense is that there was no crime to investigate, hence Mueller and team have no standing as investigators.

For some reason, Mueller never raised that as a legal defense.

J

Probably because it's patently absurd. The whole point of obstructing justice is to prevent the government from proving the existence of an underlying crime.

[onejayhawk]

Probably because it's patently absurd. The whole point of obstructing justice is to prevent the government from proving the existence of an underlying crime.

Really. What crime? What is the probable cause evidence? Why is Barr so pissed about the beginnings of this during the Obama years?

This case is unreasonable search writ large.

J

[The Feral Slasher]

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/donald-trump-1/2019/04/18/texas-republicans-see-mueller-report-vindication-trump-dems-see-evidence-misdeeds

Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz

Neither Republican had offered public comment on the released Mueller report as of 6:30 p.m. CDT, though a Cornyn spokeswoman said he "will carefully review what has been submitted to Congress" and Ted Cruz has reportedly weighed in on various public forums, including a fantasy baseball website.

[Kevin Seitzer]

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dona...dence-misdeeds

texas sens. John cornyn and ted cruz

neither republican had offered public comment on the released mueller report as of 6:30 p.m. Cdt, though a cornyn spokeswoman said he "will carefully review what has been submitted to congress" and ted cruz has reportedly weighed in on various public forums, including a fantasy baseball website.

LOL ....

lowercase letters to beat the un-uppercasing filter

[umjewman]

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dona...dence-misdeeds

Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz

Neither Republican had offered public comment on the released Mueller report as of 6:30 p.m. CDT, though a Cornyn spokeswoman said he "will carefully review what has been submitted to Congress" and Ted Cruz has reportedly weighed in on various public forums, including a fantasy baseball website.

even though you stole my joke...you did it better than I could have. Bravo.

[nots]

To quote another poster on here, "I disagree."

Lizzy’s onboard:

https://news.yahoo.com/2020-vision-heres-what-every-candidate-said-about-the-mueller-report-184545896.html

[Judge Jude]

can you win the Democratic primaries if you don't call for impeachment - and can you win the general election if you do?

[gcstomp]

Warren isnt even a top 5 candidate, is she? Pelosi isnt interested in impeachment unless there is bipartisan support, both in house and senate, and that literally will never happen in this current mix of coat tail riding sycophants. Let R talk about impeachment. I do not see that as a positive glidepath but over the coming months I hope many millions of people read the report, it shows this is not someone who should be in high office.

Mueller investigation spawned some 12 cases that cannot be pardoned away. Report clearly states several times trump not exonerated, lays out 10 cases of obstruction, with some 180 pages of detail of how trump at every turn tried to order the firing/block/lie or otherwise impede investigation. Everyone ordered thusly had same reactions of ignoring/dismissing, otherwise broadcasting that trump is such a kook idjit to disregard clearly illegal immoral and stupid acts, and so trump was somewhat saved . Report does not paint trump a heroic figure who is being hounded via unjust presidential harassment. In any case, besides the dozen open cases that will have teeth, the report part 2 provides roadmap for obstruction case that was beyond the narrow scope of this investigation.

[nots]

Glenn Greenwald with a strong take:

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

First paragraph is especially emphatic.

[Judge Jude]

that actually could be a companion piece to a well-written, damning piece about the level of deceit by the President. we feel like we already know that, but there probably is out there an article that doesn't devolve into partisanship, paranoia, or derangement and simply lays out the grim narrative produced by the report.

Carter Page, Russian Facebook spending, and whether Trump told Cohen to lie are among more than a dozen canards vivisected in the report. but as I say, there is plenty of damning evidence of the unscrupulous conduct of this guy. there's also a good one about Sarah Sanders telling the press corps that countless agents had turned against James Comey.

that may or not be, but under oath she had to admit that she hadn't heard from a single one at the time she made that statement!

[Judge Jude]

AND this is what we have devolved to - in 2019 America.

Colbert's first guest tonight is legendary actor Robert DeNiro, who has a million stories to tell - and hopefully some new projects.

immediately Colbert says, "well, we're taping this on Tuesday and the show will air on Friday, but...."

and I know where this is going.

yep, Colbert's FIRST question is about the Mueller report - which hadn't even been released yet.

it also doesn't help that DeNiro is - well, not exactly knowledgeable and nuanced on politics.

yet Colbert clearly thinks - and he could be right - that his audience most cares about what this actor thinks about an unreleased political report.

May God help us all.

[onejayhawk]

can you win the Democratic primaries if you don't call for impeachment - and can you win the general election if you do?

No and no.

J

[nots]

that actually could be a companion piece to a well-written, damning piece about the level of deceit by the President. we feel like we already know that, but there probably is out there an article that doesn't devolve into partisanship, paranoia, or derangement and simply lays out the grim narrative produced by the report.

Carter Page, Russian Facebook spending, and whether Trump told Cohen to lie are among more than a dozen canards vivisected in the report. but as I say, there is plenty of damning evidence of the unscrupulous conduct of this guy. there's also a good one about Sarah Sanders telling the press corps that countless agents had turned against James Comey.

that may or not be, but under oath she had to admit that she hadn't heard from a single one at the time she made that statement!

I agree and if you find one, please post it.

[onejayhawk]

I agree and if you find one, please post it.

He won't. Such a piece has no audience. One wing of the political spectrum thinks that Trump is an incompetent boob and sees everything as confirmation. Note that there are some fairly prominent Republicans on this wing. The other wing sees this as the first wing attacking their guy unfairly.

I consider the first wing disproven, but they do not agree and continue to rage against their inability to move numbers on the polls. Neither side is willing to listen to the other at all because their first assumptions are completely incompatible.

J

[Judge Jude]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...limits/587488/
not quite what I had in mind, and it's written by a former White House counsel to Obama.

but it raises a legitimate question of law independent of Trump Derangement Syndrome:

" note the impact of the two Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions immunizing the president from prosecution while in office. In a striking passage, Mueller suggests a reluctance to reach a final judgment about the president’s criminal liability if he cannot be indicted and tried—and therefore cannot defend himself.

These OLC opinions, each written in administrations of presidents who faced impeachment, have virtually no credibility. They do not purport to reflect anything like established or even clear law. It is perhaps somewhat unfair and overly simplistic to say that the premise of the opinions is that the president is too important to face accountability under the criminal-justice system. But it is neither entirely unfair nor wildly oversimplistic."

...............

"In any normal case like this, the amount of detail of bad or shady character would have swung the case very much against the president. He routinely lies and urges other people to lie; he directed his White House counsel to fabricate evidence that he had not ordered the counsel, as he indeed had, to arrange for Mueller’s dismissal. While it is true that prosecutors should prosecute crimes and not people, they rarely fail to be affected by evidence that the person under investigation routinely hatches criminally questionable schemes.

The Mueller report certainly seems to support the proposition that a president can expect the benefit of the doubt in this respect."

"Here, after all, is a report in which the prosecutor concludes that the “President’s efforts to influence investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.” This is a remarkable statement. If he were still the chief executive of the Trump Organization, it would not have worked well for Trump to defend against multiple criminal accusations by noting that his staff sometimes intervened to stop him."