I don’t understand outcome of Mueller report

Home Forums In The News I don’t understand outcome of Mueller report

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 53 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1718059

    Participant
    Participant

    Seems like there was NO COLLUSION and dems moved on to obstruction of justice.
    So granted Trump was obviously hiding something, he wanted Mueller removed, etc., but if there was no crime how can there be justice of that crime to be obstructed?

    #1718193

    Joseph
    Participant

    U.S. prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich — and win a conviction — if they’re so inclined. There are so many barely known laws that virtually every American is a criminal.

    #1718169

    lakewhut
    Participant

    Sneaky prosecutors can call obstruction if you sneeze.

    #1718168

    2scents
    Participant

    Everyone sees what they want to see.

    The very same thing, to one person its a bad thing and an impeachable offense.

    To another, its total exoneration that no crime has been committed and that the entire investigation was based on corrupt and false data.

    #1718226

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Its like anything else, Its SPIN, I doubt you really read the report and you are only hearing people interpreatition of it

    #1718229

    akuperma
    Participant

    1. The Democrats decided to impeach president, and otherwise to resist anything and everything he does.

    2. A special prosecutor is appointed to investigate the charge that the president was a Russian agent.

    3. Special prosecutor concluded Trump was not a Russian agent, but many of his friends are crooks.

    4. Since special prosecutor didn’t produce evidence that Trump had engaged in “high crimes and misdemeanors” (political crimes while in office), and since it had already been determined that Trump is evil incarnate who must be opposed by all good (“political correct”) persons (determined by the Democrats in 2016, and affirmed by CNN), Trump obviously obstructed justice by concealing that he is evil and worthy of impeachment (and probably drawing and quatering).

    So really, it all makes perfect sense,

    #1718232

    PArticipant: Alan Dershowitz ESQ (professor emeritus HArvard Law School) keeps asking the same question.

    #1718259

    midwesterner
    Participant

    Participant: Excellent question. I suggest you ask Martha Stewart her opinion on the matter.

    #1718262

    Amil Zola
    Participant

    I’m still waiting to see the Mueller report. I’ve read the AGs summary but like the Starr report I’d like to see this one in its entirety.

    #1718268

    Joseph
    Participant

    AZ: It’s available on the DOJ website. Read to your heart’s delight.

    But note that Starr operated under a much different law than Mueller. Starr was in charge under the law he was appointed. Under the law Mueller was appointed, the Attorney General was in charge.

    #1718311

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Joe,

    I think he means the unredacted report

    #1718292

    2scents
    Participant

    I believe that the redactions wont really change much one way or another.

    I have skimmed through it, there is enough material for everyone to claim victory.

    There are questionable actions from trump, even those questionable actions have not had any impact on the investigation.

    Furthermore, its questionable if the intent was criminal or simply frustrating about being investigated about something that simply didn’t occur (as is known today).

    While there is no evidence that a crime occurred or the intent was criminal, there is enough for those that hate trump to claim stuff.

    #1718400

    NOYB
    Participant

    There is a major legal machlokes over whether there can be obstruction of justice with no underlying crime. The tzad to say yes is that even if there is no crime, you still can’t mess with investigations. The tzad to say no is that if there is no crime, there is no justice to obstruct.

    #1718398

    Participant
    Participant

    Hey I was michavein to Alan Dershowitz.

    #1718391

    Amil Zola
    Participant

    Joseph, read for comprehension. I read the AGs summary and now I’d like to read the report in it’s entirety. I’m not into reading Cliff Notes.

    #1718414

    Joseph
    Participant

    AZ: Get real. The redactions were literally relatively minor, much much less than initially anticipated. And they were required by law to be redacted, to protect grand jury testimony.

    #1718547

    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Reb Yosselle

    I have Shallah for you…

    Is one permitted to read the Muller report over some geshmach tosefot

    #1718526

    CTLAWYER
    Participant

    @joseph
    You have no idea if the material redacted was minor (as you claim) or major BECAUSE none of us has been able to read the redacted material!

    You have no idea if each and every redaction was required by law to protect grand jury testimony. Some redactions made have been in the name of “national security” whatever that means……………..

    I would love to read the actual report in full, but doubt I’ll still be alive in 100 years when it gets released.

    Meanwhile, I look forward to the actions in the SDNY US attorney’s office, as well as the NYS AG’s actions against the Trump family. POTUS has no pardon power over state convictions.

    #1718637

    laskern
    Participant

    If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a noise? If there was a crime but it can’t be proven, can there be obstruction?

    #1718633

    charliehall
    Participant

    “obstruction of justice with no underlying crime”

    There have been dozens of indictments and convictions. Definitely underlying crimes.

    “I read the AGs summary”

    The AG summary clearly misrepresented the contents of the actual report. And the misrepresentation may be worse than we realize because none of us has seen the unredacted report.

    #1718634

    charliehall
    Participant

    “And they were required by law to be redacted, to protect grand jury testimony.”

    Barr claims that. But given that he basically lied about what was in the redacted report he does not have credibility on this either.

    #1718644

    Joseph
    Participant

    You don’t like or believe the fact that the Attorney General of the United States redacted the report in accordance with the law? Too bad; you don’t have to like it.

    In fact, under the law the AG could’ve chosen to release not a single page of Mueller’s report and simply given Congress the AG’s summary and nothing else. And that would have fully complied with the law as written by Congress.

    Be happy you got anything; you aren’t getting any more.

    #1718656

    2scents
    Participant

    CharlieHall,

    I assume that your looking at this objectively, can you olease detail where Barr lied?

    Also, are you implying that the redactions are not required by law?

    #1721717

    Participant
    Participant

    It’s just mind boggling what sore losers these guys are. For TWO YEARS they investigates Trump and couldn’t prove anything. Instead of humbling just a little bit, they’re after Barr and Trump’s IRS papers and Trump Trump Trump Trump. It looks like they’re shooting themselves in the leg without impeaching him.

    #1721754

    laskern
    Participant

    Barr should be disbared for lying and misleading the public.

    #1724286

    Participant
    Participant

    I’m getting more and more confused. I thought they handed over an unredacted version of the Report, yet Barr is being held in contempt for not giving it over.
    Secondly, what do Dems hope to gain by Mueller’s testimony, and what reason does Trump give for being opposed to it?

    #1724367

    2scents
    Participant

    Iaskern

    Can you back up your statement with a decent explanation and examples of Barr lying?

    Or your just saying so because it fits a political agenda?

    #1724369

    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Impeachment is a purely political process. Even if Mueller concluded no “collusion” (whatever that means legally), the information in the Mueller Report may provide a sufficient basis, along with other information on the Trumpkopf’s behavior beyond the scope of the Mueller investigation, to constitute
    “high crimes and misdemeanors”, which means whatever a majority of the House wants it to mean and they can vote to impeach. As many have noted, virtually impossible to “convict” by 2/3 vote in the Senate so Dems have to decide if the theatrics and visuals of an impeachment process going into 2020 election cycle will help or hurt their candidates. I think it will be a big diversion and hurt but nothing in today’s politics seems to follow historic trends and logic.

    #1724511

    Joseph
    Participant

    1. The President should issue an executive order declaring the Democrat Chairmen in the House as being in Contempt of the Presidency. As one of the three coequal branches of government, the President has the same right to issue a Contempt citation as do the courts and Congress.

    2. The President should invoke his constitutional right to “Executive Privilege” on all requests from the House. If they go to court, which can take years going through the judicial system (Obama’s A.G. Eric Holder’s official Contempt is still unresolved in the courts over six years later), the President can run out of the clock.

    3. The United States Senate should preemptively vote that it will and does “dismiss with prejudice” any and all impeachment proceedings from the House on the basis that the House acted purely out of political malice and not on any sound legal basis. And that the Senate will throw out any impeachment without even trying it.

    #1724691

    laskern
    Participant

    2scents, Barr got a letter from Mueller which he denied, saying he did not know of his disapproval of his four page summary letter which did not properly summarize the Mueller Report regarding colusuon, not discussed, and obstructuon, not exonerated, thereby he was lying/

    #1724693

    lakewhut
    Participant

    Lol I love how dems are now saying impeaching is a political process when they have no real power.

    #1724819

    Joseph
    Participant

    Furthermore, the President should order the Federal Bureau of Investigations to forthwith open a political corruption, abuse of official power and potentially treason and an attempted coup de’tat investigation into Democrat leaders of the House. These Democrats should be treated no differently than common criminals during the course of the investigation by the FBI.

    And if charges are warranted on any of these crimes, they should be arrested and given the same perp walk in front of the cameras as any low life criminal would face. Their status as ranking members of the House notwithstanding, as it implies no immunity or defense for attempting to overthrow the democratically elected government of the United States of America by abusing official parliamentary power in the pursuit of naked political aims.

    I can already envision a barely awake, hands neatly cuffed behind his back, Jerry Nadler being led out of his home in the early morning, flanked by two burly uniformed Special Agents of the FBI. Network television cameras, having somehow gotten the scoop in advance, duly documenting the unfolding story, as he’s whisked into the FBI vehicle that brings him straight to the courthouse for his arraignment. Beginning a months long process of court house appearances for bail requests, setting of trial dates and other pleadings.

    #1724824

    Participant
    Participant

    RE
    I’m getting more and more confused. I thought they handed over an unredacted version of the Report, yet Barr is being held in contempt for not giving it over.
    Secondly, what do Dems hope to gain by Mueller’s testimony, and what reason does Trump give for being opposed to it?

    Anyone?

    #1724973

    Joseph
    Participant

    A good first start would be for the Attorney General of the United States to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate and prosecute any crimes associated with the false framing of the Trump Campaign leading to the unnecessary investigation based on demonstrably false information such as Christopher Steele’s Trump–Russia dossier that was likely created by Russian intelligence to undermine Donald Trump. The new Special Prosecutor can also investigate where Hillary Clinton as well as Barack Obama and leading members of his administration fit into potentially creating a tool to undermine the incoming U.S. administration.

    Either Rudy Giuliani, as a former Associate Attorney General of the United States and former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, or Chris Christie, as a former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey and former Governor of New Jersey, would be a great choice for this appointment.

    I reckon that the Special Counsel would likely wrap up his investigation and be in mid of some prosecutions by mid to late 2020.

    #1724977

    jackk
    Participant

    Trump could demand that there be a Constitutional amendment that declares him King of America for life and that his family members inherit this position and all the Republicans would support it.
    Mitch Mcconnell will extol the virtues of such an amendment and proclaim that it has been a long time since we have had such a great man as president. Only he can solve all of our economic problems. Only he can deal with world leaders and ensure that America is no longer taken advantage of.

    Fox news, Hannity,Levin and Tucker will all declare this as MAGA.

    Trump will hint that his supporters have guns in case you oppose.

    Some Rabbonim will declare in the most serious of tones that it is a sign from Heaven that Trump is King Koresh and anointed by Hashem and the Torah demands us to support him.
    Certain Jewish publications will agree that this is the greatest single event in American history and how can we protest when Trump is so good for the Jews. The democrats are anti semites and this will keep them out of control of America forever.

    Democrats will be accused of being obstructionist traitors and apikorsim who don’t want Moshiach to come.

    This is the upside down topsy turvy world we live in right now. Trump above all.

    I hope everybody will laugh out loud at this post.

    #1725123

    jdf007
    Participant

    We need a FIFTH investigation. And we need his tax return from 1981 – the smoking gun.

    Law professors and others lament that the amount of Federal Crimes have grown to frightening proportions. The body of strict liability federal crimes are so vast, everyone in the country can be locked away for something. You got folks serving sentences for selling antique ivory on ebay that are longer than rapist or murders. Cue Trumps prison reform (that the Dems wouldn’t do).

    My answer to that is, that’s why we voted Trump. Jackk is right. He does need to serve for life. It will take 3 generations to fix this broken system.

    And imagine how many investigations of collusion we could be on by then. 50-60?

    #1725229

    laskern
    Participant

    I just heard something interesting. In America the king is not the law, but the law is the king.

    #1725283

    Shimon Nodel
    Participant

    אלו ואלו דברי חמורים חיים

    #1725282

    Participant
    Participant

    RE
    RE
    I’m getting more and more confused. I thought they handed over an unredacted version of the Report, yet Barr is being held in contempt for not giving it over.
    Secondly, what do Dems hope to gain by Mueller’s testimony, and what reason does Trump give for being opposed to it?

    Anyone?

    #1725308

    Joseph
    Participant

    Participant: The report had some very minor redactions as required by law to remove grand jury testimony. The criminal Democrats are simply using this for political brownie points to hammer the President after Mueller didn’t condemn the President as they were praying and expecting from Mueller. So instead the Democrats grappling with the little they have to make trouble.

    #1725743

    Participant
    Participant

    @joseph: Very minor redactions? You call everything minus four lines “minor”? If it’s “required by law” why doesn’t he or Trump say so instead of resorting to “Witch hunt” excuses? What reason does Trump give for opposing Mueller’s testimony?

    #1725744

    Participant
    Participant
    #1734969

    2scents
    Participant

    To me, Mueller’s public comments only made things more confusing.

    a. Barr has good intentions and released more than I asked him to.
    b. I did not look if Trump committed a crime, because of the DOJ’s position that a sitting president cannot be charged.
    c. Yet it could be he committed a crime, if i would have known he did not, I would have said so.
    d. the reason I did investigate the president, is to see if there were co-conspirators.
    e. If there was a crime, it has to be investigated outside of the DOJ.
    f. I will not add more than I have already written in the report. the report is my testimony.

    On one hand he is hinting that there could very much be an underlying crime, on the other hand, he is saying that I did not even check to see if the president committed a crime.

    Once again, both sides will have enough material from these comments to claim victory.

    #1734985

    Amil Zola
    Participant

    Mueller: If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” …

    #1735005

    Joseph
    Participant

    The Democrats are now angry at Mueller, after two years of expecting him to be the Democrats Great Savior that’ll get Trump, since Mueller said he has nothing more to tell Congress than he already put in his report and that he doesn’t want to testify but if they force him he’ll just repeat only points already in the report.

    #1735039

    2scents
    Participant

    Amila,

    Your falling victim to partisan politics, this does not mean there was a crime, he clearly stated that he never looked in that direction as he was not tasked on doing so.

    To the average person, Trump comes across as an innocent victim that was upset that he is being accused of something that wasnt there. now they are going to go after him for being upset about it and almost taking actions that were obstruction.

    It seems as if the Democrats will be preoccupied with items that the average citizen does not care, and hand Trump a victory.

    My point was, that Mueller just added some confusion which will just make both parties claim victory.

    #1735102

    Amil Zola
    Participant

    2cents you are welcome to your opinion. I’m an average person, Mueller’s statement which I quoted certainly speaks for itself.

    #1735501

    jackk
    Participant

    2scents,

    There is nothing in what Mueller said for the Republicans to be happy about.
    .
    He said straight out that he was never going to indict Trump for collusion and that he did not exonerate him from committing a crime by his report.” 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. ”

    He also confirmed that the Russians meddled in our elections.
    “The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”

    This affirms what the Democrats have been saying since the beginning to Trump’s and the Republican’s wild lies . The slogan “No Collusion” was and always will be a meaningless slogan. Just as meaningless as MAGA. He was never going to be convicted of collusion.
    It blows away the Trump talking point of ” lets get all those who surveilled me during my campaign.” He was under surveillance because the Russians attacked out elections.
    The Republicans have been living a lie for the past 2 years and the emperor has no pants.

    #1735675

    2scents
    Participant

    Jackk

    I agree that the way Mueller worded his statements make the republicans look bad. As he made it seem as if there might substance if a crime.

    However, this is not Russia and prosecutors do not exonerate people, they either charge or don’t charge.

    No one asked him his opinion, this is not an academic thesis that he needed to produce. Which is why he is just further confusing the matter.

    Im not saying there is no crime, if I would know for sure a crime has not been committed, I would have stated so.

    What does that mean? Your not sure a crime has not been committed??
    Is that the standard that he applied to Trump?! That trump needs his exoneration for a crime he wasn’t charged with?

    #1735712

    jackk
    Participant

    2scents,

    As he said:
    “The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”
    “Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.”
    “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.”
    “The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

    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.”

    Mueller was never going to say that Trump committed a crime since he could not be indicted as a sitting president anyway.
    The only thing he could say was that he did not commit one. On that Mueller says that he could not say a crime was not committed.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 53 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending