Mueller Delivers Report on Russia Investigation to Attorney General

[LkrFan]

[Spurs Homer]

Mcgahn - is the person who will be known in history for ending trumps run of criminality

the crime that trump committed (obstruction) is now known and mcgahn has no choice but to testify

the crime of obstruction of justice does not have to be completed - it just has to be attempted

1) may 17, 2017 - mueller starts the “official proceeding”

2)june 17,2017- trump orders mcgahn to get rid of mueller - mvgahn refuses and takes notes, calls it “crazy ”, alerts two (or more) witnesses (priebus/bannon), begins to pack his to resign - rather than complete the crime

3) slam dunk case for either congress or another prosecutor

only reason mueller did not charge him is because of the doj policy

[TSA]

Mcgahn - is the person who will be known in history for ending trumps run of criminality

the crime that trump committed (obstruction) is now known and mcgahn has no choice but to testify

the crime of obstruction of justice does not have to be completed - it just has to be attempted

1) may 17, 2017 - mueller starts the “official proceeding”

2)june 17,2017- trump orders mcgahn to get rid of mueller - mvgahn refuses and takes notes, calls it “crazy ”, alerts two (or more) witnesses (priebus/bannon), begins to pack his to resign - rather than complete the crime

3) slam dunk case for either congress or another prosecutor

only reason mueller did not charge him is because of the doj policy

[boutons_deux]

Doug Collins, English mother er, do you speak it?

Mueller isn't "calling Congress to continue a completed DOJ investigation".

[Reck]

What if I told you....he's wrong though?

[Spurs Homer]

Its right in the mueller report ^

mueller lays it out and says “no one is above the law-not even the president”

[Reck]

Its right in the mueller report ^

mueller lays it out and says “no one is above the law-not even the president”

This dork looking Doug Collins and TSA have something in common. Neither read the thing.

[TSA]

What if I told you....he's wrong though?

You’ll have to go a little further than that, dunce.

[TSA]

This dork looking Doug Collins and TSA have something in common. Neither read the thing.

Amazing that Doug Collins didn’t read the thing yet cites it extensively showing how Nadler fed his base bull and you ate it up.

[Reck]

Amazing that Doug Collins didn’t read the thing yet cites it extensively showing how Nadler fed his base bull and you ate it up.

"Extensively"

*Posts one tweet.*

[pgardn]

Special counsel’s work is finished.

This is a horrible argument. Oversight by Congress should be fully underway. Kinda like it was not when red team controlled the house and left so much wanting.

[pgardn]

I'm surprised Giuliani just didn't talk over him like he did when Chuck Todd was interviewing him.

Wallace is doggedly determined. He did not let Rudy slide as he is brilliantly prepared for any wayward mess diversionary answers. Giuliani kept wanting to talk collusion and Wallace told him not the issue anymore. Fox has a gem of a interviewer. Sunday morning with Chris Wallace can be very good. I always tape it. There is very little foolishness in his interviews. No soft balls for anyone. I’m surprised people come back on to take more ravaging. From a fact point of view Wallace lays it out.

[Spurs Homer]

Wallace is doggedly determined. He did not let Rudy slide as he is brilliantly prepared for any wayward mess diversionary answers. Giuliani kept wanting to talk collusion and Wallace told him not the issue anymore. Fox has a gem of a interviewer. Sunday morning with Chris Wallace can be very good. I always tape it. There is very little foolishness in his interviews. No soft balls for anyone. I’m surprised people come back on to take more ravaging. From a fact point of view Wallace lays it out.

Wallace is basically average.

Relatively speaking though - on FOX news - he stands out because everyone else is basically a certified Trump cult member. Wallace is also in the Cult - but he is 80-90% invested in the Cult - not 100% - yet.

Or

He has started to see what a piece of criminal Trump is and is wrestling himself over it.

[spurraider21]

imo this is probably one of the more important legal passages in the entire report...

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the JusticeManual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to applyan approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. Thethreshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct"cons utes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (JusticeManual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no chargescan be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through aspeedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. Anindividual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. Incontrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought,affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5

The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the caseof a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report,could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similarconcerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term,OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if anindictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability togovern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusationakin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutraladjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that theperson's conduct cons utes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

mueller straight up said that because they are not allowed to indict a sitting president, that they were also not allowed to formally reach a conclusion that he committed a crime. so the report was never a question of "is trump guilty or not guilty" but rather, does the report exonerate trump or does it not exonerate trump. sure, its not the same legal standard as our criminal system (innocent until proven guilty), but given that they cannot bring trump into the criminal realm (due to potential cons utional limitations), that standard is inapplicable.

and the report explicitly said that it does not exonerate him.

it actually leans the other way on obstruction quite a bit...

Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlyingcrime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improperobstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or thathe contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense.See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstructionsentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if theprosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlyingcrime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personalinterests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area,or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the sameregardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

and then more specifically...

Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement ofcooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in publicview. While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by acorrupt intent, the President's power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by hisunique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of lawexcludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is tointimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system's integrity is equally threatened.

Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exertingundue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference andobstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings inwhich the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actionsranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the AttorneyGeneral 's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; todirect and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewingthe acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance.

and imo most damning of all...

The President' s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that islargely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accedeto his requests.

... he tried to obstruct but luckily the people around him were ethical enough not to ge along with it

[boutons_deux]

Journalists Were Right

The Mueller report reads as a 400-page confirmation of years’ worth of reporting on Donald Trump.

“I do it to discredit you all and

demean you all,

so when you write negative stories about me,

no one will believe you,”

Trump told Lesley Stahl in 2016.

His scorched-earth tactics have worked, to a point.

Trump’s war against journalism has energized his base

and has powered his efforts to preemptively undermine the Mueller report.

Now, the Mueller report is out, and the journalists who’ve spent the past several years reporting on Trump’s conduct are looking a lot better than Trump himself.

If Mueller’s report feels familiar, it’s because so many of the incidents it do ents have already been reported.

Take the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who a Trump associate claimed had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

According to Mueller’s report, the Times had it right all along:

In January 2018, to take another instance, the Times reported that Trump had ordered White House Counsel Donald McGahn to fire Robert Mueller in June 2017

The Mueller report confirmed not just that Trump had ordered McGahn to get rid of Mueller but that he later tried to get McGahn to publicly deny the whole episode.

In September 2017, the Post reported that in July 2016, Paul Manafort, who was then Trump’s campaign chairman, had “offered to provide briefings on the race to a Russian billionaire [Oleg Deripaska] closely aligned with the Kremlin,”

According to the Mueller report, Deripaska had previously put money into an investment fund helmed by Manafort. The fund subsequently failed, and “litigation between Manafort and Deripaska ensued.” Rick Gates told Mueller that “Manafort thought his role on the Campaign could help ‘confirm’ that Deripaska had dropped the Pericles lawsuit.” Manafort himself told Mueller that “if Trump won, Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere.”

One more example.

Trump and Fox News have been bashing BuzzFeed since January 2019, when Mueller’s office broke its usual silence to publicly refute a story claiming that Michael Cohen had told investigators that Trump had ordered him to lie to Congress. “A very sad day for journalism, but a great day for our Country!”

The Mueller report told a somewhat different story. Although Mueller was not willing to conclusively state that Trump had orchestrated Cohen’s false testimony, BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith wrote on Thursday that

the report “finds that Cohen lied, that he did so at what he believed to be the president’s behest, that the president knew he was giving false testimony, and that the president’s lawyers encouraged that testimony.

In his report, Mueller wrote that Trump’s attorney told Cohen to ‘stay on message, and not contradict the President.’ ”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...was-right.html

[Spurs Homer]

imo this is probably one of the more important legal passages in the entire report...



mueller straight up said that because they are not allowed to indict a sitting president, that they were also not allowed to formally reach a conclusion that he committed a crime. so the report was never a question of "is trump guilty or not guilty" but rather, does the report exonerate trump or does it not exonerate trump. sure, its not the same legal standard as our criminal system (innocent until proven guilty), but given that they cannot bring trump into the criminal realm (due to potential cons utional limitations), that standard is inapplicable.

and the report explicitly said that it does not exonerate him.

it actually leans the other way on obstruction quite a bit...



and then more specifically...





and imo most damning of all...



... he tried to obstruct but luckily the people around him were ethical enough not to ge along with it

on your very last point;

obstruction - the crime- does not have to be completed - an attempt is a crime

so i was never exaggerating when i said - he is a criminal

we now have at least two proven crimes by this criminal

1) directed the felonies that cohen is going to prison for
2) obstruction of justice in an official proceeding

both impeachable

but because of the traitor cult - he will have to be prosecuted after jan 21, 2021

[Spurs Homer]

Bottom line;

the law is set up in a way to protect the criminal

mueller cannot indict
mueller realized that if he cannot indict - he also cannot “charge” because the accused criminal would have no way to defend himself

so to protect the rights of the criminal he had no choice but to allow congress to impeach

leaving us with a criminal who is being protected by a corrupt political party

[spurraider21]

there's still virtually no legs on the "collusion" front. even if they couldnt indict the president, there still easily could have been indictments of others within his campaign for those kind of conpsiracy charges, yet there weren't any. that alone is pretty strong.

they basically produced a massive fact-finding report on obstruction, though felt that they were legally unable to charge him, so didn't reach an affirmative conclusion (though specifically noted he was not exonerated). imo that could be perceived as a wink-wink green light/recommendation to impeach, as he lacks the ability to formally do so. otherwise he can be charged when he's out of office, in theory.

[Spurs Homer]

there's still virtually no legs on the "collusion" front. even if they couldnt indict the president, there still easily could have been indictments of others within his campaign for those kind of conpsiracy charges, yet there weren't any. that alone is pretty strong.

they basically produced a massive fact-finding report on obstruction, though felt that they were legally unable to charge him, so didn't reach an affirmative conclusion (though specifically noted he was not exonerated). imo that could be perceived as a wink-wink green light/recommendation to impeach, as he lacks the ability to formally do so. otherwise he can be charged when he's out of office, in theory.

1) mueller clearly states he never looked at collusion
2) 12 investigations spun off-still not over -could be conspiracy elsewhere
3) counter-intelligence investigation still ongoing
4) the barr effect - we dont know what barr did to muellers investigation

[boutons_deux]

Is Mueller Bound by OLC’s Memos on Presidential Immunity?

The New York Times recently unearthed a thorough legal memo, prepared twenty years ago for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, that advances the view that a sitting president can be indicted while still in office.

For those keeping score, this new memo sharpens an internal divide within the Department of Justice on this important question.

Two memos authored by the Office of Legal Counsel—

one in 1973, in the midst of the Nixon impeachment saga,

the other in 2000, on the heels of the Clinton impeachment saga—

take the view that a sitting president is immune from indictment.

By contrast, two different memos—

authored by the Office of Special Counsel investigating Nixon, and

the Office of Independent Counsel investigating Clinton—

reach the opposite conclusion.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity

So Mueller, having a choice of conflicting OLC memos, decided to go with immunity memo.

[spurraider21]

1) mueller clearly states he never looked at collusion
2) 12 investigations spun off-still not over -could be conspiracy elsewhere
3) counter-intelligence investigation still ongoing
4) the barr effect - we dont know what barr did to muellers investigation

lol

[Spurs Homer]

Is Mueller Bound by OLC’s Memos on Presidential Immunity?

The New York Times recently unearthed a thorough legal memo, prepared twenty years ago for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, that advances the view that a sitting president can be indicted while still in office.

For those keeping score, this new memo sharpens an internal divide within the Department of Justice on this important question.

Two memos authored by the Office of Legal Counsel—

one in 1973, in the midst of the Nixon impeachment saga,

the other in 2000, on the heels of the Clinton impeachment saga—

take the view that a sitting president is immune from indictment.

By contrast, two different memos—

authored by the Office of Special Counsel investigating Nixon, and

the Office of Independent Counsel investigating Clinton—

reach the opposite conclusion.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity

So Mueller, having a choice of conflicting OLC memos, decided to go with immunity memo.

id say barr is the one making these calls

mueller can answer under oath

[Spurs Homer]

lol

which one of those are not accurate?

none of them

[boutons_deux]

The coverup for "innocent" people continues

Mnuchin will obey Barr on Trash's tax returns, so we know Barr will say refuse, violating a 1924 anti-corruption law.

Trump Is Trying To Block Current And Former WH Officials From Testifying On The Mueller Report

the White House is reportedly planning to block Don McGahn’s expected testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

According to The Washington Post,

“The White House plans to fight a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify, according to people familiar with the matter,

setting up another showdown in the aftermath of the special counsel report.”

there are other officials the administration wants to keep from providing testimony related to the Mueller report.
More from The Washington Post:

The Trump administration also plans to oppose other requests from House committees for the testimony of current and former aides about actions in the White House described in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report

White House lawyers plan to tell attorneys for administration witnesses called by the House that they will be asserting executive privilege over their testimony, officials said.

Such a move will intensify a power struggle between the Trump administration and congressional Democrats, potentially setting up a protracted court battle.

It’s obvious why Donald Trump doesn’t want Don McGahn in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

After all, the information McGahn gave the special counsel was a central component of the Mueller report, particularly as it relates to obstruction of justice.

McGahn, who was mentioned over 150 times in the report, told special counsel investigators about Trump’s efforts to obstruct the investigation, including an episode in which the president pressured him to fire Mueller.

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/04/23/trump-is-trying-to-block-current-and-former-wh-officials-from-testifying-on-the-mueller-report.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed& utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

The White House Will Fight McGahn Subpoena Because His Public Testimony Could Be a Knockout Blow


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...er-bullet.html