Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Gorsameth]

Because trying to fire Mueller to stop the investigation and failing at it isn't illegal, kind of like trying to rob a bank and failing to successfully pull it off isn't illegal. Duh, it's not like attempted robbery or attempted murder is a thing.

Obstruction of justice doesn't require success (neither does robbing a bank, trying to is enough).

Obstructive act. Obstruction -of-justice law "reach es all corrupt conduct capable of
producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered , regardless of the mean s
employed." United States v. Silverman , 745 F.2d 1386, 1393 (11th Cir. 1984) (interpreting 18
U.S.C . § 1503). An "effort to influence " a proceeding can qualify as an endeavor to obstruct
justice even if the effort was "subtle or circuitous" and "however cleverly or with whatever
cloaking of purpose " it was made . United States v. Roe, 529 F.2d 629, 632 (4th Cir. 1975); see
also United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 173 (2d Cir. 2006). The verbs "' obstruct or impede '
are broad " and "can refer to anything that blocks , makes difficult, or hinders ." Marinello v. United
States , 138 S. Ct. 1101, 1106 (2018) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).
An improper motive can render an actor ' s conduct criminal even when the conduct would
otherwise be lawful and within the actor's authority. See United States v. Cueto, 151 F .3d 620,
631 (7th Cir . 1998) (affirming obstruction conviction of a criminal defense attorney for "litigation -
related conduct ") ; United States v. Cintolo, 818 F .2d 980, 992 (1st Cir. 1987) ("any act by any
party-wh ether lawful or unlawful on its face - may abridge § 1503 if performed with a corrupt
motive ")

[rda]

Oh for fuck's sake. [...] Go the fuck away.

Last post on this. You are splitting your hair over nothing. The media was using "collusion" all over before the report to mean a crime. You are saying that's a loose use of the word. And fine, whatever. But that's a side point not central to the debate at all. I was using "collusion" to mean the exact same thing the media did. I would bet 99% of the people were using this term in the exact same way. You correcting me on the use of the term and trying to make a big deal out of it is just pointless. Have your terms, calm down. If you insist on using the word "conspiracy", cool, fine, pretend that whenever I am talking about "collusion" or "cooperation" meaning "punishable by law", that I mean "conspiracy". And pretend that all the media that were talking about "collusion" before the report meant "conspiracy" as well. Weird flex, but okay, like they say.

Also: cut down on the "fuck"s.

[Drutt]

The media was using "collusion" all over before the report to mean a crime.

The media was using it because Trump and his legal team were doing everything they could to inject the term into every situation. I assume you remember Giuliani going on TV and talking about how collusion wasn't a crime, yes? That's an example.

Stories in the media have been largely responding to info released to them by the White House, or leaked to them from sources. Between KAC, various lawyers and Trump's frequent Twitter references plus soundbites ("Mr. President, any comment on the Mueller investigation?" "NO COLLUSION, NO COLLUSION!") there's a good reason the word was popping up everywhere. It was engineered to appear so much.

[rda]

The media was using it because Trump and his legal team were doing everything they could to inject the term into every situation. I assume you remember Giuliani going on TV and talking about how collusion wasn't a crime, yes? That's an example.

Stories in the media have been largely responding to info released to them by the White House, or leaked to them from sources. Between KAC, various lawyers and Trump's frequent Twitter references plus soundbites ("Mr. President, any comment on the Mueller investigation?" "NO COLLUSION, NO COLLUSION!") there's a good reason the word was popping up everywhere. It was engineered to appear so much.

OK, I didn't know that. If the above is true, I am taking back my impression that the separation appeared now seemingly to pretend that Mueller's report "found" a couple of extra things.

I am not sure there was a lot of harm from using the terms loosely, but fine, let's use more correct terms.

[Orbitus]

OK, I didn't know that. If the above is true, I am taking back my impression that the separation appeared now seemingly to pretend that Mueller's report "found" a couple of extra things.

I am not sure there was a lot of harm from using the terms loosely, but fine, let's use more correct terms.

Of course you don't see the harm. You have to do everything in your power to defend Trump.

[Breccia]

Of course you don't see the harm. You have to do everything in your power to defend Trump.

Wait, did he just say "I don't see the harm" immediately after saying "The media was using 'collusion' all over before the report to mean a crime"? Wow, that's some serious backpedalling right there.

[Bodakane]

Last post on this. You are splitting your hair over nothing. The media was using "collusion" all over before the report to mean a crime. You are saying that's a loose use of the word. And fine, whatever. But that's a side point not central to the debate at all. I was using "collusion" to mean the exact same thing the media did. I would bet 99% of the people were using this term in the exact same way. You correcting me on the use of the term and trying to make a big deal out of it is just pointless. Have your terms, calm down. If you insist on using the word "conspiracy", cool, fine, pretend that whenever I am talking about "collusion" or "cooperation" meaning "punishable by law", that I mean "conspiracy". And pretend that all the media that were talking about "collusion" before the report meant "conspiracy" as well. Weird flex, but okay, like they say.

Also: cut down on the "fuck"s.

That. Fuck. Is. Fuck. Bullshit. Fuck.

1. Don't tell me what to say.
2. Don't tell me what the media was saying, you just said you don't care what the definition of the words are you only care about your own bullshit definition.
3. These aren't "my terms". These are terms as they are fucking defined.
4. The media didn't mislead you. You, RDA, made up your own definitions and are trying to hold, me, the media and the government to your own stupid fucking made up bullshit. The media meant collusion as it defined. The Mueller report proved collusion as it is defined. It was Trump and the fucking traitors bastards that defend him that changed the definition of collusion.
5. Fucking fuckity fuck fuck.

[Frusciante]

The media was using it because Trump and his legal team were doing everything they could to inject the term into every situation. I assume you remember Giuliani going on TV and talking about how collusion wasn't a crime, yes? That's an example.

Stories in the media have been largely responding to info released to them by the White House, or leaked to them from sources. Between KAC, various lawyers and Trump's frequent Twitter references plus soundbites ("Mr. President, any comment on the Mueller investigation?" "NO COLLUSION, NO COLLUSION!") there's a good reason the word was popping up everywhere. It was engineered to appear so much.

Yeah - this isn't true. Everyone, including congress, was using the term "Collusion". How many times did Adam Schiffy go on TV with "We know there was collusion".

[Bodakane]

Yeah - this isn't true. Everyone, including congress, was using the term "Collusion". How many times did Adam Schiffy go on TV with "We know there was collusion".

Bullshit. You are straight up lying.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/polit...ion/index.html

Rudy Giuliani just totally contradicted 18 months of 'no collusion' talk from Donald Trump

f you know anything about the White House's reaction to the ongoing special counsel probe into Russia interference in the 2016 election, it's these two words: "No collusion."

Trump, as well as his top aides -- everyone from senior counselor Kellyanne Conway to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders -- has insisted since the start of Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation in spring 2017 that no one in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to help his candidacy and hurt that of Hillary Clinton. In a single answer to a question about the Mueller probe last January, for example, Trump unleashed an epic seven(!) "no collusion" assertions. Here's just a piece of that (bolding mine):

"Well, again John, there has been no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians or Trump and Russians. No collusion. When I watch you interviewing all the people leaving their committees, I mean, the Democrats are all running for office, trying to say this that -- but bottom line, they all say there's no collusion. And there is no collusion."

[Orbitus]

Yeah - this isn't true. Everyone, including congress, was using the term "Collusion". How many times did Adam Schiffy go on TV with "We know there was collusion".

Because we do know there is collusion. Collusion isn't specifically a crime, because there is no laws about collusion. But Conspiracy against the United States? Absolutely is a crime.

[Bodakane]

Because we do know there is collusion. Collusion isn't specifically a crime, because there is no laws about collusion. But Conspiracy against the United States? Absolutely is a crime.

And again, collusion was proven. Conspiracy, was proven enough to condemn any other citizen.

[Orbitus]

And again, collusion was proven. Conspiracy, was proven enough to condemn any other citizen.

Yep, if Trump wasn't president, he would be in cuffs right now. Along with Jared, Trump Jr, and Manafort.

[Frusciante]

Because we do know there is collusion. Collusion isn't specifically a crime, because there is no laws about collusion. But Conspiracy against the United States? Absolutely is a crime.

Look, I don't want to have to quote the Mueller report again. Kind of done with it.

Mueller report states that they could not use the word "Collusion" because of what you stated so they went with cooperating. Mueller report stated that they did not find any cooperation between the trump campaign and the Russian efforts. So Collusion = Cooperating.

Your interpretation is your interpretation. You're free to have that. But I'll go with the report's interpretation. That's the one that everyone should go with, not these crazy conspiracies that your coming up with so you can justify your trump hate.

[rda]

Wait, did he just say "I don't see the harm" immediately after saying "The media was using 'collusion' all over before the report to mean a crime"? Wow, that's some serious backpedalling right there.

What backpedaling?? I am not blaming the media for using "collusion" to mean "conspiracy", I am fine with them using "collusion", I understood what they meant (a "collusion" that can be charged for = "conspiracy") and was using the term in the same way. I am not sure there was a lot of harm from using the terms loosely that way because everyone still understood each other.

You and some others are spending so much time on every minor BS trying to make big eyes on everything, it's mindboggling. Just talk about the report, please.

[Frusciante]

And again, collusion was proven. Conspiracy, was proven enough to condemn any other citizen.

Ok, so why did the people who actually got charged not get hit with conspiracy? (In the manner which you're talking about)

[Drutt]

Yeah - this isn't true. Everyone, including congress, was using the term "Collusion". How many times did Adam Schiffy go on TV with "We know there was collusion".

...because Trump and his legal counsel set that tone and the media reported on it, then asked related questions to people they were talking to. My statement was not that that the media and interviewees haven't used the term. That's empirically untrue.

My statement was that the reason it was so prevalent was down to Trump's team using it at every opportunity, thus forcing it into the agenda for discussion.

[Orbitus]

Look, I don't want to have to quote the Mueller report again. Kind of done with it.

Mueller report states that they could not use the word "Collusion" because of what you stated so they went with cooperating. Mueller report stated that they did not find any cooperation between the trump campaign and the Russian efforts. So Collusion = Cooperating.

Your interpretation is your interpretation. You're free to have that. But I'll go with the report's interpretation. That's the one that everyone should go with, not these crazy conspiracies that your coming up with so you can justify your trump hate.

There was plenty of evidence that they were getting help from Russians. Just no evidence of a quid pro quo.

[rda]

Ok, so why did the people who actually got charged not get hit with conspiracy? (In the manner which you're talking about)

He talks about this here:

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51109380

As far as I can see, this boils down to the rather obvious observation that when you are trying to accuse a president, you better be prepared to prove it because you are going to get challenged hard. I am not sure there's anything else, like a legal requirement to do something special for the president (plus there are people besides the president involved, so why not charge them if the only thing stopping you is those supposedly higher standards).

[Bodakane]

Ok, so why did the people who actually got charged not get hit with conspiracy? (In the manner which you're talking about)

You mean other than:

Manafort
Netyksho
Gates
Internet Research Agency

[Frusciante]

There was plenty of evidence that they were getting help from Russians. Just no evidence of a quid pro quo.

Where does it say that Trump asked them for the help and that they were working together? Please point me to specifics in the report.