Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[rda]

Yeah, guys, you really are something. :-) Watch the video. I have nothing more to say to you, you are just dreaming your purple dreams here.

[Xyonai]

Yeah, guys, you really are something. :-) Watch the video. I have nothing more to say to you, you are just dreaming your purple dreams here.

Eh, you'll be back.

[Belize]

Yeah, guys, you really are something. :-) Watch the video. I have nothing more to say to you, you are just dreaming your purple dreams here.

Lmao, get proven wrong repeatedly and you leave.

Alright bye. See you later.

[Levelfive]

On April 19 the WH sent a letter to Barr regarding the Mueller report and whoo-eee are they mad.

Read it for yourself of course, but my favorite part is where the letter says "don't forget all the Mueller people were leakers and felons!"

This clarifies things a bit:

"The White House’s argument is that this was no different from any other criminal inquiry. There’s an indictment or there’s not. That’s all there is to it. Any explanation of what the investigation found is illegitimate. To the White House, the Special Counsel’s Office had no right to explain to the public what happened. The whole Report itself is illegitimate.

The Report is clear. The investigators thought President Trump did obstruct justice. But they did not believe they were allowed to bring an indictment or publicly accuse him. They declined to reach a judgement because indictment was barred by DOJ policy and exoneration we barred by the facts. They chose to leave the matter to Congress and the public. The White House wanted everything to remain secret. Mueller messed that up.

Now, it’s true that Mueller could have gone the route Flood and Barr hoped for, really not write any more than a memo to Barr explaining their prosecution decisions. But he was in no way limited to that. Producing the kind of report he produced was entirely within his purview. Emmet Flood and the White House wanted any public disclosure to be blocked off by the DOJ rule against indicting a sitting President. They are understandably upset with Mueller because he complicated their goal of keeping the President’s crimes secret."

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...crecy-argument

[Flower Milk]

These are scary times, the executive and judicial branches are completely under the control of Donald Trump, and Congress is completely powerless to pass any legislation because of McConnell in the Senate. The only people left to hold the president accountable is the House and that's it, and their subpoenas basically mean nothing now because the DoJ is in charge of enforcing them. The only power they have left is having the Sergeant at Arms of Congress arrest people who won't comply with subpoenas, and that hasn't been done in over a century.

People have said that we're in a constitutional crisis a lot, but this is it. There is no one left to hold people in government accountable anymore, we are just a sliver away from tyranny. If Donald Trump rigs the 2020 election or refuses to forfeit the presidency if he loses, who will stop him? There is no one left to. He also just fired the head of the DHS (in charge of election security) and the head of the Secret Service (in charge of the peaceful transition of power). He is ramping up to go full dictator and Bill Barr and Mitch McConnell are right there helping him rendering all three branches of government completely in Trump/Republican's control.

It's quickly starting to look like the only option we will be left with is taking to the streets, and I really don't want that, because that means violence and no one wants that. Please god don't let it come to that. I'm not religious but I'm praying that things will be okay, because things are looking really grim right now, and I really really wish and hope that I'm just overreacting.

[Skroe]

OK if barr is found in contempt of congress for not showing up who actually enforces that charge?

Since 1935, Congress has made a referring to the Department of Justice, which decides on its own how to proceed. Clearly, they would not jail the Attorney General, aka the head of the DOJ.

But that is by convention, not by law or the Constitution. It is within Congress's Constitutional authority to order the Capitol Police to arrest and detain someone on their own authority, and hold them in the Capitol jail. That is how it was done before 1935.

The thing is, Contempt of Congress is so rare, it's not like they've had very many episodes in which to apply that standard. We're talking about 30 people total in 80 years. Most people threatened with contempt cut some sort of deal to testify anyway.

From 2007:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/04tue4.html

Congress and the White House appear to be headed for a constitutional showdown. The House of Representatives is poised to hold Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, a former White House counsel, in contempt for failing to comply with subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal. If the Justice Department refuses to enforce the subpoenas, as seems likely, Congress will have to decide whether to do so. Washington lawyers are dusting off an old but apparently sturdy doctrine called “inherent contempt” that gives Congress the power to bring the recalcitrant witnesses in — by force, if necessary.

What we know that Congress has learned in its investigation of the purge of nine top federal prosecutors is disturbing. Cases appear to have been brought against Democrats and blocked against Republicans to help Republicans win elections. The stakes have grown steadily: it now seems that innocent people, like Georgia Thompson, a Wisconsin civil servant, may have been jailed for political reasons. Congress has a duty to find out what happened.

Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers may have important evidence. When Congress subpoenaed them, however, both claimed executive privilege in ways that go far beyond what the law allows. Ms. Miers should, at the very least, have appeared and invoked the privilege in response to specific questions. Instead, she refused to appear at all. Mr. Bolten, who was asked to produce documents, should have said specifically which ones he believed to be privileged. Instead, he rejected Congress’s right to ask for the documents.

As a result, the House Judiciary Committee voted in the summer to hold Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers in contempt. If the full House does, too — or if the Senate, which is also considering contempt, does so — then the United States attorney in Washington, D.C., will be responsible for taking Mr. Bolten’s and Ms. Miers’s cases to a grand jury. The problem is that the White House argues that the contempt of Congress law does not apply to presidential subordinates who claim executive privilege. At his confirmation hearings, Attorney General Michael Mukasey sounded as if he might agree with this intransigent position.

This is where inherent contempt comes in. From the Republic’s earliest days, Congress has had the right to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt — and even imprison them — all by itself. In 1795, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, the House ordered its sergeant at arms to arrest and detain two men accused of trying to bribe members of Congress. The House held a trial and convicted one of them.

In 1821, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s right to hold people in contempt and imprison them. Without this power, the court ruled, Congress would “be exposed to every indignity and interruption, that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.” Later, in a 1927 case arising from the Teapot Dome scandal, the court upheld the Senate’s arrest of the brother of a former attorney general — carried out in Ohio by the deputy sergeant at arms — for ignoring a subpoena to testify.

The Congressional Research Service issued a report in July that confirmed Congress’s inherent contempt powers. It explained how they work: “The individual is brought before the House or Senate by the sergeant at arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail.” Congress can do this, the report concluded, to compel them to testify or to punish them for their refusal to do so.

Congress’s inherent contempt powers are not limitless. If it arrested noncooperating witnesses in the United States attorneys scandal — and there are more than just Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers — then they would have the right to challenge their confinement in federal court. Ironically, they would rely on the habeas corpus right that the Bush administration has been whittling away.

Of course, just because Congress could literally start taking prisoners does not mean that it is a good idea. To modern sensibilities, having anyone other than a judge put citizens in jail feels heavy-handed and insufficiently insulated from politics. The thought of Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader, for example, holding people in the Capitol jail gives pause.

Nevertheless, inherent contempt is important. The Bush administration has been acting as if only the executive branch matters. Last week, when Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, formally rejected the executive privilege claims of Mr. Bolten and others, Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, said: “I don’t understand why he continues to have this rope-a-dope that’s not going to go anywhere.”

This country has seen far too much of this sort of dismissal of Congress’s authority. There is a simple way to avoid a constitutional showdown: If Congress holds witnesses in contempt, the Justice Department should enforce the subpoenas. Mr. Mukasey would need to focus not on the White House’s interests, but rather on his duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

The question is: do House Democrats have the steel to do this.

[Fugus]

@Endus

I kindly request that you reapply for your old position back as a moderator, you were far more fair and actual balanced in your approach than this section currently gets by leaps and bounds.

If you tried and started a petition, I would gladly sign it.

[Flower Milk]

The question is: do House Democrats have the steel to do this.

I think they're just as worried as you and I that it will look like a "coup", like Trump and his cronies have been pushing as talking points for awhile now. I don't see what option they have left though, they can't use the normal kind of contempt because it is enforced by the DoJ, and Barr isn't going to hold himself in contempt. And if they don't use this nuclear option, democracy is dead.

I am really scared.

[Breccia]

This clarifies things a bit:

"The White House’s argument is that this was no different from any other criminal inquiry. There’s an indictment or there’s not."

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

Oh sorry, WH person who wrote the letter, what we were looking for was "total exonoration!" Which Mueller did not provide, and Barr would have known that had he read the report. Now you're in a bind, and it's all your fault. It's too late to hide behind "no indictment" when the, erm, Barr was raised to something impossible.

[Levelfive]

These are scary times, the executive and judicial branches are completely under the control of Donald Trump, and Congress is completely powerless to pass any legislation because of McConnell in the Senate. The only people left to hold the president accountable is the House and that's it, and their subpoenas basically mean nothing now because the DoJ is in charge of enforcing them. The only power they have left is having the Sergeant at Arms of Congress arrest people who won't comply with subpoenas, and that hasn't been done in over a century.

People have said that we're in a constitutional crisis a lot, but this is it. There is no one left to hold people in government accountable anymore, we are just a sliver away from tyranny. If Donald Trump rigs the 2020 election or refuses to forfeit the presidency if he loses, who will stop him? There is no one left to. He also just fired the head of the DHS (in charge of election security) and the head of the Secret Service (in charge of the peaceful transition of power). He is ramping up to go full dictator and Bill Barr and Mitch McConnell are right there helping him rendering all three branches of government completely in Trump/Republican's control.

It's quickly starting to look like the only option we will be left with is taking to the streets, and I really don't want that, because that means violence and no one wants that. Please god don't let it come to that. I'm not religious but I'm praying that things will be okay, because things are looking really grim right now, and I really really wish and hope that I'm just overreacting.

This is worth watching: https://www.brookings.edu/events/the...-did-we-learn/ One of the women brings up the very point you touch on: There's a very, very serious constitutional problem if you can't indict a sitting president and the only available recourse to hold him accountable for his crimes is a political body that finds it politically untenable to do so.

ETA: around minute 40

[Yetanothernewbie]

Because it adds nothing to the thread. Nobody cares what little hissyfit someone is having when they lose an argument. Imagine if everyone was doing that... lol

If that is the case then where are the infractions for Bodonius's wave of pointless thread derailing shitposts.

[Levelfive]

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

Oh sorry, WH person who wrote the letter, what we were looking for was "total exonoration!" Which Mueller did not provide, and Barr would have known that had he read the report. Now you're in a bind, and it's all your fault. It's too late to hide behind "no indictment" when the, erm, Barr was raised to something impossible.

Seriously the fucking stones on these guys.

[PACOX]

I'm going to say it. I'm about tired off Pelosi telling me that it's raining outside but I don't need an umbrella.

[Flower Milk]

I'm going to say it. I'm about tired off Pelosi telling me that it's raining outside but I don't need an umbrella.

I agree but it's not because of lack of wanting to do stuff, it's because they are quickly completely running out of options. It's really starting to look like the only option they have left is arresting Barr, and I can guarantee they won't make that decision lightly.

[Canpinter]

Since 1935, Congress has made a referring to the Department of Justice, which decides on its own how to proceed. Clearly, they would not jail the Attorney General, aka the head of the DOJ.

But that is by convention, not by law or the Constitution. It is within Congress's Constitutional authority to order the Capitol Police to arrest and detain someone on their own authority, and hold them in the Capitol jail. That is how it was done before 1935.

The thing is, Contempt of Congress is so rare, it's not like they've had very many episodes in which to apply that standard. We're talking about 30 people total in 80 years. Most people threatened with contempt cut some sort of deal to testify anyway.

From 2007:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/04tue4.html



The question is: do House Democrats have the steel to do this.

so democrats just need to find where they left their spines and start playing hardball.

[Elegiac]

I'm going to say it. I'm about tired off Pelosi telling me that it's raining outside but I don't need an umbrella.

Blame the centrist democrats who don’t want to impeach. The left is fully on board.

[Levelfive]

I'm going to say it. I'm about tired off Pelosi telling me that it's raining outside but I don't need an umbrella.

Initially, I was all, oh she's being smart--they've started proceedings, they're just not naming them "impeachment," blah blah. But yeah, with the DoJ now firmly in Trump's control, and Barr (!) in charge of the 14 investigations, it's past time for fucking around; time to bring down whatever fucking hammer they can.

[Michh]

OK, I finally had the time to look at the video.

And you know what, I expected Barr to say something silly, because, well, because not all of this thread from the side of - well, you'll excuse me - hobbyist Trump opposers is probably stupid, right? I mean, despite me being here for last one-two weeks and seeing nothing but nonsense and exaggerations and silly baseless bandwagoning, it cannot all be like that, right? There have to be some points which will actually go the attackers way. So, I thought perhaps Barr's video was such a point.

And lo and behold, this was not the case. What's the big deal about Kamala Harris questions? She tells Barr that underneath the report, there's a big body of evidence. Yeah, no shit, people were working for two years, spent several tens of millions, you bet there is a big body of evidence. And then she takes here strong inquisitive look and asks Barr whether he actually reviewed all that evidence that underlies the report. (And that's what the video is about as far as I can see, because we are on that question for a good half of it.) And I am sorry, but WTF??? Does Kamala Harris not understand that the evidence underlying the report is big, and so it takes a team and a lot of time to review it and make conclusions? That this is a big reason of why Mueller's report took two years? What, is Barr supposed to repeat what Mueller's team did? Really?

WTF am I watching, why was this video linked as some illustration of Kamala Harris asking something strong and Barr failing to answer that adequately? What was the failure????

Seriously, you can't make this up. You guys literally have such a distorted view of everything related to Trump and you are so unwilling to think instead of eating what the media wants you to eat, that you are looking at a white thing and you are absolutely sure it is black. This is just nuts. :-)

oh lordy - I've been here for 2 years reading the conspiracy theories and baseless accusations, the majority of which hasn't aged well. And now the reports been released with 8% redactions, another version released to members of congress with only 2% redacted, and Democrats refuse to even read it....only Republicans have read that version.

Every bit of this is theater - and bad theater at that.

[Flower Milk]

oh lordy - I've been here for 2 years reading the conspiracy theories and baseless accusations, the majority of which hasn't aged well. And now the reports been released with 8% redactions, another version released to members of congress with only 2% redacted, and Democrats refuse to even read it....only Republicans have read that version.

Every bit of this is theater - and bad theater at that.

There has been no unredacted version released to Congress, Democrats sent a subpoena but Barr has not delivered.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...mueller-report

Attorney General William Barr escalated tensions with House Democrats on Wednesday by ignoring their subpoena for the unredacted version of special counsel Robert S. Meuller III’s report and declining to testify before the Judiciary Committee as scheduled Thursday.

Wherever you got that information from, I would stop going there or trusting them, because that's just straight up blatantly false.

[Levelfive]

There has been no unredacted version released to Congress, Democrats sent a subpoena but Barr has not delivered.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...mueller-report

The person is referring to the less-redacted version that went to a limited number of members: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1RT2LQ