Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Ripster42]

I'd actually like some clarification on the "confidential information" portion, because that's the exculpatory exclusion in particular. Or is it? Two different reads:

1. "Can you give me a heads up, but not asking for anything confidential"

2. "Wouldn't want Flynn to hand over anything confidential now would we?"

Reading both interpretations, and not too sure.

Seeing you squirm to try to find an innocent reading for a portion of the transcript that isn't even the worst part is pretty funny.

[rda]

Not in the minds of Trump's rabid fanbase. Nothing was charged, therefore, there was NO CRIME. The fact that a crime could not be charged is conveniently forgotten.

This is not at all a fact, by the way.

I looked into it some time ago and it turned out that "MUELLER WASN'T ALLOWED TO CHARGE" bla bla bla is merely Mueller following a guideline. I linked an example piece discussing it:

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/186443...d-trump-russia

Example excerpt: "As the redacted Mueller report made clear, the special counsel’s office did not exonerate President Trump on the issue of obstruction of justice, but the office could not indict a sitting president under controlling DOJ rules. To be clear, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Language from the Clinton v. Jones and US v. Nixon cases indicates that the president is not above the law. If federal prosecutors refuse to hold the president to the same legal standard as any other citizen, state attorneys general could certainly charge a president with a state crime with sufficient evidence."

Example excerpt 2: "There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. There is nothing in Supreme Court opinions that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. All we have is Department of Justice policy based largely on concerns over separation of powers. On the other hand, there is an important principle guiding our legal system that no person is above the law. That principle is fundamentally undercut by the policy that a sitting president is immune from indictment."

Example excerpt 3: "There is almost no constitutional support for the assertion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Although the Department of Justice has a longstanding policy not to indict a sitting president, the memo supporting that policy concedes that the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 3) does not preclude indictment of a president — the clause merely states that if the president (or any other federal official) is impeached and convicted, that successful impeachment does not preclude a subsequent criminal indictment and prosecution of the president."

There's more excerpts and more pieces.

[Xeones]

Because it's in the Mueller report.

Am I misunderstanding or is he actually attempting to argue that the Mueller report is a lie?

Like is he actually trying to say anything that is inconvenient for him he will just deny reality rather than accept things as they are?

Dacien I thought you liked to act like a reasonable conservative. Are you capable of understanding how unreasonable this is?

[Dontrike]

You seem to not only have created a theory that the US is ruled by the evil -- this in and of itself wouldn't be entirely surprising, many folks do it, especially young ones -- but also have made it unfalsifiable. The latter is remarkable.

Hope for the best, expect the worst. That's one of my mottos and it only becomes more and more true when you look at the history of certain people. It's not hard to guess what some will do when they continue to do the same thing.

Republicans will not impeach Trump, just like they won't give a damn when another dozen kids die in tent cities, or when Trump fucks us all over. They had their chances to not kiss the ring or gobble the cock when Trump was sworn in, but unfortunately they couldn't help but pull out the chapstick and get those DSLs to work.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd actually like some clarification on the "confidential information" portion, because that's the exculpatory exclusion in particular. Or is it? Two different reads:

1. "Can you give me a heads up, but not asking for anything confidential"

2. "Wouldn't want Flynn to hand over anything confidential now would we?"

Reading both interpretations, and not too sure.

You constantly go on about if people are tired about this whole thing, but the real question is are you tired of siding with Trump every step of the way? Seriously, what would Trump have to do for you to disagree with him? Killing children seems to be okay, so what will actually do it?

[Grapemask]

The version in the Mueller report is edited. See my post above yours.

- - - Updated - - -

Dacien thinking this unedited version is better than the edited version from Mueller's report is pretty funny though.

Yeah, I'm not getting how the edited version gave Dowd the "short shrift." Mueller removed stuttering, a repeat statement, an implication that Dowd wanted to "deal with" whatever Flynn might give him a heads up about. The confidential info bit is maybe something to quibble about, but it's pretty transparent what that is.

It's probably easier to just step back and realize this quote was in the report all along, and if the edited version didn't make national news, but the unedited version is ripping across headlines and social media, maybe that alone is an indication that it makes him look worse.

[Machismo]

Bears reposting:



- - - Updated - - -



I suspect there's some turnips in it for him.

He's already stated tha he would vote for Trump, no matter what he's done, or how racist he is.

[Bodakane]

This is not at all a fact, by the way.

I looked into it some time ago and it turned out that "MUELLER WASN'T ALLOWED TO CHARGE" bla bla bla is merely Mueller following a guideline. I linked an example piece discussing it:

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/186443...d-trump-russia

Example excerpt: "As the redacted Mueller report made clear, the special counsel’s office did not exonerate President Trump on the issue of obstruction of justice, but the office could not indict a sitting president under controlling DOJ rules. To be clear, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Language from the Clinton v. Jones and US v. Nixon cases indicates that the president is not above the law. If federal prosecutors refuse to hold the president to the same legal standard as any other citizen, state attorneys general could certainly charge a president with a state crime with sufficient evidence."

Example excerpt 2: "There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. There is nothing in Supreme Court opinions that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. All we have is Department of Justice policy based largely on concerns over separation of powers. On the other hand, there is an important principle guiding our legal system that no person is above the law. That principle is fundamentally undercut by the policy that a sitting president is immune from indictment."

Example excerpt 3: "There is almost no constitutional support for the assertion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Although the Department of Justice has a longstanding policy not to indict a sitting president, the memo supporting that policy concedes that the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 3) does not preclude indictment of a president — the clause merely states that if the president (or any other federal official) is impeached and convicted, that successful impeachment does not preclude a subsequent criminal indictment and prosecution of the president."

There's more excerpts and more pieces.

This an incredibly stupid hill for you to die on. Mueller plays by the rules. Rules aren’t just laws. I mean if your job said you couldn’t wear shorts to work, following your stupid ass logic, you could wear shorts to work because there’s not a law saying you couldn’t.

[rda]

This an incredibly stupid hill for you to die on. Mueller plays by the rules. Rules aren’t just laws. I mean if your job said you couldn’t wear shorts to work, following your stupid ass logic, you could wear shorts to work because there’s not a law saying you couldn’t.

You previously said that "MUELLER WASN'T ALLOWED TO CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH ANY CRIMES".

You said that because you assumed that he was not allowed to do so. I don't blame you, you were not alone who assumed this, several other folks in this thread made their whole point around this. The reality ended up being different. Mueller was allowed to charge the president alright. He chose not to for political reasons and because he did not find anything substantial.

That's all.

[Bodakane]

You previously said that "MUELLER WASN'T ALLOWED TO CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH ANY CRIMES".

You said that because you assumed that he was not allowed to do so. I don't blame you, you were not alone who assumed this, several other folks in this thread made their whole point around this. The reality ended up being different. Mueller was allowed to charge the president alright. He chose not to for political reasons and because he did not find anything substantial.

That's all.

He wasn't allowed.

You are pretending the only way something isn't allowed is by law. You are wrong. You are doing that because this is all so damning for the side you've aligned yourself with, you have no other choice. it is weak, stupid and pathetic....and all of us see right through it.

[Grapemask]

You previously said that "MUELLER WASN'T ALLOWED TO CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH ANY CRIMES".

You said that because you assumed that he was not allowed to do so. I don't blame you, you were not alone who assumed this, several other folks in this thread made their whole point around this. The reality ended up being different. Mueller was allowed to charge the president alright. He chose not to for political reasons and because he did not find anything substantial.

That's all.

This is a wildly baseless statement on your part and directly contradicts his own documented legal theory. Your opinion is cute, but no one cares.

[rda]

This is a wildly baseless statement on your part and directly contradicts his own documented legal theory. Your opinion is cute, but no one cares.

Mueller did what he did because of the DOJ memo (more accurately, there were two: the one from 1973 and the second from 2000). The memo is not a law, it has pretty much no power comparably. Mueller says charging the president (with a crime, as part of a criminal case) would be unconstitutional, but that's just him relaying his understanding of the memo. He wouldn't be able to point to anything in the constitution disallowing to charge the president with a crime directly. He just means that there is some pretty involved logic behind this that ultimately concludes that yeah, charging a sitting president is to be avoided.

If you read the actual memos, they mostly talk about the necessity of impeaching the president before charging him. They don't state that you cannot charge, period, they simply suggest to first impeach, if it comes to charging. All they do is suggest, by the way, there is no verbiage along the lines of "you shall not" / "this is prohibited", etc, read them.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, Mueller's investigation was originally a counterintelligence investigation to which the memos did not apply at all. If the president was found involved in the conspiracy part, then hey, that's national security, bla bla bla, charges incoming.

It's only later when Mueller's investigation also got a criminal investigation part attached that the memos even started being relevant. And ask yourself this: if Mueller "knew" that he would not be able to charge the president with anything as a result of this additional criminal investigation, what the hell was the additional investigation started for? What was the point?

What happened was this: Mueller started this additional criminal investigation part because he had a hitch he could find something worth charging with. Then he did not find much. And then he decided to say that yeah, he knew all along that he wouldn't be able to charge, implying that Trump is still guilty and would have been normally charged if it was not for the policy. It's all very transparent.

[Grapemask]

the spin zone

I could rot my eyeballs reading this crap, or, I could just point out the fact that two weeks ago you were saying Mueller exonerated Trump and that his report - which you claimed to have read in full - plainly said "nothing here, folks." After Mueller's remarks, which said absolutely nothing new and only nearly word-for-word repeated that same report you used to claim all of those things, you're trying to say Mueller's a political hitman doing the best political smear he can given his supposed lack of evidence - clearly because the public perception of this report has changed. The only thing transparent here is your spin. Birds would fly into it. Spin less, or at least go earn your turnips spinning somewhere else.

[rda]

I could rot my eyeballs reading this crap, or, I could just point out the fact that two weeks ago you were saying Mueller exonerated Trump and that his report - which you claimed to have read in full - plainly said "nothing here, folks." After Mueller's remarks, which said absolutely nothing new and only nearly word-for-word repeated that same report you used to claim all of those things, you're trying to say Mueller's a political hitman doing the best political smear he can given his supposed lack of evidence - clearly because the public perception of this report has changed. The only thing transparent here is your spin. Birds would fly into it. Spin less, or at least go earn your turnips spinning somewhere else.

I read the report in full, yes, and there is pretty much nothing there, yes. I stand by this, nothing changed. I am speaking of conspiracy with Russia, not obstruction. Obstruction I don't care about, I said it is weak a number of times and I stand by that as well.

There were arguments from other folks who interpreted Mueller's "if we knew he isn't guilty we'd have said so [and we aren't saying it, so make your conclusions]" and his position about being unable to indict to mean that Trump is guilty and is not charged simply because he is the president. I objected only to the first part arguing that no, "not saying he isn't guilty" is not at all equivalent to "guilty". I did not object to the second part because I was taking it on faith. After some reading it looks like the second part shouldn't have been taken on faith, it is also rotten. Go figure.

[Breccia]

This an incredibly stupid hill for you to die on.

Wait, did he just link an article full of legal experts saying Mueller was right? Because that's not a stupid hill to die on, that's a stupid ditch to dig yourself.

[rda]

Wait, did he just link an article full of legal experts saying Mueller was right? Because that's not a stupid hill to die on, that's a stupid ditch to dig yourself.

It seems like you didn't read the link, because most legal experts actually object to the notion of "could not indict president", they just do it differently. There are other pieces, too, plenty of them.

[Thekri]

Wait, did he just link an article full of legal experts saying Mueller was right? Because that's not a stupid hill to die on, that's a stupid ditch to dig yourself.

He neither dying on a hill nor digging himself in a ditch. He is merely be remarkably effective at running you guys in circles trying to catch his non-existant logic. They are very good at tag teaming this. You guys chased Dacien around in circles for a few pages, then he tagged in rda and the game continued.

You know you are never going to catch him, so hopefully you are having fun, because you will never, ever change his mind or "catch" him in anything.

[rda]

He neither dying on a hill nor digging himself in a ditch. He is merely be remarkably effective at running you guys in circles trying to catch his non-existant logic. They are very good at tag teaming this. You guys chased Dacien around in circles for a few pages, then he tagged in rda and the game continued.

You know you are never going to catch him, so hopefully you are having fun, because you will never, ever change his mind or "catch" him in anything.

It would have been better if instead of perpetuating this stupid theory of me and other posters supposedly being trolls, supposedly working in a team, and supposedly to some end, you'd just replied on topic. If you agree with what I am saying, say so. If you disagree, say so. But please just talk about the subject. The moment you stop talking about the subject and start talking about other posters, you are just losing the argument, visibly and convincingly. This is all that happens.

- - - Updated - - -

As someone else said pages ago, it is remarkable that half of the posters are spending all their time trying to find reasons not to talk about the subject of the thread. I agree with this, it truly is remarkable. I mean, I am fine with it, I'll just note that this closing of eyes and ears only works on the forums. In the real world you won't have much success with it.

[Gorsameth]

Mueller did what he did because of the DOJ memo (more accurately, there were two: the one from 1973 and the second from 2000). The memo is not a law, it has pretty much no power comparably. Mueller says charging the president (with a crime, as part of a criminal case) would be unconstitutional, but that's just him relaying his understanding of the memo. He wouldn't be able to point to anything in the constitution disallowing to charge the president with a crime directly. He just means that there is some pretty involved logic behind this that ultimately concludes that yeah, charging a sitting president is to be avoided.

If you read the actual memos, they mostly talk about the necessity of impeaching the president before charging him. They don't state that you cannot charge, period, they simply suggest to first impeach, if it comes to charging. All they do is suggest, by the way, there is no verbiage along the lines of "you shall not" / "this is prohibited", etc, read them.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, Mueller's investigation was originally a counterintelligence investigation to which the memos did not apply at all. If the president was found involved in the conspiracy part, then hey, that's national security, bla bla bla, charges incoming.

It's only later when Mueller's investigation also got a criminal investigation part attached that the memos even started being relevant. And ask yourself this: if Mueller "knew" that he would not be able to charge the president with anything as a result of this additional criminal investigation, what the hell was the additional investigation started for? What was the point?

What happened was this: Mueller started this additional criminal investigation part because he had a hitch he could find something worth charging with. Then he did not find much. And then he decided to say that yeah, he knew all along that he wouldn't be able to charge, implying that Trump is still guilty and would have been normally charged if it was not for the policy. It's all very transparent.

I love how you completely ignore that Mueller took over the investigation from the FBI after Trump fired Comey. Which is why an Obstruction of Justice investigation was added to it, because the President fired the man investigating his campaign.

Your attempt to alter history doesn't fly.

[Dacien]

You previously said that "MUELLER WASN'T ALLOWED TO CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH ANY CRIMES".

You said that because you assumed that he was not allowed to do so. I don't blame you, you were not alone who assumed this, several other folks in this thread made their whole point around this. The reality ended up being different. Mueller was allowed to charge the president alright. He chose not to for political reasons and because he did not find anything substantial.

That's all.

Andrew McCarthy has a fascinating theory, that the entire invocation of OLC guidance, completely separate from a charging recommendation, was an end-around Barr.

Interesting read if you have the time.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...ent-probe/amp/

[Elegiac]

Andrew McCarthy has a fascinating theory

Ah yes, truly the intellectual and creative paragon of political commentary.