Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Zan15]

you do know that it was perfectly within his rights to fire Mueller, or anyone else for that matter? Not smart politically, but perfectly legal.

Yup and within that right would be the reasons that would result in obstruction if they could prove he did it because he wanted to protect himself, or prevent/block/mess with the investigation.

[DarkTZeratul]

Afaik it would be borderline impossible to prove Russian interference had any dispositive effect on the outcome of the election, and as such, any challenge to legitimacy of the election will go nowhere.

"They tried to fuck with our election but we can't prove they actually succeeded so let's just ignore it and move on because they surely won't try to do it again..."

[Fahrenheit]

"They tried to fuck with our election but we can't prove they actually succeeded so let's just ignore it and move on because they surely won't try to do it again..."

That seems to be the Republican response to just about everything these days. "Forget about the details, nuance, and taking follow-up actions, just let us do our thing without making a fuss, snowflake!"

[Ashnazg]

And yet the intelligence agencies of the United States have already presented their conclusions that that is exactly what happened.

The article you linked doesn't support what you think it supports. It states that Russia's interference in the election happened, not that it had a decisive outcome on the election results.

"They tried to fuck with our election but we can't prove they actually succeeded so let's just ignore it and move on because they surely won't try to do it again..."

Be that as it may, unless there is hard proof that election tampering was the critical element in changing the outcome of the election, speculating on whether the election would have gone one way or another in the absence of that tampering is pointless. Thus, while certain elements of society can crow all they want about the legitimacy of the election, it will never amount to anything substantial.

And in the absence of conclusive proof that Trump's team collaborated with Russia on any interference, I doubt anyone is going to give a shit about it at all - this kind of interference is something we do to other countries all the time, and people are fairly inured to it.

[Frusciante]

"while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to
the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. "

[cubby]

I'll let Mueller speak for himself

So he broke the law, but can't be prosecuted unless he knew the law existed.

I find that conclusion very interesting (and unarguable, just to be clear). Typically in legal matters, ignorance of the law is not a defense against guilt (i.e. "I didn't know killing someone was illegal).

[Ashnazg]

I find that conclusion very interesting (and unarguable, just to be clear). Typically in legal matters, ignorance of the law is not a defense against guilt (i.e. "I didn't know killing someone was illegal).

Ignorance of law is typically not a defense for crimes that contain an actus reus element (guilty act - e.g. the deed has already been done). For attempted crimes, proving intent to commit a crime is critical, and if they did not realize they were committing a crime of conspiracy (or if Mueller doesn't think he has enough evidence to prove it), they cannot be found guilty of attempted conspiracy.

[cubby]

The article you linked doesn't support what you think it supports. It states that Russia's interference in the election happened, not that it had a decisive outcome on the election results.

Ok - I hope you're aware that those goalposts are impossible to meet, but w/e.

Be that as it may, unless there is hard proof that election tampering was the critical element in changing the outcome of the election, speculating on whether the election would have gone one way or another in the absence of that tampering is pointless. Thus, while certain elements of society can crow all they want about the legitimacy of the election, it will never amount to anything substantial.

And in the absence of conclusive proof that Trump's team collaborated with Russia on any interference, I doubt anyone is going to give a shit about it at all - this kind of interference is something we do to other countries all the time, and people are fairly inured to it.

I love your conclusion - you doubt anyone cares, and yet the entire intelligence community has weighed in on the topic several times, along with a GOP sponsored investigation into collusion by the GOP nominee in 2016. Just because this Resident doesn't care about the country, doesn't mean there won't be a reckoning when legitimate leadership takes the helm.

- - - Updated - - -

Ignorance of law is typically not a defense for crimes that contain an actus reus element (guilty act - e.g. the deed has already been done). For attempted crimes, proving intent to commit a crime is critical, and if they did not realize they were committing a crime of conspiracy (or if Mueller doesn't think he has enough evidence to prove it), they cannot be found guilty of attempted conspiracy.

Good point - conspiracy is such an interesting legal animal.

[Dacien]

I'll let Mueller speak for himself



So he broke the law, but can't be prosecuted unless he knew the law existed.

Not necessarily. The argument that opposition Intel constitutes a "thing of value" under 110.20 was not decided, only that "a reasonable argument can be made" for it. Charging Don Jr. under that statute, which is the one Mueller pointed to, would have been a Pandora's box. I wasn't surprised Mueller didn't pursue it, what surprised me was that he called arguments for it reasonable.

[Daelak]

The article you linked doesn't support what you think it supports. It states that Russia's interference in the election happened, not that it had a decisive outcome on the election results.



Be that as it may, unless there is hard proof that election tampering was the critical element in changing the outcome of the election, speculating on whether the election would have gone one way or another in the absence of that tampering is pointless. Thus, while certain elements of society can crow all they want about the legitimacy of the election, it will never amount to anything substantial.

And in the absence of conclusive proof that Trump's team collaborated with Russia on any interference, I doubt anyone is going to give a shit about it at all - this kind of interference is something we do to other countries all the time, and people are fairly inured to it.

Of course it had a decisive impact on the white, non-college educated, rural, middle aged voters who were inundated with Killary Klinton the secret serial killer, Killary Klinton, the child sex ring leader, and Killery Klinton, the sickly elderly woman with a crippling brain disorder that she kept hidden from the public. These people have already been primed for decades from right wing radio and fox news, Russian misinformation was just the icing on top. They recieved internal polling data from the Trump campaign showing this vulnerable cohort of people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and starting firing away, and it worked.

[Shadowferal]

Fact Check; What Attorney General Barr said vs. what the Mueller report said

A few words omitted here and there made all the difference.

[cubby]

Fact Check; What Attorney General Barr said vs. what the Mueller report said

A few words omitted here and there made all the difference.

Reality always works against the Trumpkins. That line-by-line review demonstrates it once again.

[Frusciante]

Fact Check; What Attorney General Barr said vs. what the Mueller report said

A few words omitted here and there made all the difference.

"Expecting to benefit may not be the same as actively cooperating" - Love this...the spin afterwards...

"but the omission in Barr’s letter is significant nonetheless."

No...no it isn't. Because what was said before doesn't change the outcome that they still were not colluding or cooperating together.

[Thepersona]

Fucking hilarious, coming from you. Every time someone asks you for sources, you bitch out. So, who is not looking for truth? It isn't us. There is plenty of evidence of fucking collusion.

You know that these T words are fucked when they try to spin this as a win, when posters like @Skroe said a year ago that collusion was pretty hard to prove, and that he'd be fucked by obstruction of justice.

Remember, even Mueller said that the scope of his investigation was pretty narrow, and that a more thorough look into the campaign of Twitler Tang could uncover ties with the ruskies, but he didnt have the power to do that.

[Blur4stuff]

Trump and his supporters can't have it both ways. When all we had was Barr's spin they loved the report and claimed it totally cleared Trump and his team. Now that we see that isn't at all the case (and more to come without redaction) they're trying to pretend the report is bullshit (either totally or partially).

[Grapemask]

Trump's stance on the report has wildly downgraded, going from "exoneration" to the "Crazy Mueller Report" full of "bullshit." That pair of tweets reads as a bit unhinged. He probably feels the walls closing in again.

[Frusciante]

Trump and his supporters can't have it both ways. When all we had was Barr's spin they loved the report and claimed it totally cleared Trump and his team. Now that we see that isn't at all the case (and more to come without redaction) they're trying to pretend the report is bullshit (either totally or partially).

Uh - What report did you read? The report says there was no collusion. What Barr said was accurate.

[Gorsameth]

Uh - What report did you read? The report says there was no collusion. What Barr said was accurate.

Note how Barr talks about collusion, which the report makes very clear is a thing that does not exist in legal turns. This is done knowingly because he can't say what the report actually shows without admitting how bad it looks.

For bonus points go look up the actual narrow definition of what Mueller investigated and concluded. It leaves a LOT of room around the edges.

[rda]

Trump and his supporters can't have it both ways. When all we had was Barr's spin they loved the report and claimed it totally cleared Trump and his team. Now that we see that isn't at all the case (and more to come without redaction) they're trying to pretend the report is bullshit (either totally or partially).

I think the supporters of Trump (if you insist on framing the discussion this way and divide everyone onto the supporters and opposers of Trump - not what I would do, but whatever) continue to love the report, and aren't trying to have it "both" ways because just one way is enough.

[Mekh]

Uh - What report did you read? The report says there was no collusion. What Barr said was accurate.

But the God Emperor says that's bullshit. Meaning there was collusion. He wouldn't lie to you after all.