Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Edge-]

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

No no no, you're missing the point.

All the parts of the report that Trump likes? All legit and true. Mueller is a fair, stand-up guy. He tells the truth!

All the parts of the report that Trump doesn't like? Lies and "FAKE NEWS", Mueller and his 18 (or are we up to more?) angry Democrats are clearly lying and can never be trusted on anything.

[Frusciante]

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.

You're playing a game of semantics. The report lays out all the information - at the end of the day if he didn't say collusion then everyone would be like...BUT THERE MIGHT BE COLLUSION! HE ONLY SAID COOPERATING!

From the report:
"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing,
the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting
Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has
frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation."

That's why Barr used collusion. Because that's what everyone was using. Don't forget, he also said:

"the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities. "

So what's the problem again?

[Draco-Onis]

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.

Trump spent this morning attacking the report and everyone in it which by the way are people he hired and trusted for years. Apparently he didn't get the we love the report memo.

[rda]

All the parts of the report that Trump doesn't like? Lies and "FAKE NEWS", Mueller and his 18 (or are we up to more?) angry Democrats are clearly lying and can never be trusted on anything.

Instead of endlessly bickering regarding what Trump supporters / opposers supposedly like or don't like, can you or someone else either link or compile a list of parts from the report that Trump would probably like the least? Preferably in order of importance and legal weight.

Not saying the list will be empty, but I am reading slowly and so far my list is not big - but maybe there's a useful summary already?

- - - Updated - - -

Trump spent this morning attacking the report and everyone in it which by the way are people he hired and trusted for years. Apparently he didn't get the we love the report memo.

Well, I don't try to understand what drives Trump when he tweets - his twitter habits are terrible, he ends up saying a lot of nonsense. (And I am not his supporter, just in case, I am simply trying to find out what the report says and whether there's actual meat there, etc. So far not much, but I am only about 20% done, plus I might be missing things.)

[Gorsameth]

Instead of endlessly bickering regarding what Trump supporters / opposers supposedly like or don't like, can you or someone else either link or compile a list of parts from the report that Trump would probably like the least? Preferably in order of importance and legal weight.

Not saying the list will be empty, but I am reading slowly and so far my list is not big - but maybe there's a useful summary already?

The entirety of Volume 2, which is Obstruction of justice charges and the note that while Mueller cannot indict a sitting President he has no such protection once he leaves office and that the report is created to gather and preserve the evidence for such a case.

[Shalcker]

So, I would like to point out something quite "interesting", by woke centrist standards.

The report even its redacted form essentially confirms a protracted effort on the part of Russian intelligence to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, and that the Trump campaign expected assistance on that front - and by extension, it calls into question the legitimacy of that election.

Wow, how easy it is to make legitimacy of Western democracy questionable! You just have to try influencing it (don't even have to succeed!), and it immediately falls apart!

Who knew it was so fragile!

Meaning that we now have two Supreme Court justices currently seated who were appointed as a result of entirely suspect circumstances.

Right, entirely suspect circumstance of Republicans winning after 2-term Democrat president... which didn't happen like... once in entire history?

[Shadowferal]

Mueller Report doesn't charge Trump, but it is a brutal indictment

The other lays out comprehensive evidence that the president may have obstructed justice through what Mueller described as a "pattern of conduct" that included firing FBI Director Jim Comey, trying to remove Mueller, publicly praising and condemning witnesses, and seeking to limit the scope of the probe.

Taken in sum, Mueller's findings reveal three years of actions by Trump and his subordinates that critics say rattle the very foundations of the American system of governance, from the sacrosanct nature of democratic elections to the idea that no man, not even the president, is above the law.

The story, in even its most sympathetic telling, is one of a president who used nearly every power vested in his office and his persona — including hiring and firing, the bully pulpit, party loyalty, private intimidation, and disinformation — to cover up ties between his campaign and Russia so that he could spare himself the public humiliation of having won an election that wasn't entirely on the level.

Frank O. Bowman III, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Law and author of the forthcoming book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump" said the Mueller report suggests the president committed impeachable offenses.

"The issue for impeachment is not whether a criminal statute was violated but whether a president engaged in a pattern of activity inconsistent with his obligation to take care that the law be faithfully executed and instead sought to use his authority to undercut the institutions and norms of the justice system to benefit himself," he said. "The second half of the Mueller report strongly supports such a conclusion as to Trump."

Bowman said Trump's conduct tracked with that of President Richard Nixon, but that the refusal of Trump's subordinates to follow his orders — very likely with the Nixon example in mind — may end up saving the president politically.

"The fact that they refused doesn't change the constitutional impeachment calculus at all," he said. "Still, the fact that he was so often restrained will make it easy for Republicans in Congress to wave off his otherwise impeachable behavior."

If that's the case, the question of whether Mueller's findings render Trump unfit for office will rest with the jury he's always wanted: the voters. But the special counsel's report is an indelible testament to the president's weakness in seeking Russian aid and in deceiving the nation about it.

[Gorsameth]

You're playing a game of semantics. The report lays out all the information - at the end of the day if he didn't say collusion then everyone would be like...BUT THERE MIGHT BE COLLUSION! HE ONLY SAID COOPERATING!

From the report:
"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing,
the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting
Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has
frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation."

That's why Barr used collusion. Because that's what everyone was using. Don't forget, he also said:

"the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities. "

So what's the problem again?

And Cooperation being limited to an agreement between 2 or more people.

Yes it did not find evidence of any actually agreement to work together with Russia. Just that the campaign was happy to accept any and all assistance from Russia in helping Trump win.
If you think its fine for a President to accept the aid of a foreign nation to win the Presidency then rest easy.
But some people might consider such a thing unbecoming and unpatriotic.

Just because its not technically a crime doesn't mean its acceptable.

Barr is using collusion because that way he can say whatever he wants without technically lying about what is in the report.

[rda]

The entirety of Volume 2, which is Obstruction of justice charges and the note that while Mueller cannot indict a sitting President he has no such protection once he leaves office and that the report is created to gather and preserve the evidence for such a case.

Don't get me wrong, but if it is obstruction of justice and not something like cooperation with Russia which would be worth obstructing the justice over, it's just much less interesting. It's not zero, but it looks like a technicality, like "ok, we cannot really pin you on anything because it looks like you didn't do anything or at least you hid it so well that we cannot tell, but we'll try to get you anyway". It's much weaker than what was supposed to be found.

[Shalcker]

Can anyone explain to me why the trump tower meeting didn't count as attempted conspiracy/collision?

No direct link to Russian Government, no obvious direction by Russian Government, no follow-ups.

Just a meeting with Russian lawyer presenting her case.

[Edge-]

Just a meeting with Russian lawyer presenting her case.

Sure.

Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more say no more.

The actual reason, apparently, is because thankfully for Donnie Jr. and company, they were too incompetent to have committed an actual crime.

Which is still bullshit because the intent was painfully obvious, but oh well.

[Shadowferal]

There's a damn good reason why Trump thought he was so fucked.

[Gorsameth]

Don't get me wrong, but if it is obstruction of justice and not something like cooperation with Russia which would be worth obstructing the justice over, it's just much less interesting. It's not zero, but it looks like a technicality, like "ok, we cannot really pin you on anything because it looks like you didn't do anything or at least you hid it so well that we cannot tell, but we'll try to get you anyway". It's much weaker than what was supposed to be found.

That's not how the law works.

There is no need for an underlying crime to Obstruct.
There is no need for any actual impact to Obstruct.

Bill Clinton didn't get impeached for getting a blowjob, he got impeached because he lied about it.

[rda]

That's not how the law works.

There is no need for an underlying crime to Obstruct.
There is no need for any actual impact to Obstruct.

Bill Clinton didn't get impeached for getting a blowjob, he got impeached because he lied about it.

I agree that's not how the law works and maybe you'll find the law to apply here, but this doesn't change anything I said - it's weak, much weaker than the supposed cooperation with Russia.

[Gorsameth]

No direct link to Russian Government, no obvious direction by Russian Government, no follow-ups.

Just a meeting with Russian lawyer presenting her case.

Incorrect.
Significant links to the Russian Government. The email even mentioned support on behalf of the Russian government.

There was no indictment over it because the law requires wilful intent. Meaning the people breaking the law have to know there was a law against it.
Trump Jr. was saved from jail by his ignorance and nothing else.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that's not how the law works and maybe you'll find the law to apply here, but this doesn't change anything I said - it's weak, much weaker than the supposed cooperation with Russia.

If you think the shit Nixon did was fine then yeah sure, nothing to see here.

[rda]

If you think the shit Nixon did was fine then yeah sure, nothing to see here.

This is a non-sequitur.

[Pipebomb]

There's a damn good reason why Trump thought he was so fucked.

"Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything."

ie.) “Show me the man and I'll show you the crime”

[Gorsameth]

This is a non-sequitur.

Obstruction of justice isn't related to the Nixon case?
Hm, funny that.

It is not 'weak' when the President uses the power of his office to influence and silence investigations into himself and people around him.

[cubby]

Don't get me wrong, but if it is obstruction of justice and not something like cooperation with Russia which would be worth obstructing the justice over, it's just much less interesting. It's not zero, but it looks like a technicality, like "ok, we cannot really pin you on anything because it looks like you didn't do anything or at least you hid it so well that we cannot tell, but we'll try to get you anyway". It's much weaker than what was supposed to be found.

The report spells out that there was attempted cooperation, by many people in the campaign, including his family and senior campaign staff, but they were too stupid to know that what they were doing was a crime, and they covered up or obfuscated a great deal more. That is all in the report.

It further lays out multiple instances of obstruction of justice actions by Trump and his staff. Barr said "not enough to move on" but that doesn't mean he was right. He's also a known GOP operative and cover-artist. The Statue of Limitations for Obstruction or other federal crimes is typically five years. There are sealed indictments under federal court, that were placed there so that the SoL doesn't run out. Mueller did that. Mueller also believes that you cannot indict a sitting President.

You can put those two pieces together.

[rda]

Obstruction of justice isn't related to the Nixon case?
Hm, funny that.

No, obstruction of justice being much weaker than cooperation with Russia in the Trump case does not mean obstruction of justice at all or in the Nixon case is not worth investigating / punishing. But it's weaker. Logic 101.