Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Mahourai]

Kenneth Starr was an independent council he did not have to abide by DOJ policy his only oversight was the courts, the special council has very strict limitation and is not only bound by DOJ policy but by whoever is overseeing the investigations (Trump shills Rosentein & Barr).

Starr's office was under the authority and oversight of AG Janet Reno, despite him being "independently" nominated by a judicial panel.

[Shalcker]

This argument that because you can do something it is also therefore right to do it is logically absurd. It's also legally disproven, as the same Supreme Court you took the time to bold also has ruled against presidents who have used it to shield documents. Literally the very next paragraph describes the case in which Nixon's right to executive privilege over evidence was lost, not by a party lines court vote, but by unanimous vote.

Well, it doesn't look like decision on Trump's executive privilege will be unanimous.

The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case".

Really, the main problem will be proving that what House wants is "essential to the justice of the case". Which, as far as i see, it isn't. They want to see them because they want to see them, any (potential) underlying crime that would be revealed from redactions is already in active investigation.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Well, it doesn't look like decision on Trump's executive privilege will be unanimous.

The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case".

Really, the main problem will be proving that what House wants is "essential to the justice of the case". Which, as far as i see, it isn't. They want to see them because they want to see them, any (potential) underlying crime that would be revealed from redactions is already in active investigation.

An interesting quote, but what's more interesting is that you've just given us the words. No context, no idea where the quote came from. Certainly no link to where it exists. Which I'm guessing means that either this is take wildly out of context, from a quote that's nothing to do with what you're talking about, or from a person or site that is almost entirely untrustworthy. So which is it then Shalcker? How are you trying to twist things to muddy the water today?

[Draco-Onis]

Starr's office was under the authority and oversight of AG Janet Reno, despite him being "independently" nominated by a judicial panel.

incorrect although the AG could dismiss them for "good cause" and assignments, Starr was appointed by a three judge panel from the DC circuit and had free reign to pursue whatever he wanted unlike Mueller who had to assign it to state investigators due to limitations.

[Shalcker]

An interesting quote, but what's more interesting is that you've just given us the words. No context, no idea where the quote came from. Certainly no link to where it exists. Which I'm guessing means that either this is take wildly out of context, from a quote that's nothing to do with what you're talking about, or from a person or site that is almost entirely untrustworthy. So which is it then Shalcker? How are you trying to twist things to muddy the water today?

It is taken right from mentioned second paragraph of same wikipedia article on executive privilege to which i was responding.

[Grapemask]

Really, the main problem will be proving that what House wants is "essential to the justice of the case". Which, as far as i see, it isn't. They want to see them because they want to see them, any (potential) underlying crime that would be revealed from redactions is already in active investigation.

While it's true that they're under investigation already, the House has one clear argument: other investigators are looking into crimes, but the House is undertaking its constitutional duty of checks and balances and investigating whether the president has committed an impeachable act. As Mueller's own report states, a president can't be charged with a crime (especially by other members of the executive branch), but he can be held accountable by Congress, so Mueller's own report demands that they be able to see Mueller's entire report.

But I do think it's all a waste of time. Trump is impeachable by everything in the public sections. Digging further is just stalling.

[Mahourai]

incorrect although the AG could dismiss them for "good cause" and assignments, Starr was appointed by a three judge panel from the DC circuit and had free reign to pursue whatever he wanted unlike Mueller who had to assign it to state investigators due to limitations.

You're just telling me what I told you, then saying I was incorrect.

[Ripster42]

This is just not true. It could have been far worse. Mueller could have directly alleged that Trump "endeavored to obstruct justice".

No, he couldn't have, as he stated in his report. Literally the first 2 pages of volume two, says he couldn't have stated that, even in internal memos, because of DoJ policy.

The OLC memo is about bringing legal charges against the President - but stating that there is evidence the President "endeavored to obstruct justice" is not a legal charge or outside the bounds of the investigation (really, making such a judgment is the entire purpose of the investigation). The report could have directly advised Congress that there were grounds for impeachment proceedings to begin, just as Starr did with Clinton. Mueller chose not to do this - for a variety of reasons.

You need to read the first two pages of the second volume of the report. He clearly states that he cannot say that he obstructed justice, because of DoJ policy. He literally refutes what you are saying. He specifically says that he can't say trump obstructed justice even in internal memos. Maybe you should read the report, instead of getting your news from hacks.

[Mahourai]

No, he couldn't have, as he stated in his report. Literally the first 2 pages of volume two, says he couldn't have stated that, even in internal memos, because of DoJ policy.



You need to read the first two pages of the second volume of the report. He clearly states that he cannot say that he obstructed justice, because of DoJ policy. He literally refutes what you are saying. He specifically says that he can't say trump obstructed justice even in internal memos. Maybe you should read the report, instead of getting your news from hacks.

I'm not sure where you've dreamed I'm getting my news from or how it's relevant.

Mueller writes in Vol 2's opening about how he cannot criminally prosecute the President, nor make a statement that would imply the President is guilty of a crime. But the statement that there is "credible and substantial evidence" the President "endeavored to obstruct justice" is not a criminal charge and is not a violation of DOJ policy, nor is saying that the findings of the report may constitute grounds for impeachment. We know this because Starr made exactly these statements, under the same DOJ oversight and policy (Starr's report predates the OLC memo Mueller is referencing, but the OLC memo is merely a reiteration of longstanding DOJ policy dating back decades), and there was no constitutional crisis or legal blowback.

[Bodakane]

I'm not sure where you've dreamed I'm getting my news from or how it's relevant.

Mueller writes in Vol 2's opening about how he cannot criminally prosecute the President, nor make a statement that would imply the President is guilty of a crime. But the statement that there is "credible and substantial evidence" the President "endeavored to obstruct justice" is not a criminal charge and is not a violation of DOJ policy, nor is saying that the findings of the report may constitute grounds for impeachment. We know this because Starr made exactly these statements, under the same DOJ oversight and policy (Starr's report predates the OLC memo Mueller is referencing, but the OLC memo is merely a reiteration of longstanding DOJ policy dating back decades), and there was no constitutional crisis or legal blowback.

Saying that would IMPLY Trump committed a crime and as you've already quoted, "nor make a statement that would imply the President is guilty of a crime"

[Mahourai]

Saying that would IMPLY Trump committed a crime

I'm excited for you to finish reading my post.

[Grapemask]

I'm not sure where you've dreamed I'm getting my news from or how it's relevant.

Mueller writes in Vol 2's opening about how he cannot criminally prosecute the President, nor make a statement that would imply the President is guilty of a crime. But the statement that there is "credible and substantial evidence" the President "endeavored to obstruct justice" is not a criminal charge and is not a violation of DOJ policy, nor is saying that the findings of the report may constitute grounds for impeachment. We know this because Starr made exactly these statements, under the same DOJ oversight and policy (Starr's report predates the OLC memo Mueller is referencing, but the OLC memo is merely a reiteration of longstanding DOJ policy dating back decades), and there was no constitutional crisis or legal blowback.

Starr and Mueller are two distinct people. Starr was (and continues to be) notably far more partisan than Mueller and he has been railed for that over the years. Which isn't to say Mueller is a completely neutral party; you don't get to hold any of the positions Mueller found himself in without being a political operative to at least some degree, and I suspect with absolutely no proof that Mueller would have been at least somewhat harsher in his words if he hadn't been investigating a member of his own party. But Starr notoriously breached confidences in order to give the conservative media machine more ammunition against Clinton, often times making claims he'd later not reinforce with proof or, in at least one case, not even further acknowledge.

To say Mueller could do it because Starr did it is crazy talk at best.

[Ripster42]

I'm not sure where you've dreamed I'm getting my news from or how it's relevant.

Mueller writes in Vol 2's opening about how he cannot criminally prosecute the President, nor make a statement that would imply the President is guilty of a crime. But the statement that there is "credible and substantial evidence" the President "endeavored to obstruct justice" is not a criminal charge and is not a violation of DOJ policy, nor is saying that the findings of the report may constitute grounds for impeachment. We know this because Starr made exactly these statements, under the same DOJ oversight and policy (Starr's report predates the OLC memo Mueller is referencing, but the OLC memo is merely a reiteration of longstanding DOJ policy dating back decades), and there was no constitutional crisis or legal blowback.

Yes, the statement, "there is credible and substantial evidence the president endeavored to obstruct justice," is a statement that the president is guilty of a crime. Mueller explicitly says he cannot make a statement like this. Starr was not empanneled under the same statutes as mueller, so trying to use him as a template for what a special counsel (which is what mueller is) when he was a special prosecutor (which is what starr was) is asinine. Again, you need to read the report. It would disabuse you of the notion that mueller can make a statement like the one you're saying he could make, even in internal memos. Mueller says the DoJ policy not only prohibits him from indicting sitting presidents, but also prohibits statements of opinion (which is what your statement is) that would imply the president is guilty:

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought.

Again, read the report. He literally refutes your argument.

[Bodakane]

I'm excited for you to finish reading my post.

Make you a deal, I'll "finish" reading your post, when you finish thinking this through.

If Mueller said what you said he should have said...get this now....IT WOULD IMPLY TRUMP COMMITTED A FUCKING CRIME. And he, AGAIN, cannot imply Trump committed a crime.

I mean this is literally some of the simplest thinking exercise out there and you are failing at it.

Also, Starr doing X thing that he wasn't supposed to, doesn't now mean that "By the Book Mueller" can or will do that same thing.

And once again, cause you keep missing it....MUELLER FUCKING SAYS ALL OF THIS POINT FUCKING BLANK.

[Draco-Onis]

You're just telling me what I told you, then saying I was incorrect.

Being able to fire them for good cause is not the same as being able to place parameters on their investigations. Kenneth Starr didn't start his investigations because Lewinsky for example.

[rda]

I'm not sure where you've dreamed I'm getting my news from or how it's relevant.

Mueller writes in Vol 2's opening about how he cannot criminally prosecute the President, nor make a statement that would imply the President is guilty of a crime. But the statement that there is "credible and substantial evidence" the President "endeavored to obstruct justice" is not a criminal charge and is not a violation of DOJ policy, nor is saying that the findings of the report may constitute grounds for impeachment. We know this because Starr made exactly these statements, under the same DOJ oversight and policy (Starr's report predates the OLC memo Mueller is referencing, but the OLC memo is merely a reiteration of longstanding DOJ policy dating back decades), and there was no constitutional crisis or legal blowback.

This question -- whether Mueller saying that they cannot say that Trump is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt coupled with the policy of not indicting the president mean that Trump would actually be indicted if his was not the president -- was discussed at length in another thread, starting from here:

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51173531

My position is that no, this does not mean that at all. Ripster objected, in his opinion the answer is yes. We spent pages arguing.

In the end it seemingly came to this:

Ripster: "DoJ policy is that if they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they're not going to indict someone. They state, clearly, that if the facts and the legal standard allowed them to state that they would not indict him, that they would do so. They do not believe this is the case." + "The end of the thorough investigation is the prosecutorial decision. There are two choices for a standard prosecutorial decision (which is the conclusion of the investigation). Indict, or not indict. They can't not indict, because of the facts and the legal standard. They can't indict because he's the president." + (the conclusion) "The only reason they didn't charge him is because he is the president."

Me: "That's your interpretation and your interpretation only [...]. Here is a different interpretation: They can't indict because of the facts and the legal standard. That he's the president is an addition to that. They *can* not indict but Mueller does not want to not indict and so he makes a non-standard prosecutorial decision that neither indicts nor doesn't indict, and throws it all into congress. All you are doing is stating that your interpretation is the one that is correct with zero grounds for it (in fact the other interpretation seems to be correct) other than you taking things way farther than you really can."

[beanman12345]

Surprised I'm not seeing any topics or mention anywhere, maybe I missed it. Seems Sweden has re-opened it's case on Julian Assange.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48253343

So now it's between who get's him, US or Sweden. If he comes to US he'll probably be charged with a lot more than he has been, go away for a lot longer, but possibly be pardoned as Obama pardoned Manning, because Trump's base will cry he's a hero and a treasure.

I personally hope he goes to Sweden, he'll be in jail less time, but I'll be happy to laugh at all the people who defended this guy for rape, simply on the bases that "he can't be a rapist because he got away with it!." Either way, I'm sitting here lmao at this criminal no longer in safety with his cat, facing more time in jail after his stint in the UK.

[Breccia]

I personally hope he goes to Sweden

I mean, wouldn't he anyhow? Trump can't pardon Swedish crimes. He might shelter him, of course, but there's no reason to do that other than to intentionally aggravate the country.

[beanman12345]

I mean, wouldn't he anyhow? Trump can't pardon Swedish crimes. He might shelter him, of course, but there's no reason to do that other than to intentionally aggravate the country.

He highly likely will go to Sweden yes. But if the US wants him bad enough, I wouldn't put it past them to play some slimy political games to get him over Sweden. Which country he goes to depends on which crime the UK finds more serious. ATT the Sweden one is more serious.

[Trifle]

He highly likely will go to Sweden yes. But if the US wants him bad enough, I wouldn't put it past them to play some slimy political games to get him over Sweden. Which country he goes to depends on which crime the UK finds more serious. ATT the Sweden one is more serious.

The entire reason he was hiding in the Equador embassy in the first place was because he was scared the US would extradite him from Sweden.