Release of the Mueller report is imminent, AG Barr has in-hand, judiciary committees being briefed

[Glyptofane]

You don't really have to pay medical bills as long as you don't rely on credit for anything else. We were billed $30k for my son's birth.

 

[SG854]

...I'm going to ignore quite some posts here (I don't know how it ended up with healthcare to begin with ), so I might repeat some people.


I haven't fully read the report yet*, but I've read enough to know that the public knowledge is pretty much true: there are plenty of indications of collusion. The whole "indications isn't the same as proof" mantra...I'm sorry to say something personal, but honestly: those are really pathetic excuses.

The thing is: Mueller (and his team) knew from the start that they couldn't indict a sitting president. That's why it's framed rather careful. My opinion is colored by youtube commenters, but I agree with them with the impression that Mueller really messaged to the senate "either you'll impeach him now, or you'll have to wait until he's no longer a sitting president before it comes to a trial". He gathered and collected the evidence, but it's not up to him to chose what to do with it.

...and THAT is what should have been in the not-a-summary from Barr. Instead, Barr said something vague in the trend of "it doesn't say Trump is guilty, but...", which was immediately interpreted and broadcasted wrong. If this was just after Trump's inauguration, I wouldn't have blamed Barr for this mistake, but by now we all know Trump's spiel: he doesn't care about the truth, only in what he can make people believe. So of course Barr should've anticipated an "THIS REPORT TOTALLY EXONERATES ME!!!!" lie from Donald, and should have refrained from anything but the clear truth on what was in the report.

Then again: if Barr had done that and Trump kept his dumb mouth shut, it's likely that the report would never have been publicly released to begin with.**

In either case: Trump's guilty of a whole lot of illegal stuff, and the proof is in the report. The only question remaining is how long the US citizens are going to tolerate having an untrialed*** criminal for president.



*apparently, neither did Donald Trump. I get he's a busy man, but really...shouldn't this be the sort of documents you really want to read YOURSELF rather than delegating it to someone else?
** I'm not too familiar with the watergate scandal, but I'm fairly sure that if Nixon boasted to everyone that his precious tapes contained nothing important rather than quitting his job, then those tapes would've been forced into the public rather than remain in his personal possession instead.
***again: the reason for not having a trial is because a sitting president is above it.

Mueller Offers no further recommendation for indictments.


What indications of collusion? There was none. Not a single American was charged with collusion. If he can't indict a sitting president, he can indict all the people around him on Russia Collusion but he didn't.



Mueller obliterated the collusion narrative.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18...ssia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/


"The Office did not identify evidence in those interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian Government"

 

[Xzi]

Mueller Offers no further recommendation for indictments.

...But the report does specifically mention impeachment as one of the methods by which the president could be held accountable. It also lays out in great detail everything a lawyer would need to proceed with obstruction of justice charges. Ten of them, to be exact.

 

[SG854]

...But the report does specifically mention impeachment as one of the methods by which the president could be held accountable. It also lays out in great detail everything a lawyer would need to proceed with obstruction of justice charges. Ten of them, to be exact.

What you have to get Trump on is malicious intent of Obstruction. One big fact remains. There was no underlying Crime Established for Trump to Cover up. Which puts a blow to the Corrupt Intent part.

Most likely Trump wanted to end the investigation because he wanted to let off steam for an investigation he thinks should have never taken place in the first place. Now you would have to prove that Trump was either wanting to end it because he thinks the whole thing was a scam, or to corruptly conceal evidence of criminality.

Most likely its him thinking it was a scam, because 1) No Crime was Established, and 2) not a single American was charged. One person alone, Trump, can not cover up all the evidence on his own, and they investigated lots of Americans for 22 months, and not a single one charge. One would have slipped up by now, with the huge resources they had and what was praised by the left as the best team ever assembled, but not a single one was charged. And Mueller didn't just say their was insufficient evidence, he said on various instances there was no evidence at all. And they didn't just go the 2016 election they even went beyond that with his Financial Dealings with Russia, with Manafort, and the supposed Trump Tower meeting.



So knowing this information are people going to fairly judge the president with charging him on Obstruction due to Malicious Intent? We already know that the left is biased and wants to indict him regardless of lack of evidence of collusion, and will always say he being malicious even if evidence indicates that its not. The will always say yes indict him no matter what. But they are only going to piss off a bunch of conservatives especially the ones that control the Senate. And your only going to get them to relalitate and increase his chances of becomeing president.

 

[Xzi]

What you have to get Trump on is malicious intent of Obstruction.

Intent is one of the three elements needed to prove obstruction of justice, yes, and there is a detailed section on intent included for each of the ten charges in the Mueller report.

There was no underlying Crime Established for Trump to Cover up. Which puts a blow to the Corrupt Intent part.

You're talking about the intent to commit other crimes, which is not a required part of proving obstruction of justice. Those would be filed as other charges.

 

[Taleweaver]

Mueller Offers no further recommendation for indictments.


What indications of collusion? There was none. Not a single American was charged with collusion. If he can't indict a sitting president, he can indict all the people around him on Russia Collusion but he didn't.



Mueller obliterated the collusion narrative.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18...ssia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/


"The Office did not identify evidence in those interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian Government"

I suggest you read the report.

 

[Foxi4]

In either case: Trump's guilty of a whole lot of illegal stuff, and the proof is in the report. The only question remaining is how long the US citizens are going to tolerate having an untrialed criminal for president.

The report explicitly states that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute Donald Trump, or any of his staff for that matter, for any crime. Your conclusion is the exact opposite of Mueller's, Barr's and Rosenstein's. The president isn't and has never been accused of any illegal conduct in regards to this matter.

 

[SG854]

I suggest you read the report.

It just tells us what we already know. Nothing new. I'm going though it right now. Guccifer, Podesta email leak to phishing, Naked Bernie memes, Julian Assange wanting a Republican to win because he thinks people will resit a Republican more then Hillary, and he was worried about Hillary because she was war hawkish. There's hardly anything I already didn't know for months.

 

[Foxi4]

...But the report does specifically mention impeachment as one of the methods by which the president could be held accountable. It also lays out in great detail everything a lawyer would need to proceed with obstruction of justice charges. Ten of them, to be exact.

Context matters. The section mentions impeachment specifically to explain why a president cannot be indicted. The statute is explained for all the lemmings who actually think Trump could be prosecuted, which he won't due to a lack of any conclusive evidence, a motive or even proof of intent.

 

[Xzi]

The report explicitly states that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute Donald Trump, or any of his staff for that matter, for any crime.

The report explicitly states that he cannot be exonerated. That is the closest that Mueller could've possibly come, within the bounds of DOJ rules, to stating that he should be charged. There also would've been no need for him to lay out all the components of each obstruction of justice charge so thoroughly otherwise.

 

[SG854]

The report explicitly states that he cannot be exonerated. That is the closest that Mueller could've possibly come, within the bounds of DOJ rules, to stating that he should be charged. There also would've been no need for him to lay out all the components of each obstruction of justice charge so thoroughly otherwise.

That's that nature of every single investigation in existence. You can't prove a negative. That's what that means.

 

[Foxi4]

The report explicitly states that he cannot be exonerated. That is the closest that Mueller could've possibly come, within the bounds of DOJ rules, to stating that he should be charged. There also would've been no need for him to lay out all the components of each obstruction of justice charge so thoroughly otherwise.

You cannot be exonerated of a crime that didn't happen. Since no obstruction was proven to have occured, the president de facto cannot be guilty or innocent of it.

 

[Xzi]

Since no obstruction was proven to have occured, the president de facto cannot be guilty or innocent of it.

The Mueller report is literally a guide which can be used to prove it did happen. Mueller was never going to be able to prosecute the president himself, after all, so this is the best he could do in lieu of that.

I think Dems have still been hesitant to start the impeachment process, but now that Trump is threatening to stonewall all subpoenas both related and unrelated to the Mueller report, they're probably slowly realizing that there will be no choice.

 

[Foxi4]

The Mueller report is literally a guide which can be used to prove it did happen. Mueller was never going to be able to prosecute the president himself, after all, so this is the best he could do in lieu of that.

I think Dems have still been hesitant to start the impeachment process, but now that Trump is threatening to stonewall all subpoenas both related and unrelated to the Mueller report, they're probably slowly realizing that there will be no choice.

That's not true. Mueller himself states that even though the president cannot be indicted during his term and must first be removed from office via impeachment, this would not prevent him from suggesting prosecution if he believed there was evidence to reasonably suggest obstruction of justice. He does not make such a suggestion and instead defers the decision regarding any further investigation to the AG, who then dismissed it due to lack of evidence. The report is a dead end, your best bet for impeachment would be a further counter intelligence investigation, and once that inevitably fails, an investigation into Trump's shoe size, his favourite soup and other assorted nonsense.

 

[SG854]

That's not true. Mueller himself states that even though the president cannot be indicted during his term and must first be removed from office via impeachment, this would not prevent him from suggesting prosecution if he believed there was evidence to reasonably suggest obstruction of justice. He does not make such a suggestion and instead defers the decision regarding any further investigation to the AG, who then dismissed it due to lack of evidence. The report is a dead end, your best bet for impeachment would be a further counter intelligence investigation, and once that inevitably fails, an investigation into Trump's shoe size, his favourite soup and other assorted nonsense.

Like this one

Trump gets two scopes of ice cream instead of one.

 

[Foxi4]

You voted for a guy who raw-dogs porn stars.

I somehow missed that one, but I do think it should be his campaign slogan for 2020. "I raw-dog porn stars" has a nice ring to it.

Like this one

Trump gets two scopes of ice cream instead of one.

He also drinks water using two hands.

 

[Xzi]

That's not true. Mueller himself states that even though the president cannot be indicted during his term and must first be removed from office via impeachment, this would not prevent him from suggesting prosecution if he believed there was evidence to reasonably suggest obstruction of justice.

Which is why the report also suggests that Trump could be indicted once out of office. It was always meant to be a punt to Congress on whether or not to impeach.

I somehow missed that one, but I do think it should be his campaign slogan for 2020. "I raw-dog porn stars" has a nice ring to it.

That being the case, might I also suggest "Trump 2020, imagine Toad with chlamydia sores." Or, "Trump 2020, my wife always sleeps in a different state."

 

[Foxi4]

Which is why the report also suggests that Trump could be indicted once out of office. It was always meant to be a punt to Congress on whether or not to impeach.

I will eagerly await for the articles of impeachment to be a huge waste of time that never goes through, or even before the Senate.

That being the case, might I also suggest "Trump 2020, imagine Toad with chlamydia sores." Or, "Trump 2020, my wife always sleeps in a different state."

You better watch out, the last person who made slanderous allegations like that ended up covering Trump's legal fees.

 

[Xzi]

You better watch out, the last person who made slanderous allegations like that ended up covering Trump's legal fees.

The former I don't know is true, but when you raw-dog porn stars, shit's gonna happen. The latter is a verifiable fact, and I'm not sure what else he expected his wife's reaction to be after finding out he paid (a lot of) hush money to fuck another woman.

 

[SG854]

The Mueller report is literally a guide which can be used to prove it did happen. Mueller was never going to be able to prosecute the president himself, after all, so this is the best he could do in lieu of that.

I think Dems have still been hesitant to start the impeachment process, but now that Trump is threatening to stonewall all subpoenas both related and unrelated to the Mueller report, they're probably slowly realizing that there will be no choice.

There were 60 representatives voted for impeachment the week he was inaugurated, they tried to sue on the emoluments clause, then there was 25th amendment psychodrama, then they tried to sue 3 states for the voting machines to try to nullify the election, they tried to give the steele dossier to the electors to try to persuade them not to vote on constitutional mandate, then Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe meeting to see if they could pull cabinet members to remove him, then stormy daniels, then michael cohen, the tax returns, Mueller Report.


There was no waiting till 2020. There is a clear many attempts on trying to remove him, on whatever they can find. Many failed coup attempts.