Mueller tells Nadler that report did not totally exonerate Trump

[Jim in CT]

Mueller told Nadler very explicitly, that the report did not “totally exonerate Trump.”

Here’s the thing. American principles of jurisprudence have never required that a person be totally exonerated by folks with prosecutorial authority. Everyone, even orange man bad, is innocent until proven guilty, and if they cannot be proven guilty, they are to be left the hell alone.

There is literally no such thing as a standard of “total exoneration”. That standard has never been applied to anyone, i’d love to hear a valid reason why it should be applied to Trump now.

This is over. Like the election, the liberal anarchist snowflakes will have a tough time accepting that they didn’t get what they wanted. Tough sh*t, because i didn’t get what i wanted in 208 and 2012. The remedy is the next election, not throwing a temper tantrum until a fair election is overturned.

Grow up and face the music. Your side lost to a reprehensible individual. It’s easy to be a good sport when you win.

When someone is investigated and it’s determined that there isn’t enough evidence to indict, that person is legally innocent, even if he happens to be Donald Trump.

Stop trying to undo the last election, and start trying to win the next one.

[Pete F.]

SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”

MUELLER: “Yes.”

SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”

MUELLER: “Yes.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

did mueller choose to indict? you keep leaving that part out. you posted a link where Mueller said that kind of collusion is a crime in certain situations. Since Mueller
believes it can be a crime, and since he didn’t choose to indict, what other conclusion is there, that Mueller doesn’t believe Trump committed a crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

did mueller choose to indict? you keep leaving that part out. you posted a link where Mueller said that kind of collusion is a crime in certain situations. Since Mueller
believes it can be a crime, and since he didn’t choose to indict, what other conclusion is there, that Mueller doesn’t believe Trump committed a crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, I'm not sure you're really paying attention to any of this, or you're just listening to the wrong pundits.

Mueller clearly said he couldn't indict Trump per DOJ policy. The evidence was preserved as a matter of record.

[Pete F.]

Per DOJ OLC rules (https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...President.html) a sitting President cannot be indicted.

This is the closing paragraph from that document:

In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel

In his opening statement Mueller said this about indictment:

"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Some Constitutional Scholars have had discussions recently on this subject and disagree.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-cons...ment-president

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-pres...laurence-tribe

But this is not a new subject, here is something from 20 years ago.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.e...context=facpub

The correct conclusion IMHO is that Mueller did his assignment and produced his report. The next step is up to Congress.

We will see if they have the stomach for it.

[Raider Ronnie]

Is it me or does Meuler look look me he has Alzheimer disease 🤔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

He testified for hours and he's 75

Have you ever done anything like that?

I thought he did fine, he's not a reality TV star

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He testified for hours and he's 75

Have you ever done anything like that?

I thought he did fine, he's not a reality TV star

He testified for hrs & is 75
Are you kidding me ?

Trump is the same age and runs circles around most 1/2 his age.

If he’s that old and looking senile after working a full day what the hell is he doing in that position in the 1st place.
How the hell did he manage doing this report at his age if that’s the case ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The report he produced is important and truthful. The Republicans contested very few of the facts presented in the report. Mueller's behavior throughout has been that of a public servant of character and integrity. Contrast that with Trump.

I didn't think he looked senile at all. His words were carefully chosen as they should be. He was not there to engage in legal debate. Did you find him to be partisan in his testimony?

As far as how the report was generated, the operative word is manage, do you think he wrote it all by himself?

I would expect his team in total consisted of close to 200 members and he had years of experience managing teams and producing results.

In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, I'm not sure you're really paying attention to any of this, or you're just listening to the wrong pundits.

Mueller clearly said he couldn't indict Trump per DOJ policy. The evidence was preserved as a matter of record.

no he originally said he couldn’t indict trump, then he clarified that. i posted a link where he denied that doj policy prevented him
from indicting.

i’m not then one
not paying attention. i posted the exchange.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

no he originally said he couldn’t indict trump, then he clarified that. i posted a link where he denied that doj policy prevented him
from indicting.

i’m not then one
not paying attention. i posted the exchange.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not in this thread, and the link in the other thread did not say that.

Here's Mueller's statement:
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

That is a portion of what he said in his opening statement:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarified that he did not intend to support Lieu’s implication that Mueller would have indicted Trump if not for the OLC opinion.

That would have meant that Mueller determined that Trump committed a crime, but could not do anything about it.

Mueller also said the President could be indicted for obstruction after he was out of office, he did not say he would or should be.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The report he produced is important and truthful. The Republicans contested very few of the facts presented in the report. Mueller's behavior throughout has been that of a public servant of character and integrity. Contrast that with Trump.

I didn't think he looked senile at all. His words were carefully chosen as they should be. He was not there to engage in legal debate. Did you find him to be partisan in his testimony?

You don’t think he looked senile ?
Maybe you need to be checked ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

You don’t think he looked senile ?
Maybe you need to be checked ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller would have gladly interviewed Trump for several hours under oath.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Mueller would have gladly interviewed Trump for several hours under oath.

Sounds like he tried to get Trump to speak with them...Trump refused. Trump refused to answer any questions about obstruction either. The written responses Mueller said were inadequate and I believe yesterday Mueller said dishonest.

All that being said some people here believe the hype that Trump cooperated 100% with the investigation.

[Sea Dangles]

Some people here also are wondering how all this allegedly happened while Obama was guarding the flock.🤐
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Some people here also are wondering how all this allegedly happened while Obama was guarding the flock.🤐
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess he never picked up that call from the 80’s and just forwarded it to Mitt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Some people here also are wondering how all this allegedly happened while Obama was guarding the flock.🤐
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you really think there are people here who don't know who the president was during the Trump Clinton election? Are u trying to say that Obama didn't do enough so Trump shouldn't do anything?

President Trump claims President Obama failed to respond to Russian interference in the 2016 election. A fact-check of those claims paints a more complicated picture.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

In responding to the news that 12 Russian intelligence agents allegedly hacked the DNC and other Democratic groups during the 2016 election, President Trump repeated a familiar line.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Again, this was during the Obama administration. They were doing whatever it was during the Obama administration.

MARTIN: This is from an interview this morning with CBS News. And, on Twitter yesterday, Mr. Trump wrote, quote, "the stories you heard about the 12 Russians yesterday took place during the Obama administration, not the Trump administration. Why didn't they do something about it?" - unquote. So we thought this would be a good moment to fact-check that claim, so we asked our national security editor Phil Ewing to break this down.

Phil, thanks so much for coming.

PHIL EWING, BYLINE: Thanks for having me.

MARTIN: The assumption in what President Trump is saying is that President Obama took no action after learning that the Russians were interfering in the election. Is that the case?

EWING: No, that's not quite correct. The Obama administration had a great deal of internal debate in real time in 2016 about how to respond - whether they should do so publicly or privately. Ultimately, President Obama did so privately with the Russian president Vladimir Putin. He took him aside at an international summit and said, please stop interfering in our election - to no effect.

And the Obama administration also tried to ask leaders in Congress of both parties to sign a statement condemning these foreign efforts. The Democratic leaders agreed to do so. The Republican speaker, Paul Ryan, apparently thought that he could get there, but the majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, did not agree to do that. And so, ultimately, there was no public statement until October of 2016, by which time, with the view of history, it may have been too late to do anything about it.

MARTIN: Did the Obama administration take any steps other than jawboning?

EWING: Ultimately, President Obama's administration did take some action against the Russians. So in December of 2016 and January of 2017, there were some punitive measures the United States imposed. The Russian "diplomats," quote-unquote, were ejected from the United States. Their facilities in the United States were closed that they used to spy from New York and Maryland. And there were economic measures that the United States has taken, both under Obama and Trump, in retaliation for this election interference.

The view from critics on the outside was that it might have done more. There might have been cyberattacks - for example, the United States could have launched against the Russians to give back the Russians a taste of their own medicine. Ultimately, the Obama administration decided not to do that because the United States itself is so vulnerable to cyberattacks. And if you get into a cycle of escalation with the Russians, in this view, the United States is going to be the loser there because of how many more vulnerabilities we have as compared with how many they have.

MARTIN: In hindsight, is there regret on the part of Obama administration officials that they didn't take some of these steps?

EWING: You know, you definitely get the impression from people like the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, who just wrote a book, that he regrets not acting more quickly or more forcefully. And I think this is something that, as the 2020 Democratic election storyline gets going, you may hear more from the former Vice President Joe Biden if he gets into the mix. And everyone in the world is going to be waiting for the former president, Mr. Obama, when his much-awaited book comes out. And I think a lot of people are going to be looking and seeing whether Obama has regrets or whether has decisions that he might have taken a different way once we find out what he was thinking in real time in 2016.

MARTIN: That's NPR national security editor Phil Ewing.

Phil, thank you.

EWING: Thank you.size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

[Got Stripers]

He would take the intel again and when asked why in an interview why he wouldn’t call the FBI to inform them he was contacted by a foreign power, he arrogantly stated the world doesn’t work that way. When the the reporter stated that is what the director of the FBI says is exactly what should happen, Trump again with arrogance stated the FBI director was wrong. Today the bill requiring any candidate call the FBI should that happen was voted down, gee wiz I wonder who might have influenced that vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Like I said, right under the nose of your hero. Such a stain on his office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Boy Trump claims Obama did nothing (go goggle and you will find he did warn the Russians to stop and more, even if not enough to avoid the appearance of supporting Hillary) and that’s the excuse your going to put forward? Like John and others have pointed out the Russians have been attempting to f^uck with our democracy for ever, but I’m confused was Obama running for president and welcoming and encouraging help from a long time enemy?

Not saying I don’t wish ANY past or future government could stop it, but there is a big difference and a patriot would understand what that difference is and Trump is anything but. Welcomes help, encourages help and says he would do it again, f*ck the FBI’s guidelines or the fact it’s just un-America; but best president ever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Who proofread that for you? Good stuff!

I feel that justice has been front and center here. Seems the investigation was right out of the playbook and it doesn’t influence my confidence in our president one bit. You disagree and I respect the hell out of that. Let’s move forward and keep the USA first. There is no legitimate reason to waste any more bandwidth on this fallacy. The investigation was exhausting although inconclusive at best. I hope it left all satisfied. I wish this could have been prevented but it seems like all are ready to move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

That is a portion of what he said in his opening statement:
"Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Mueller clarified that he did not intend to support Lieu’s implication that Mueller would have indicted Trump if not for the OLC opinion.

That would have meant that Mueller determined that Trump committed a crime, but could not do anything about it.

Mueller also said the President could be indicted for obstruction after he was out of office, he did not say he would or should be.

This is totally incoherent. Were volumes 1 and 2 prosecuted under different Justice Department policy? Were there different levels of determination of culpability applied in volume 1 than in volume 2? Were issues of crime addressed in volume 1 but not in volume 2? Why so? And if crime was not addressed only in volume 2, what was? What was the point of investigating Trump or his campaign if not to determine if he or they committed a crime?

I can understand investigating Russian interference. And that should include the totality of it, not just a connection to Trump. Trump's opposition candidate and opposition party certainly could have been investigated in that connection as well. The Dems paid for the dossier which was informed by Russian sources. The Dems had political contacts with the Russians before Trump did.

But if no conclusion could be drawn re Trump because of policy, then why investigate him? And why make a conclusion in volume 1 but not in volume 2?

The point is, he could have made a conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of obstruction in volume 2. But it was not DOJ policy that prevented it, rather there were sticky, difficult questions of law and fact, as Mueller admitted, and Barr cited, which prevented the determination that Trump committed a crime.

The hazy reference to DOJ policy, and the determination (there actually was a determination, an actual conclusion in volume 2) that Mueller could not exonerate Trump was bogus legal gibberish. He did not have the power to exonerate. He only had the power to accuse or present sufficient evidence for conviction. Neither of which he did. But saying he could not exonerate, had the air of accusation, which belies Mueller's plea that he was being fair.

In actuality, not only did he not have the power to exonerate (he even admitted that there was no historical precedent for the policy he put forward on exoneration), making it superfluous to say he couldn't, he did have the power to state that there was sufficient evidence that Trump obstructed justice. But, in fact, there was not. The issues of fact and law prevented that, not DOJ policy.

There was no underlying crime for which an investigation could be obstructed. So the overbearing need, therefor, requires proof that Trump had actual criminal intent re obstruction. Which was a burden too difficult to prosecute. No prosecutor would bring such a charge without sufficient evidence. Unless he was particularly biased and vindictive.

[Pete F.]

Perhaps we need another Ethics in Government act, then we could have had a “Ken Starr” investigation for years.
But that would not belay the fact that the Trump campaign sought, received and welcomed Russian interference and Trump has said he would do so again, if it was “Norway”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Perhaps
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device