RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

The Mueller Report
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 479
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/19 11:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zB5n4kMxoPo" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>




Last edited by Stonington_QB on 03/25/19 11:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 479
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/19 11:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

double post


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7436



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/19 12:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Chris Cuomo just said on CNN something I have heard Republicans defending the president say: collusion is not a crime. And he said that is why the Meuller report does not actually say "collusion". He said that it says "no conspiracy".

Cuomo criticized Trump supporters for celebrating that he isn't guilty of a felony. But that works both ways and he did not mention the flip side - Democrats are disappointed that the president wasn't guilty of a felony.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7678
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/19 1:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Chris Cuomo just said on CNN something I have heard Republicans defending the president say: collusion is not a crime. And he said that is why the Meuller report does not actually say "collusion". He said that it says "no conspiracy".

Cuomo criticized Trump supporters for celebrating that he isn't guilty of a felony. But that works both ways and he did not mention the flip side - Democrats are disappointed that the president wasn't guilty of a felony.


The Critical Part of Mueller’s Report That Barr Didn’t Mention:

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/585703/



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 9746



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/19 2:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote




_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 9746



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/19 2:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don’t know – it’s hard for me to see any U.S. ties to Russia…

Except...

for the Roger Stone things
and the Manafort things
and the Cohen things
and the Flynn things
and the Maria Butina / NRA thing
and the NRA campaign contribution thing
and the Tillerson thing
and the Sessions thing
and the Kushner thing
and the Carter Page thing
and the Felix Sater thing
and the Boris Ephsteyn thing
and the Rosneft thing
and the Gazprom thing
and the Sergey Gorkov banker thing
and the Azerbaijan thing
and the “I love Putin” thing
and the Donald Trump, Jr. thing
and the Sergey Kislyak thing
and the Russian Affiliated Interests thing
and the Russian Business Interests thing
and the Emoluments Clause thing
and the Alex Schnaider thing
and the hack of the DNC thing
and the Guccifer 2.0 thing
and the Mike Pence “I don’t know anything” thing
and the Russians mysteriously dying thing
and Trump’s public request to Russia to hack Hillary’s email thing
and the Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to the Russian fertilizer king thing
and the Russian fertilizer king’s plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump rally campaign thing
and the Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night thing
and the Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery thing
and the Wilbur Ross with his Cyprus bank thing
and Trump not releasing his tax returns thing
and the Republican Party’s rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes thing
and the election hacking thing
and the GOP platform change to the Ukraine thing
and the Steele Dossier thing
and the Leninist Bannon thing
and the Sally Yates can’t testify thing
and the Sally Yates firing thing*
and the intelligence community’s investigative reports thing
and Trump’s reassurance that the Russian connection is all
“fake news” thing
and Spicer’s Russian Dressing “nothing’s wrong” thing
and Trump warning the Russians
and Syrians before the Bombing thing*
and the Trump refusing to provide Flynn's foreign ties documents to Congress
thing*
and Flynn's illegal Turkish lobbying was paid for the
Russians thing*
and Flynn's illegal lobbying for Russia thing*
and the Trump asking Comey for a "loyalty oath" thing*
and Trump lying to the world about Comey saying he's not
being investigated thing*
and the Trump firing Comey thing*
and the Trump or stooges lying to the world about why he fired Comey with 3 different lies thinh
and Trump hosting Russian foreign minister and ambassador one day after to demonstrate his authoritarian
street cred thing
and the finding out that Trump actually tried to fire Robert Mueller in June 2017 thing
and the claim by trump that the Russia investigation is over some unrefunded golf club fees to Robert Mueller thing
and the lying to the American public during the campaign about have no business in Russia thing…
and the Ivanka super-duper Moscow hotel spa thing…

So there’s probably nothing, all of this must be normal, just a bunch of separate dots with no connection whatsoever.



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
huskiemaniac



Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 557
Location: NE CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/19 3:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Mueller Report...has yet to be released.

In the meantime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_7wPf9geSM[/url]


5thmantheme



Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 460



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/19 4:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Rolling Eyes

Barr quotes Mueller : “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Trump tweets : “Complete and Total EXONERATION.”


huskiemaniac



Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 557
Location: NE CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/19 7:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

5thmantheme wrote:
Rolling Eyes

Barr quotes Mueller : “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Trump tweets : “Complete and Total EXONERATION.”




And the complicit media acts as if. (But, they're really after Trump.)

Did anyone expect anything different from Barr, the guy who orchestrated the pardon of the Iran-Contra crooks in his first go-round as AG, and who applied for his current job by offering an unsolicited 19-pg piece on the unindictability of the POTUS? The "PT Barnum" quote comes to mind.

I see McConnell is blocking release of the actual Mueller Report- of course! Because if something exonerates you, you refuse to allow anyone to see it. Makes sense.

I see Trump trying to blacklist some of his critics. How very dicKtator of him.

I see Republicans trying to completely repeal the ACA- how very dick of them.

And the (corrupt) beats goes on.




Last edited by huskiemaniac on 03/28/19 7:35 am; edited 1 time in total
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19931



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/26/19 8:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

That part of it is a yes or no issue. And the way you say yes is say yes. Unless it's the Sollett case. Wink

But it brings up a couple of things that are interesting. One is that, just going by the fact that Trump wasn't indicted or recommended for indictment or whatever, more on that in a second, you know, and the statement by the special counsel that they couldn't find evidence of conspiracy or collusion etc. it kind of appears that Trump didn't do these things.

But then this idiot fires Comey. Shocked And then says on national TV that he fired him over the Rusher thing. Shocked Shocked So most of the conversation now has turned to obstruction. I'm just, wow. Wow. That is a dude who is unfit to hold all the responsibilities he holds.

But the other thing which is related is something I brought up NUMEROUS times in the past maybe even in this thread or the impeachment thread and that is the idea of what mechanisms were available to Mueller to address whatever his findings were at the end of his investigation. What could he do? What was he supposed to do? Is it only this report? It appears now they were all working from the tradition of not indicting a sitting president, something I wholeheartedly agree with, except in the case of treason, which this could have been I think, but I digress. So Mueller I guess would have straight up recommended... what exactly... he can't recommend that the AG indict Trump. Anyway, lot of weird shit there.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 17860
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/19 12:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
But it brings up a couple of things that are interesting. One is that, just going by the fact that Trump wasn't indicted or recommended for indictment or whatever, more on that in a second, you know, and the statement by the special counsel that they couldn't find evidence of conspiracy or collusion etc. it kind of appears that Trump didn't do these things.

But then this idiot fires Comey. Shocked And then says on national TV that he fired him over the Rusher thing. Shocked Shocked So most of the conversation now has turned to obstruction. I'm just, wow. Wow. That is a dude who is unfit to hold all the responsibilities he holds.


Your post reminded me of something I see all too common in employment discrimination cases.

Employee X files an internal complaint with HR or an external charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, allegation discrimination/harassment based on a protected category.

Company Y gets notice of the complaint and begins an investigation, either to generate its own findings or to submit a responsive Position Statement to the EEOC.

Supervisor Z, against whom most of the allegations in the complaint/charge are made, ends up furious and begins to treat Employee X differently, which leads to disparate treatment in terms of terms/conditions/benefits of employment.

The discrimination claim was unsubstantiated, but reasonable cause was found regarding a retaliation claim.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19931



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/19 2:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yeah you gotta figure that the Trumps, none of them, are very smart. They aren’t going to commit perfect crimes. Mueller is smart, the former head of the FBI, he had a team and resources that would have rivaled any investigation in history. If he produced a report containing the statement as attributed to him about not being able to get the goods on this group I’m just inclined to believe there wasn’t anything to be gotten.

But I said it at the time, the firing of Comey and the admission that it was done to slow or stop the investigation into the Russian connections with his own campaign, the bragging with the Russians themselves that he’d gotten the heat off, I don’t see how that’s not obstruction of justice. And, like the supervisor in your scenario, so typically stupid because Trump himself would have been able to sit back and know that he hadn’t actually colluded. Unless he was confused and didn’t know to what extent his kids’ actions might have crossed the line.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7436



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/19 2:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I watched Anderson Cooper yesterday and things went backwards. The focus a day or two earlier was on obstruction of justice. But yesterday it was back to Russian collusion. I don’t know if they said it, but I read an article that talked about Meuller saying he couldn’t “establish” collusion (Barr changed that to “find”), and suggested that he found something. And the people on Cooper were all calling for the full report so we could see the collusion Mueller found, with a trip down memory lane regarding why it must be there.

Turns out, post Mueller report, the majority of Americans feel that the campaign colluded with Russia, but that it can't be proven. So the summary of the report has had no real effect.




Last edited by tfan on 03/28/19 12:44 am; edited 2 times in total
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12052
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/27/19 10:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Though NOT my *fave* figure in recent politics, Monica weighs in on the comparison/contrast thingy, as it relates to HER experience.

Brava, Monica! Cool
Quote:
“Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes,” Orin Kerr, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, tweeted Monday.

Lewinsky retweeted Kerr early Tuesday with a three-word refrain: “if. f***ing. only.”



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7678
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/19 5:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Though NOT my *fave* figure in recent politics, Monica weighs in on the comparison/contrast thingy, as it relates to HER experience.

Brava, Monica! Cool
Quote:
“Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes,” Orin Kerr, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, tweeted Monday.

Lewinsky retweeted Kerr early Tuesday with a three-word refrain: “if. f***ing. only.”

I mean, we do understand that the reason the rules surrounding the special prosecutor exist as they do right now is in direct response to that whole situation, right? After Clinton, congress changed the law to require it be sent to the AG and left up to their discretion as to how much was to be made public.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
huskiemaniac



Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 557
Location: NE CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/19 7:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Howee wrote:
Though NOT my *fave* figure in recent politics, Monica weighs in on the comparison/contrast thingy, as it relates to HER experience.

Brava, Monica! Cool
Quote:
“Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes,” Orin Kerr, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, tweeted Monday.

Lewinsky retweeted Kerr early Tuesday with a three-word refrain: “if. f***ing. only.”

I mean, we do understand that the reason the rules surrounding the special prosecutor exist as they do right now is in direct response to that whole situation, right? After Clinton, congress changed the law to require it be sent to the AG and left up to their discretion as to how much was to be made public.


Indeed.

As we speak, the AG/POTUS teams are going through the report- we don't even know how many pages it is- and redacting, slicing and dicing, and will offer another whitewash attempt.

No collusion with the Russian "government", is what Barr, a man with dubious motives, wrote.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5671
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/19 10:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Howee wrote:
Though NOT my *fave* figure in recent politics, Monica weighs in on the comparison/contrast thingy, as it relates to HER experience.

Brava, Monica! Cool
Quote:
“Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes,” Orin Kerr, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, tweeted Monday.

Lewinsky retweeted Kerr early Tuesday with a three-word refrain: “if. f***ing. only.”

I mean, we do understand that the reason the rules surrounding the special prosecutor exist as they do right now is in direct response to that whole situation, right? After Clinton, congress changed the law to require it be sent to the AG and left up to their discretion as to how much was to be made public.


I don't understand Lewinski's tweet, but as Ken Starr has said many times recently, the law under which he was operating, the now-expired Independent Counsel statute, was completely different from the current Special Counsel rules under which Mueller and Barr have to operate. Apples and oranges, which the deceptive Professor Kerr knows darn well.

Ken Starr, who was legally beholden more to the judicial branch than the President, was required by law to write a complete report and submit it confidentially to the House of Representatives. The House then voted to make the entire report public. Mueller is required by the current rules to provide a confidential indictment/declination report to the Attorney General, who has no legal obligation at all to provide the report or any its contents to Congress or to the public. Barr has voluntarily provided a summary and will voluntarily provide a redacted version of whatever Mueller sent him simply because he thinks it's politically wise to do so.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12052
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/19 10:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

In other words, The Rules got changed, right?

Cuz it was absurd that a sitting president should be *nailed* for impeachment, stemming from an illicit love affair with an intern and its subsequent 'impact' on our government.

Which is not nearly as absurd as nailing a president for an illicit affair of the highest order with a foreign adversary and its subsequent impact on our government and all of its institutions.

I get that. Rolling Eyes



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19931



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/19 1:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If Mueller had been of the opinion that anything named Trump had indeed conspired with the Russians to impact the 2016 election those people would either be indicted, with the exception of the POTUS, or Mueller would still be working the case. Am I absolutely certain of that? Nobody should be absolutely certain about anything here. But I personally can’t imagine Mueller walking away from bringing the Trumps to justice had he been convinced that they had engaged in the collaboration with Russia he was appointed to investigate.

But I’m telling you, in this thing called human endeavor, the weak link in everything is the mechanisms of implementation or, and far too often, the lack thereof. You can design the greatest product in the world. But if you don’t have a manufacturing genius you’re going to have a disaster trying to produce quality examples of it with the required consistency. You can have laws and regulations with protections and detailed penalties laid out very clearly but if you don’t have a tested and proven and active enforcement mechanism you will have people making a mockery of it all. The instances of that abound in American public life.

Here is one tiny but incredible story from here in LA of exactly what I’m referring to. This is a stunning example of the failure of our systems and how easily smart nefarious individuals can quickly discover the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism and just set up shop in the absence of any oversight. Dudes and dudettes, this is worth your time. See how we do this shit in LA.

https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-charter-schools-20190327-htmlstory.html

So I said all along I didn’t know how Mueller could or would move on Trump himself. I don’t see how that part is set up. After the Lewinsky matter I’m loath to enable mechanisms to go after or embarrass a sitting president. I believe, in the absence of an actual crime, in the idea of keeping a report like this confidential. But maybe not in this exact case. Because we don’t know what kind of mechanism was available to Mueller had he even gotten the goods on something named Trump. So I do wish, although I’m sure I might regret it, that this report would be made public and let’s see what’s in there. It is possible, but I feel unlikely, that Mueller intended for congress to take it from here, etc.

One thing however is certain, we will then have failed once again to protect any of this from the most base political maneuverings that stem from one party just hating the elected executive and seeking above all else his or her political destruction. A lot of you are probably too young to remember what that felt like when it was coming after our president. So all this shit will come back at us again in the future to bring down or render ineffective our dream president. Trust me on that. They used to say during the Lewinsky scandal, there’s no more need to try to assassinate a president. Now you have special prosecutors, 24 hour news cycles, to accomplish the same result. Now we can add to that social media, etc.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7678
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/19 2:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Howee wrote:
Though NOT my *fave* figure in recent politics, Monica weighs in on the comparison/contrast thingy, as it relates to HER experience.

Brava, Monica! Cool
Quote:
“Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes,” Orin Kerr, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, tweeted Monday.

Lewinsky retweeted Kerr early Tuesday with a three-word refrain: “if. f***ing. only.”

I mean, we do understand that the reason the rules surrounding the special prosecutor exist as they do right now is in direct response to that whole situation, right? After Clinton, congress changed the law to require it be sent to the AG and left up to their discretion as to how much was to be made public.


I don't understand Lewinski's tweet, but as Ken Starr has said many times recently, the law under which he was operating, the now-expired Independent Counsel statute, was completely different from the current Special Counsel rules under which Mueller and Barr have to operate. Apples and oranges, which the deceptive Professor Kerr knows darn well.


Yep. That's what I was going for here. I wasn't sure exactly how to read Lewinsky's tweet. Because I was reading the original tweet by Kerr as seeming to suggest that it was not a good thing that Mueller's report is being treated this way...but then he pointed to the exact reason why it is. Unless he wasn't actually tweeting snark and was legitimately posing that question to counter people who are upset with the way the report is released now. Because I doubt Lewinsky would be a champion for returning the laws to the way they were.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12052
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/19 3:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Quote:
“Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes,” Orin Kerr, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, tweeted Monday.

Lewinsky retweeted Kerr early Tuesday with a three-word refrain: “if. f***ing. only.”


justintyme wrote:
Because I doubt Lewinsky would be a champion for returning the laws to the way they were.


I think her simple tweet, taken at face value, simply means: "Yeah, fuckers....IF y'all had treated MY case this way, there'd never have been an Impeachment Dog 'n Pony Show". (she's merely--and selfishly--pointing out how the difference might have averted her own personal hell)

Monica's "shoulda/couldas" be damned---given how the transparency DID lead Monica & Co. through The Wringer, doesn't it put a spotlight on The Enormous Elephant in the Room? Clinton was impeached for lying about a dress stain, while Trump is (most likely) avoiding any repercussions for connections to a foreign adversary. And his handlers didn't even allow him to testify in person, for concern he'd incriminate himself....he lies incessantly, and being under oath isn't likely to deter him from it, either.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5671
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/19 3:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
If Mueller had been of the opinion that anything named Trump had indeed conspired with the Russians to impact the 2016 election those people would either be indicted, with the exception of the POTUS, or Mueller would still be working the case. . . . But I personally can’t imagine Mueller walking away from bringing the Trumps to justice had he been convinced that they had engaged in the collaboration with Russia he was appointed to investigate.

I didn’t know how Mueller could or would move on Trump himself.


While Mueller could not indict a sitting President under DOJ policy, he could have named him an unindicted co-conspirator if he thought Trump had done anything criminal with Russia or with any other person who had committed a crime. The Watergate grand jury named President Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator, and the SDNY just did that two days ago with attorney Mark Geragos in their indictment of attorney Michael Avenatti. Obviously, Mueller didn't do so.

Nor did Mueller name anyone in the Trump campaign or administration -- or indeed any American -- as a co-conspirator with any of the 25 Russian nationals or three Russian companies that he did indict for things like identity theft, social media disinformation, and hacking and leaking of emails.

Finally, AG Barr's memo states: "the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign". Therefore, Mueller not only found that there was no conspiracy or coordination of any kind between any American and the Russians, but also that the Trump campaign affirmatively refused offers of Russian assistance.

It's not the job of a prosecutor to "exonerate" people but only to prosecute or decline to prosecute. Mueller declined to prosecute any American for both Russian collusion and obstruction of justice. But he actually seems to have gone beyond simple declination to declare the Trump campaign as more than clean as a whistle with regard to Russia -- an effective super-exoneration.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7678
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/19 7:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:

It's not the job of a prosecutor to "exonerate" people but only to prosecute or decline to prosecute. Mueller declined to prosecute any American for both Russian collusion and obstruction of justice. But he actually seems to have gone beyond simple declination to declare the Trump campaign as more than clean as a whistle with regard to Russia -- an effective super-exoneration.

Wait. Let's be clear here with what we know and what we don't know based upon Barr's summary.

All we know is that Mueller was not able to establish that any of Trump's campaign conspired with the Russians to aid them in their election. That is absolutely not the same thing as an "exoneration". It means there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened, and thus he declined to bring charges. Any conclusion further than that would take reading the report in its entirety and seeing what evidence he had, either of collusion or that would exonerate.

It also doesn't answer any questions about sub-criminal misconduct of the actors involved, and the potential motivations of these actors.

There is a huge middle ground here between "not indicted" and "total exoneration, clean as a whistle".

Those are the questions that the Mueller report needs to be released to answer. To answer for the public..."so, what exactly happened during the last election".



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5671
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/28/19 9:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:

It also doesn't answer any questions about sub-criminal misconduct of the actors involved, and the potential motivations of these actors.

There is a huge middle ground here between "not indicted" and "total exoneration, clean as a whistle".

Those are the questions that the Mueller report needs to be released to answer.


JIT, I agree with you that, technically, a declination to prosecute shouldn't mean anything other than that there was a failure of sufficient evidence of criminality.

However, I don't believe the Mueller Report will make public what you are calling sub-criminal or middle ground evidence against any uncharged person. If I'm right, this will surprise and explode the heads of Congressional Democrats and perhaps even some rational people. My basis for saying this is that it is my understanding that it is DOJ policy, based on case law, that nothing is made public about the conduct of uncharged persons. Read what Mueller's long-time boss, Rosenstein, said just last month -- probably while Mueller was already writing his report -- about criminal investigation transparency:

Quote:
". . . as a general principle, in my view, the Department of Justice is best served when people are confident that ... when we’re investigating American citizens in particular, we’re going to do it with appropriate sensitivity to the rights of uncharged people.”
. . . .

“The guidance I always gave my prosecutors and the agents I worked with during my tenure on the front lines of law enforcement were if we aren’t prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens,” Rosenstein said.

Rosenstein’s comments stand in contrast to congressional Democrats who are aggressively pushing the idea that Mueller’s full report, plus the underlying documents, should be made public.


See also the US DOJ Principles of Federal Prosecution section 9-27.760:

Quote:
In all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties.
. . . .

As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily "no legitimate governmental interest served" by the government's public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party . . . .


As I understand it, these policies are grounded in the rights of uncharged persons to privacy, their reputations and the presumption of innocence. Redactions from the Mueller report for these policies would be in addition to all grand jury evidence and classified evidence, which must by law be redacted. I have no reason to think AG Barr has a different view. Since all the Trump people and in fact all Americans are uncharged third parties re Russian collusion, there may be no specific evidence made public about any American at all on this issue.

We'll eventually see. Or not.

(This is a more in depth legal analysis than anyone will get on cable TV, but you don't have to subscribe to me.)
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7436



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/29/19 11:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
In other words, The Rules got changed, right?

Cuz it was absurd that a sitting president should be *nailed* for impeachment, stemming from an illicit love affair with an intern and its subsequent 'impact' on our government


People didn’t approve of his sexcapades, but it was lying under oath about it that was the crime.

Quote:
Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater in 1994, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, conducted a wide-ranging investigation of alleged abuses including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin