The Mueller Report

[MindTrap028]

But that's not what Mueller said. He didn't conclude obstruction not because the OLC was hampering him, he didn't conclude obstruction because it wasn't his call to make...that wasn't the job he was tasked with.

That is incorrect. He was investigating it, expanded his probe to cover it (or his boss did) and thus he had to make a ruling on it. Otherwise, he was not doing his job.
If it wasn't covered by his mandate, then he was a rogue agent leading a witch hunt.
those are your choices.

[CowboyX]

and thus he had to make a ruling on it.

From Mueller:

the special
05:04
counsels office is part of the
05:06
Department of Justice and by regulation
05:08
it was bound by that department policy
05:12
charging the president with a crime was
05:14
therefore not an option we could
05:17
consider


They couldn't even consider it.

[MindTrap028]

That doesn't support your previous point.
Also, he is factually wrong. After all Clinton was found guilty on several charges by someone in the same roll as meuller.

That said, it is true meuller thought that and that too makes him a rogue agent. Because if he saw it as outside his authority, then he had no authority or reason to investigate, other than to do what is clearly congresses job.

[CowboyX]

Also, he is factually wrong. After all Clinton was found guilty on several charges by someone in the same roll as meuller.

Apples and oranges:

The regulations now governing Mueller were meant to restore the traditions of the Department of Justice, which were broken when Congress enacted the special-prosecutor (or, later, independent-counsel) provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Under that regime, reports became the warp and woof of the independent counsel’s work. Most provocatively, the statute required an independent counsel to refer matters to the House of Representatives for possible impeachment when a surprisingly low threshold of evidence was in hand—“substantial and credible information that an impeachable offense may have been committed.” I followed that requirement when I produced the so-called Starr Report, which then took on a controversial life of its own in the House in the dramatic months of 1998.

The architects of the current regulations saw all this unfold. Not surprisingly, the drafters of the new regime—the one under which Mueller operates—set themselves firmly against the revolutionary principle of factually rich prosecutorial reports. It might seem strange for me to say, but they were right to do so. The message emanating from the new regulations, issued by then–Attorney General Janet Reno, was this: Special counsel, do your job, and then inform the attorney general—in confidence—of the reasons underlying your decisions to prosecute and your determinations not to seek a prosecution (“declinations”).

Mueller operated under a different set of rules than Starr.

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

That doesn't support your previous point.

Which one?

[MindTrap028]

Mueller operated under a different set of rules than Starr.

That may be true, but not in a way that is significant to my point. (your apples and oranges claim is false).
Your own source says he has the power to prosecute, and is responsible for reporting why he is or is not choosing to do that.

Further, that is not what he did.
What he did was say that he couldn't exonerate. .. which is not his job description.
His options (per your source) is. 1) Explain why you are prosecuting, 2) Explain why you are not prosecuting.
not 3) Explain why you can or can not exonerate.

I would say, given what you have posted, He seems to have violated that restriction by publishing the second half of his "report" which was specifically a "factually rich" but wasn't a prosecutor report.. he he refused to decide one way or another. Which remains specifically his job.

[CowboyX]

That may be true, but not in a way that is significant to my point. (your apples and oranges claim is false).
Your own source says he has the power to prosecute, and is responsible for reporting why he is or is not choosing to do that.

Further, that is not what he did.
What he did was say that he couldn't exonerate. .. which is not his job description.
His options (per your source) is. 1) Explain why you are prosecuting, 2) Explain why you are not prosecuting.
not 3) Explain why you can or can not exonerate.

Which he thoroughly explained - that prosecuting the president was never an option.

[MindTrap028]

Which he thoroughly explained - that prosecuting the president was never an option.

O.k. you said that, but He still could have made a ruling on the evidence.. which he did not and which was his job, which was a negligence of his duty.
Instead he still elected to go outside of his job and claim that he could not exonerate... which is ridiculous, and clearly political, because no prosecutor or investigators job is to do that.

Which makes him a rogue agent.

[CowboyX]

O.k. you said that, but He still could have made a ruling on the evidence.. which he did not and which was his job, which was a negligence of his duty.

Like a judge or a jury would? Again, no, and he explained as to why that wasn't the case. As regards the president his job was to preserve evidence. That's it.

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------

Instead he still elected to go outside of his job and claim that he could not exonerate... which is ridiculous, and clearly political, because no prosecutor or investigators job is to do that.

That's not what he said. He said if he could've exonerated he would have been able too. He wasn't.

Which debunks your conspiracy theory.

[evensaul]

That's exactly what you asked for..

I asked YOU to explain how it was a lie. You haven't done that.

[MindTrap028]

Like a judge or a jury would? Again, no, and he explained as to why that wasn't the case. As regards the president his job was to preserve evidence. That's it.

No, not like a jury.. like a prosecutor. ... which is his specific job description.
and no, his job was absolutely not to "preserve evidence" he is not a historian.

That's not what he said. He said if he could've exonerated he would have been able too. He wasn't.

Which debunks your conspiracy theory.

Which.. again is not his job, and is not normal behavior for the office. They don't ever "exonerate".
they rule on if the evidence is sufficient for finding a crime was committed. he couldn't do that, because the evidence wasn't sufficient for that conclusion. Evidenced.. by the lack of that finding. The "exoneration" talk is political BS.

[CowboyX]

I asked YOU to explain how it was a lie. You haven't done that.

Sure I did. That you didn't like the outcome isn't my problem. I presented the Mueller report, Mueller's own words, and showed where Barr deviated from them.

---------- Post added at 10:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------

No, not like a jury.. like a prosecutor. ... which is his specific job description.
and no, his job was absolutely not to "preserve evidence" he is not a historian.

Which.. again is not his job, and is not normal behavior for the office. They don't ever "exonerate".
they rule on if the evidence is sufficient for finding a crime was committed. he couldn't do that, because the evidence wasn't sufficient for that conclusion. Evidenced.. by the lack of that finding. The "exoneration" talk is political BS.

A prosecutor's job is to assemble evidence and present it to a grand jury in order to get an indictment. Not to "make a ruling" as you put it. Or do you mean make a decision as to whether to seek an indictment in the first place? Which I've already shown was impossible for him. Not his job.

[evensaul]

A claim of support is not support. If you can’t offer an analysis and explanation, then your claim is not supported. If you’re not capable of doing that, then you don’t belong on ODN.

[MindTrap028]

A prosecutor's job is to assemble evidence and present it to a grand jury in order to get an indictment. Not to "make a ruling" as you put it. Or do you mean make a decision as to whether to seek an indictment in the first place? Which I've already shown was impossible for him. Not his job.

That is not the only part of their job. They have to establish that crime has occurred.
Like a Cop has to decide if he thinks you committed a crime. Same thing with any prosecutor. He was investigating to see if a CRIME had occurred.
That is why he was able to rule(come to a conclusion) that there was no evidence for a crime in regards to election interference in conjunction with the Russians.

He doesn't have to indite if that isn't in his power. His job was to establish if there was evidence of a crime. Not "preserve" the evidence in case someone else thought a crime occurred. He doesn't work for the House or senate. If he wasn't going to come to a conclusion, he had no business doing the investigation. It would have literally been outside of his jurisdiction.

So while you keeps saying it wasn't his job.. .It is in fact the specific point of his office, and he failed to carry it out.
Again, He is not a historian. Gathering evidence for no purpose of the department, is very particularly NOT the point of his office, or the proper role of law enforcement at any level.
The FBI,the cops, the DEA... no gov agency can't investigate you... you know just to preserve evidence. They have to have motive to think a crime occurred. The legitimacy of that investigation ends the very moment they come to the conclusion that they can't prove a crime. That was his job. Him throwing his hands in the air, and kicking the can to someone else is a failure of his duty of his office.

As there is no conclusion of a crime, there is no legitimacy of the investigation, and that is a problem he created.

[Squatch347]

Just wanted to add a slight clarification. Cowboy opened this thread in the Clubhouse, so the usual support rules don't apply.

[CowboyX]

A claim of support is not support. If you can’t offer an analysis and explanation, then your claim is not supported. If you’re not capable of doing that, then you don’t belong on ODN.

Nuh-uh is not a claim of no support. You're welcome to leave. Buh-bye.

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

That is not the only part of their job. They have to establish that crime has occurred.

To a grand jury...again, impossible for him to do. As Mueller explained he couldn't even accused the president because the president wouldn't be able to respond and that the OLC decision even excluded a sealed indictment.

---------- Post added at 12:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

Just wanted to add a slight clarification. Cowboy opened this thread in the Clubhouse, so the usual support rules don't apply.

Indeed, thank you. My intent for this thread was just to post the relevant documents to be used by everyone (as opposed to being ignored by, well, let's just say certain individuals).

---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 PM ----------

Full decision here:

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 vaUdity 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.

[MindTrap028]

To a grand jury.

no, as a law enforcement agent.
IE, just like the police can't break into your house and rummage around unless they think a crime has occurred, so too the special counsel has to establish that crime occurred to even present it to the grand jury.
Remember the problem with grand Jury info, is that it is entirely one sided.

further, it seems that there was a grand jury involved in the process so that cuts against your claim that he couldn't resent to a grand jury.

again, impossible for him to do. As Mueller explained he couldn't even accused the president because the president wouldn't be able to respond and that the OLC decision even excluded a sealed indictment.

That is a hypothetical and worthless statement by Mueller, and amounts to nothing but slander.
Hypothetically, IF the president committed a crime. which He could not establish actually occurred. So the end should have been his statement "we couldn't find any actionable evidence, case closed".

Lets be clear, no one else in the U.S. could have said what he said about a case that wasn't going to court. The only point you have established is that it effectually isn't illegal for the president.. so there is no crime to investigate.

[CowboyX]

further, it seems that there was a grand jury involved in the process so that cuts against your claim that he couldn't resent to a grand jury.

Where did you hear that?

---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

no, as a law enforcement agent.
IE, just like the police can't break into your house and rummage around unless they think a crime has occurred, so too the special counsel has to establish that crime occurred to even present it to the grand jury.
Remember the problem with grand Jury info, is that it is entirely one sided.

Crimes did occur, people were indicted and are being punished.

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 PM ----------

That is a hypothetical and worthless statement by Mueller, and amounts to nothing but slander.

No, it's the regulations he operated under.

[MindTrap028]

Where did you hear that?

It was grand jury testimony that was redacted right?

Crimes did occur, people were indicted and are being punished.

Not ones relevant to what we are discussing here.

No, it's the regulations he operated under.

Again, not relevant to the discussion. They don't keep him from doing his job of concluding a crime occurred.
It didn't preclude Star from concluding a crime, and he was under the same regulations.
It stands that, the way it is presented is a clear violation of presumption of innocence. Violating the exact thing Meuler claimed to not want to do, which is accuse the president without a day in court.
That is why what he did was inappropriate, and no person in his position around the country is allowed to do what he did.

[CowboyX]

It was grand jury testimony that was redacted right?

Regarding other people, not the president.

---------- Post added at 11:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

Not ones relevant to what we are discussing here.

How do you come to that conclusion?

---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------

It didn't preclude Star from concluding a crime, and he was under the same regulations.

Wrong. I already posted about this.

---------- Post added at 11:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------

It stands that, the way it is presented is a clear violation of presumption of innocence. Violating the exact thing Meuler claimed to not want to do, which is accuse the president without a day in court.

He did no such thing.

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------

They don't keep him from doing his job of concluding a crime occurred.

A crime did occur...the country was attacked, yes.

[MindTrap028]

Regarding other people, not the president.

O.K.

How do you come to that conclusion?

1) Because none of those crimes were related to the president colluded with Russia to effect the election (which they ruled they didn't have evidence of).
2) Because none of those crimes were related to obstruction. (Which they refused to rule on).
.. which are the two things Meular was investigating.. which means they were ancillary crimes.

Wrong. I already posted about this.

and I responded.
In the area we are discussing the two had the same powers, and were under the same rules.

He did no such thing.

Certainly, because his statement "had we been able to exonerate we would have said so" is outside the bounds of his office.
Further it carries an assumption of guilt, which is also outside the bounds of his office.

A crime did occur...the country was attacked, yes.

Not relevant to what we are discussing.


Finally, it isn't the roll of his office to play historian.