Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Mueller Report

    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  3. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Source:

    A copy of a letter from Attorney General William Barr advising Congress that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded his investigation, is shown Friday, March 22, 2019 in Washington. Robert Mueller on Friday turned over his long-awaited final report on the contentious Russia investigation that has cast a dark shadow over Donald Trump's presidency, entangled Trump's family and resulted in criminal charges against some of the president's closest associates.



    Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

    I write to notify you pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 600.9(a)(3) that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has concluded his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters. In addition to this notification, the Special Counsel regulations require that I provide you with "a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General" or acting Attorney General "concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued." 28 C.F.R. 600.9(a)(3). There were no such instances during the Special Counsel's investigation.

    The Special Counsel has submitted to me today a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions" he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). I am reviewing the report and anticipate that I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel's principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.

    Separately, I intend to consult with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department's long-standing practices and policies. I remain committed to as much transparency as possible, and I will keep you informed as to the status of my review.

    Finally, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the Attorney General may determine that public release of" this notification "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. 600.9(c) I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

    Sincerely,

    William P. Barr

    Attorney General

    ---------- Post added at 02:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 AM ----------

    Source:


    On Sunday,(March 24, 2019) Attorney General William Barr delivered a four-page letter to congressional leaders outlining the results of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

    The letter addresses each aspect of Mueller’s findings, highlighting the focal points of the investigation: Russian interference in the 2016 election, whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.


    Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

    As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

    The Special Counsel’s Report

    On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explain the prosecution of declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

    The report explains that the that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. 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 analysts, 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.

    The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.

    Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first described the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans — including individuals associated with the Trump campaign — joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempt by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA) to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United State designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

    The second element involved in the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, 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.

    Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President — most of which have been the subject of public reporting — that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the questions and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

    The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed and obstruction-of-justice defense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

    In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

    Status of the Department’s Review

    The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a “confidential report” to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038,37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

    Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

    Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as this process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

    As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

    Sincerely,

    William P. Barr

    Attorney General

    ---------- Post added at 02:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 AM ----------

    Attorney General William P. Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday [May 1st?]to discuss special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

    Three days after Attorney General William Barr sent Congress a four-page summary of Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the special counsel wrote to Barr to voice concerns about that memo.

    In a letter dated March 27, Mueller told Barr that the Justice Department's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions." He urged the Justice Department to release selected materials immediately in an attempt to address "public confusion."
    March 27, 2019

    The Honorable William P. Barr
    Attorney General of the United States
    Department of Justice
    Washington, D.C.

    Re: Report of the Special Counsel on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and Obstruction of Justice (March 2019)

    Dear Attorney General Barr:

    I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.

    Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

    As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

    While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release — a process that our Office is working with you to complete — that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. It would also accord with the standard for public release of notifications to Congress cited in your letter. See 28 C.F.R. § 609(c) ("the Attorney General may determine that public release" of congressional notifications "would be in the public interest").

    Sincerely yours,

    Robert S. Mueller, III
    Special Counsel

    [italics mine]
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    May 29, 2019






    Transcript:

    good morning everyone and thank you for
    00:05
    being here two years ago the acting
    00:10
    Attorney General asked me to serve as
    00:13
    special counsel and he created a special
    00:16
    counsel's office the appointment order
    00:19
    directed the office to investigate
    00:21
    Russian interference in the 2016
    00:24
    presidential election
    00:26
    this included investigating any links or
    00:29
    coordination between the Russian
    00:32
    government and individuals associated
    00:33
    with the Trump campaign now I have not
    00:37
    spoken publicly during our investigation
    00:40
    I'm speaking out today because our
    00:43
    investigation is complete the Attorney
    00:46
    General has made the report on our
    00:48
    investigation largely public we are
    00:51
    formally closing the special counsel's
    00:53
    office and as well I'm resigning from
    00:57
    the Department of Justice to return to
    01:00
    private life I'll make a few remarks
    01:04
    about the results of our work but beyond
    01:08
    these few remarks it is important that
    01:10
    the offices written work speak for
    01:12
    itself
    01:13
    let me begin where the appointment order
    01:16
    begins and that is interference in the
    01:20
    2016 presidential election as alleged by
    01:24
    the grand jury in an indictment Russian
    01:27
    intelligence officers who are part of
    01:29
    the Russian military launched a
    01:31
    concerted attack on our political system
    01:34
    the indictment alleges that they used
    01:37
    sophisticated cyber techniques to hack
    01:40
    into computers and networks used by the
    01:42
    Clinton campaign they stole private
    01:45
    information and then released that
    01:47
    information through fake online and
    01:50
    identities and through the organization
    01:53
    WikiLeaks
    01:54
    the releases were designed and timed to
    01:57
    interfere with our election and to
    01:58
    damage a presidential candidate and at
    02:03
    the same time as the grand jury alleged
    02:05
    in a separate indictment a private
    02:08
    Russian entity engaged in a social media
    02:11
    operation
    02:12
    we're Russian citizens posed as
    02:14
    Americans in order to influence an
    02:18
    election these indictments contain
    02:21
    Allegan allegations and we are not
    02:24
    commenting on the guilt or the innocence
    02:26
    of any specific defendant every
    02:30
    defendant is presumed innocent unless
    02:32
    and until proven guilty the indictments
    02:36
    allege and the other activities in our
    02:38
    report to describe efforts to interfere
    02:41
    in our political system they needed to
    02:43
    be investigated and understood and that
    02:46
    is among the reasons why the Department
    02:48
    of Justice established our office that
    02:52
    is also a reason we investigated efforts
    02:55
    to obstruct the investigation the
    02:58
    matters we investigated were of
    03:00
    paramount importance it was critical for
    03:03
    us to obtain full and accurate
    03:05
    information from every person we
    03:07
    questioned when a subject of an
    03:09
    investigation obstructs that
    03:11
    investigation or lies to investigators
    03:14
    it strikes at the core of their
    03:16
    government's effort to find the truth
    03:19
    and hold wrongdoers accountable let me
    03:24
    say a word about the report the report
    03:27
    has two parts addressing the two main
    03:30
    issues we were asked to investigate the
    03:33
    first volume of the report details
    03:35
    numerous efforts emanating from Russia
    03:37
    to influence the election this volume
    03:41
    includes a discussion of the Trump
    03:43
    campaigns response to this activity as
    03:45
    well as our conclusion that there was
    03:49
    insufficient evidence to charge a
    03:50
    broader conspiracy and in the second
    03:54
    volume the report describes the results
    03:57
    and analysis of our obstruction of
    04:00
    justice investigation involving the
    04:02
    president the order appointing me
    04:05
    special counsel authorized us to
    04:08
    investigate actions that could obstruct
    04:11
    the investigation we conducted that
    04:14
    investigation and we kept the office of
    04:16
    the acting Attorney General apprised of
    04:19
    the progress of our work and as set
    04:22
    forth in the report after that
    04:24
    investigation
    04:25
    if we had had confidence that the
    04:28
    president clearly did not commit a crime
    04:30
    we would have said so we did not however
    04:33
    make a determination as to whether the
    04:35
    President did commit a crime the
    04:38
    introduction to the volume 2 of our
    04:40
    report explains that decision it
    04:45
    explains that under long-standing
    04:46
    Department policy a president president
    04:50
    cannot be charged with a federal crime
    04:52
    while he is in office that is
    04:54
    unconstitutional even if the charge is
    04:57
    kept under seal and hidden from public
    04:59
    view that too is prohibited 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 the department's written
    05:20
    opinion explaining the policy makes
    05:23
    several important points that further
    05:26
    informed our handling of the obstruction
    05:28
    investigation those points are
    05:31
    summarized in our report and I will
    05:33
    describe two of them for you first the
    05:37
    opinion explicitly explicitly permits
    05:39
    the investigation of a sitting president
    05:42
    because it is important to preserve
    05:44
    evidence while memories are fresh and
    05:46
    documents available among other things
    05:50
    that evidence could be used if there
    05:52
    were co-conspirators who could be
    05:54
    charged now and second the opinion says
    05:58
    that the Constitution requires a process
    06:00
    other than the criminal justice system
    06:03
    to formally accuse a sitting president
    06:06
    of wrongdoing and beyond Department
    06:11
    policy we were guided by principles of
    06:13
    fairness it would be unfair to
    06:16
    potentially it would be unfair to
    06:19
    potentially accuse somebody of a crime
    06:21
    when there can be no court resolution of
    06:24
    the actual charge so that was Justice
    06:28
    Department policy those were the
    06:31
    principles under which we operated and
    06:33
    from them we concluded that we would
    06:35
    would not reach a determination one way
    06:38
    or the other
    06:39
    about whether the president committed a
    06:41
    crime that is the opposite yeah that is
    06:45
    the opposite final position and we will
    06:47
    not comment on any other conclusions or
    06:49
    hypotheticals about the president we
    06:53
    conducted an independent criminal
    06:55
    investigation and reported the results
    06:58
    to the Attorney General as required by
    07:00
    Department regulations the Attorney
    07:04
    General then concluded that it was
    07:05
    appropriate to provide our report to
    07:08
    Congress and to the American people at
    07:11
    one point in time I requested that
    07:13
    certain portions of the report be
    07:15
    released the Attorney General prepared
    07:17
    preferred to make that and prefer to
    07:19
    make the entire report public all at
    07:22
    once and we appreciate that the Attorney
    07:25
    General made the report largely public
    07:27
    and I certainly do not question the
    07:29
    Attorney General's good faith in that
    07:31
    decision now I hope and expect this to
    07:35
    be the only time that I will speak to
    07:37
    you in this manner I'm making that
    07:40
    decision myself no one has told me
    07:43
    whether I can or should testify or speak
    07:46
    further about this matter
    07:48
    there has been discussion about an
    07:51
    appearance before Congress any testimony
    07:53
    from this office would not go beyond our
    07:56
    report it contains our findings and
    07:59
    analysis and the reasons for the
    08:02
    decisions we made we chose those words
    08:05
    carefully and the work speaks for itself
    08:07
    and the report is my testimony I would
    08:12
    not provide information beyond now which
    08:15
    is already public in any appearance
    08:17
    before Congress in addition to access to
    08:20
    our under the underlying work product is
    08:23
    being decided in a process doesn't that
    08:25
    does not involve our office so beyond
    08:30
    what I've said here today and what is
    08:33
    contained in our written work I do not
    08:35
    believe it is appropriate for me to
    08:37
    speak further about the investigation or
    08:39
    to comment on the actions of the Justice
    08:41
    Department or Congress and it's for that
    08:44
    reason I will not be taking questions
    08:45
    today as well now before I step away and
    08:49
    I want to thank the attorneys
    08:52
    the FBI agents the analysts the
    08:56
    professional staff who helped us conduct
    08:58
    this investigation in a fair and
    09:00
    independent manner these individuals who
    09:05
    spent nearly two years with the special
    09:07
    counsel's office were of the highest
    09:09
    integrity and I will close by
    09:12
    reiterating the central allegation of
    09:14
    our indictments that there were multiple
    09:17
    systemic efforts to interfere in our
    09:21
    election and that allegation deserves
    09:24
    the attention of every American thank
    09:28
    you thank you for being here today
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    by Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School.

    The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then-FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

    Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. Obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.

    Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.

    Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.

    Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.

    That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.

    No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.

    ---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 AM ----------

    by Joseph diGenova, former US Attorney for the District of Columbia and an Independent Counsel.

    While he made it clear that his investigation is closed, the main takeaway from outgoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s surprise farewell statement to the media Wednesday is that he desperately wanted to take down President Trump, but simply couldn’t find a way to do it.

    In a parting shot to cap off two years of outrages, Mueller tried to convince the American people that their duly elected president is a criminal who couldn’t be charged due to a technicality, and therefore it’s up to Congress to impeach him.

    If not for a flimsy piece of paper that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) compiled long ago, Mueller suggested, the president of the United States would be in the dock for “obstructing” an investigation into a conspiracy theory about his campaign and the Russian government.

    This is so ridiculous that Mueller didn’t even dare to say it plainly. Instead, he fell back on the convoluted language in his report, hoping to obfuscate an issue that Attorney General William Barr had previously clarified by determining that the special counsel’s investigation did not produce sufficient evidence to justify charging President Trump with obstructing justice.

    “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller told reporters, explaining that, as part of the Justice Department, his office was “bound by” the OLC’s opinion.

    “Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider,” Mueller said.

    That’s a fantasy Mueller just tried to sell on national TV. Here’s the reality.

    If President Trump actually committed a crime, there is nothing in the OLC’s opinion that would have prevented the special counsel or the attorney general from saying so.

    The most relevant concern the OLC raises is that an indictment “exposes the President to an official pronouncement that there is probable cause to believe he committed a criminal act,” which could impair “his credibility in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities.”

    The motive is obvious. Mueller, having failed for two years to find Trump-Russia “collusion,” is trying to reframe the Russiagate narrative in an effort to put some wind back in the sails of the impeachment effort.

    A special counsel’s private report to the attorney general ran no such risk, especially since Barr was under no legal obligation to make Mueller’s report public. Special counsels don’t issue indictments – grand juries do.

    That’s why the last man with responsibilities similar to Mueller’s – Independent Counsel Ken Starr – had no qualms writing definitively about findings of criminal wrongdoing by the subject of his investigation, President Bill Clinton.

    “The Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President /Clinton obstructed justice … the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice,” Starr wrote, along with dozens of other unambiguous determinations that President Clinton had committed crimes.

    The idea that the OLC somehow stopped Mueller from doing the same thing is absurd.

    If Mueller thought there was probable cause to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice – or any other crime – he could have said so in his report without any repercussions.

    Because Mueller’s report was a private, internal Justice Department document intended for the attorney general, Mueller could draw any conclusion he wanted regarding President Trump without violating Justice Department policy against disclosing derogatory uncharged conduct.

    If, on the other hand, Mueller believed that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a chargeable case of obstruction of justice, he could have said so just as easily. He did, in fact, do exactly that with dozens of other potential crimes over the course of his report, including the one that served as the basis for his entire investigation.

    Most crucially, Mueller’s own report admitted that the Special Counsel’s Office “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    Attorney General Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had the courage and integrity to do what Mueller would not. Reviewing the same underlying material that Mueller developed, and in consultation with other senior Justice Department attorneys, Barr and Rosenstein jointly concluded that the evidence was “not sufficient” to constitute obstruction of justice by President Trump. Period.

    More importantly, Barr went out of his way to dispel any notion that his determination had anything to do with the OLC’s opinion.

    “Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president,” Barr said.

    The entire idea that President Trump’s vindication rested solely on the OLC opinion should have died the day Barr released his preliminary summary of the Mueller report’s conclusions.

    Unfortunately, Mueller has created new shades of gray for the Democrats to exploit and chose this politically opportune moment to do so, as the Russiagaters flail on Capitol Hill.

    The motive is obvious. Mueller, having failed for two years to find Trump-Russia “collusion,” is trying to reframe the Russiagate narrative in an effort to put some wind back in the sails of the impeachment effort.

    Mueller couldn’t even stop himself from dropping a not-so-subtle hint to that effect when he spoke to reporters and the TV audience, characterizing the OLC’s opinion as saying that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

    Undoubtedly, those making a show out of trying to impeach President Trump over the next year will hang on these words and adopt Mueller’s narrative – even though it’s a far cry from the “collusion” hoax that spawned this whole sorry saga.

    If that wasn’t Mueller’s intention all along, it certainly has been ever since he must have realized that his whole investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt.

    The case was made and is now closed, but that didn’t stop Mueller from taking one last shot at President Trump that will ultimately change nothing about the conclusions Mueller made in his own report.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  6. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  7. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    by Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

    The very first and purportedly only press conference by special counsel Robert Mueller had the feeling of a Mount Sinai moment for Washington this week. Indeed, his message seemed to be the same as that of Moses, which is have faith and do not question. Mueller spoke some 1,200 words before virtually admonishing the press corps that “I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner.” After refusing to answer questions, he went back to the place from whence he came.

    Last week, I wrote that it has become sacrilegious to question the motives or performance of Mueller. His press conference was the greatest test of such blind faith. Mueller announced that “the report is my testimony” and that he would not answer questions from Congress either, beyond what is already in his final report. From anyone else, such a statement would be denounced as arrogant, evasive, or both. However, many members of Congress and the media accepted it as the gospel according to Mueller.

    The problem is that Mueller was uttering absolute nonsense about his inability to reach a conclusion. He likewise did not offer a principled basis for refusing to answer any questions. This includes obvious questions such as why he refused to comply with the request from his superiors to identify grand jury material, which delayed the release of his report. The disconnect in the coverage of his remarks was striking. Attorney General William Barr testified for hours on his role and has answered dozens of questions. He was promptly dismissed as evasive and even perjurious. Mueller declared he would tolerate no questions and declined to address any of the criticism of his work with very little objection from the media.

    The press conference this week should be an embarrassment for the Justice Department. The agency has long maintained that the special counsel could perform the same function as an independent counsel in determining whether high ranking officials committed criminal acts. For two years, Congress and the Justice Department expressly anticipated findings of any criminal conduct. Mueller employed a massive staff and spent tens of millions of dollars. Yet, it now appears that he never intended to make any findings of possible crimes by President Trump.

    Mueller insisted that, because there is a Justice Department policy not to indict a sitting president, he interpreted that to bar him from finding the basis for criminal conduct. According to Mueller, you can investigate but not reach basic conclusions on what the investigation found. One could understand why he would not be eager to answer questions about such an absurd interpretation, when his cited sources directly contradict him.

    I testified on these flawed memos from the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton impeachment. Like many other academics, I view the policy as unsupported by either the Constitution or the convention debates, but that does not matter because the memos have simply nothing to do with a special counsel finding criminal conduct by a president. The memos focus entirely on the indictment and prosecution of a sitting president. They do conclude that being a defendant in a criminal case would thus prevent any president from performing his duties, but they do not challenge the need to investigate a sitting president. History shows presidents routinely accused of criminal conduct, including in impeachment proceedings.

    Indeed, President Clinton was investigated and found to have committed crimes by an independent counsel. The Justice Department memos did not find that the investigation or such findings were improper. When the Independent Counsel Act subsequently expired, Congress was assured that the same investigatory function would be performed by any special counsels. The memos only addressed when a president can be indicted and said that prosecution must wait until he leaves office, since he could not function while in the docket of a criminal court or a federal prison.

    Mueller has insisted that the policy “says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” That is not actually what it says. The Justice Department concluded that its view “remains that a sitting president is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.” It focuses on the prosecution of sitting presidents, not the investigation of sitting presidents. In referencing a process other than the criminal justice system, it refers to the only legal way to remove a president from office.

    Nothing in the memos even remotely bars a special counsel from reaching conclusions on the basis of possible criminal charges. Indeed, the memos accept that the Justice Department needs to establish such evidence to preserve a record for possible later charges. That is why Mueller was told by his superiors that there was no policy barring him from finding criminal conduct, only the policy against indicting while the president is in office. Even if you twist the memos to suggest some prohibition to reaching conclusions on criminal conduct, that debate should have ended when his two superiors, the attorney general and deputy attorney general, told him there was no such policy and asked him to reach a conclusion.

    His instructions and mandate were crystal clear. His position is even more nonsensical when you look at what he has already done. Mueller declared that “we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.” Yet, Mueller contradicted that statement when he declared that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so.”

    So which is it? Mueller actually did reach a “determination one way or the other” on crimes related to collusion. In his special counsel report, he found that he could “not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” In effect, Mueller ultimately came across as almost coquettish in his declaration that he would not make a clear finding of a possible crime but could not rule out criminal conduct by the president.

    In other words, Mueller can produce hundreds of pages of evidence of possible criminal conduct and repeatedly refer to not exonerating Trump of crimes but somehow cannot reach a conclusion on the weight of the evidence. Of course,Mueller did not address such questions because he would not tolerate questions. The media simply listened obediently as he claimed that he was only being “fair” when he repeated that he could not clear Trump of the crime. That, of course, led the media to declare that Mueller really was searching for criminal conduct with a wink and a nod.

    Whatever space Mueller occupied in maintaining such a position, it was neither created nor countenanced by federal law or Justice Department policy. Instead, he accepted the job of special counsel and then radically redefined it, without telling anyone outside of his staff. In that sense, he failed as special counsel. Mueller was not appointed to be a chronicler of allegations. Mueller was appointed to perform a prosecutorial function in the investigation of a president and his associates. Moreover, he does not get to dictate what Congress can investigate, or to stonewall the media.

    I agree with Mueller on his hope and expectation that this will be “the only time that I will speak to you in this manner.” Next time, I hope and expect Mueller will finally address the growing questions about his investigation.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  9. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    “says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

    That is what an indictment is.

    “remains that a sitting president is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.”

    duh.

    Thanks Captain Obvious.

    Again, an opinion piece. Not a primary document.

    Additionally, your esteemed sources seem to have knowingly omitted another element Mueller used in his analysis.
    Last edited by CowboyX; May 31st, 2019 at 01:06 AM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    So there is a reason why we have this process. First it is necessary for the gov to do in order to determine if there is a case to be made that will pass legal challenges from the defendant. When that is not deemed reasonable by the investigators, that is the end of that. In absence of such a conclusion, it is highly dangerous for the information from that investigation to then be aired to the public. This is for several reasons.
    The first is that the investigation is done in a hostile manner. IE they are TRYING to make a case. Second, it would mean that the suspect would be tried in the court of public opinion, where he would have no recourse to adequately respond.

    This is greatly exemplified in the Meuler Report. Meulers comments to the public are exhibit "A" as to why the kind of language he used is inappropriate.
    But here I'm more focused on the report itself, and the point about how "evidence" is collected, handled and presented in it.


    https://www.dailywire.com/news/47927...ign=benshapiro


    Quote Originally Posted by MUELLER REPORT
    In Mueller’s report, this voicemail is selectively edited to give the impression that Trump’s attorney was asking Flynn’s attorney for information that might hurt the president while reminding the attorney about what Trump has said about Flynn:

    I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't state it in starker terms. . . . [I]t wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with ... the government. ... [I]f . .. there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, . . . so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can .... [R]emember what we've always said about the ' President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains ....
    This is bad, this is damning. This is evidence to build a case to prosecute. Which is what the guys job is. This is what happens, they get evidence and they see it through the lens of one hostile to the defendant, because they are trying to make a case of wrong doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by FULL TRANSCRIPT
    he actual transcript of this voicemail has now been released, and shows what Mueller left out:

    Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I-'m-I'm sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't ... state it in ... starker terms. If you have ... and it wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh ... I understand that you can't join the joint defense; so that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that ... implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So ... uh ... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of ... protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any ... confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but — Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.
    Now, this is what a defendant would point out.. The prosecution left out important, essential and exculpatory evidence in his presentation. (IE is was presented to look bad, but it isn't in actuality bad given full context).
    Namely, Meuller left out the part saying that they had no interest in confidential information.

    This is why trials are required. This is why Meullers job was to recommend a trial.. or signal the end of the process. This whole event is educational as to why the process is supposed to go one way, and how perverted justice can get when the proper procedure is not followed.
    To serve man.

  11. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    He both dangled a pardon "So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains"

    and asked for information as to the nature and direction of Mueller's investigation with the intent to thwart it..."protecting all our interests, if we can,".
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    He both dangled a pardon "So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains"

    and asked for information as to the nature and direction of Mueller's investigation with the intent to thwart it..."protecting all our interests, if we can,".
    Yea, the report is quoted. You have, I think, correctly made what would be a prosecutors case.
    That doesn't address anything I said though.
    Do you suppose that you added information? Or that you rebutted the point I made?
    To serve man.

  13. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you suppose that you added information? Or that you rebutted the point I made?
    I'm not sure what point you are making.

    Just for clarity here's the quote from the report:

    1. Conduct Directed at Michael Flynn

    As previously noted, see Volume II, Section II.B, supra, the President asked for Flynn’s resignation on February 13, 2017. Following Flynn’s resignation, the President made positive public comments about Flynn, describing him as a “wonderful man,” “a fine person,” and a “very good person.” The President also privately asked advisors to pass messages to Flynn conveying that the President still cared about him and encouraging him to stay strong.

    In late November 2017, Flynn began to cooperate with this Office. On November 22, 2017, Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement he had with the President. Flynn’s counsel told the President’s personal counsel and counsel for the White House that Flynn could no longer have confidential communications with the White House or the President. Later that night, the President’s personal counsel left a voicemail for Flynn’s counsel that said:

    I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t state it in starker terms.... [I]t wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with ... the government. ... [I]f ... there’s information that implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, ... so, you know, ... we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can. ... [R]emember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains ....

    On November 23, 2017, Flynn’s attorneys returned the call from the President’s personal counsel to acknowledge receipt of the voicemail. Flynn’s attorneys reiterated that they were no longer in a position to share information under any sort of privilege. According to Flynn’s attorneys, the President’s personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement. The President’s personal counsel said that he interpreted what they said to him as a reflection of Flynn’s hostility towards the President and that he planned to inform his client of that interpretation. Flynn’s attorneys understood that statement to be an attempt to make them reconsider their position because the President’s personal counsel believed that Flynn would be disturbed to know that such a message would be conveyed to the President.

    On December 1, 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements pursuant to a cooperation agreement. The next day, the President told the press that he was not concerned about what Flynn might tell the Special Counsel. In response to a question about whether the President still stood behind Flynn, the President responded, “We’ll see what happens.” Over the next several days, the President made public statements expressing sympathy for Flynn and indicating he had not been treated fairly. On December 15, 2017, the President responded to a press inquiry about whether he was considering a pardon for Flynn by saying, “I don’t want to talk about pardons for Michael Flynn yet. We’ll see what happens. Let’s see. I can say this: When you look at what’s gone on with the FBI and with the Justice Department, people are very, very angry.”



    Vol. 2, Page 120
    References to: Cohen, Michael D. Flynn, Michael T. Manafort, Paul McGahn II, Donald F. Trump, Donald J.
    Vol. 2, Page 120
    See Original Document
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)



    The entire transcript was entered as evidence as it was just ordered to be released in its entirety. But as we now see, in context, that the President's attorneys were trying to contact Flynn and send messages after they were told it was no longer possible.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post

    No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.
    I cannot imagine such an esteemed thinker as Deshowitz completely ignoring - not just glossing over - the exhaustive explanation given Mueller in his report, Barr's mis-characterization and perjury, Mueller's response in letter form and then his statement to clear up the obfuscation campaign being run by the President and the administration, most importantly Barr. [All presented in this thread]

    But since this is where we are I think it's also important to present and save those going out of their way to protect the president in the most dishonest and disingenuous ways:





    00:01
    TUCKER, GREAT SHOW.
    00:04
    THANK YOU.
    00:04
    BUSY NEWS NIGHT.
    00:07
    WE ARE TRACKING HUGE MULTIPLE
    00:10
    BREAKING STORIES.
    00:11
    WE START TONIGHT WITH THE
    00:13
    MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT OUT OF THE
    00:15
    MUELLER WITCH HUNT.
    00:17
    TONIGHT MORE EVIDENCE EMERGED
    00:20
    THAT BOB MUELLER'S REPORT WAS
    00:23
    NOTHING BUT PURE POLITICAL
    00:29
    GARBAGE WITH ERRORS PUT THERE ON
    00:31
    PURPOSE.
    00:32
    JOHN, SOME OF THE KEYS OF
    00:36
    MUELLER'S ASSERTIONS ARE FALSE.
    00:41
    THE MUELLER REPORT DESCRIBES
    00:44
    PAUL MANAFORT'S BUSINESS PARTNER
    00:46
    AS A SHADY INDIVIDUAL WITH TIES
    00:48
    TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.
    00:50
    MUELLER WANTED US TO BELIEVE
    00:52
    THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS IN
    00:54
    BED WITH THE RUSSIAN SPIES.
    00:56
    TONIGHT WE KNOW THAT'S TOTAL BS.
    01:02
    CALLING IT MUELLER FAKES.
    01:04
    MANAFORT'S BUSINESS PARTNER WAS
    01:06
    A SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE SOURCE
    01:08
    FOR THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT.
    01:10
    THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.
    01:13
    WHY DID MUELLER DECEIVE WE THE
    01:16
    AMERICAN PEOPLE?
    01:17
    HE VISITED THE U.S. TWICE IN
    01:19
    2016 TO MEET WITH STATE
    01:21
    DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AND FOR
    01:23
    YEARS HE MET WITH THE CHIEF
    01:26
    POLITICAL OFFICER INSIDE THE
    01:28
    U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV.
    01:33
    MUELLER HAD ACCESS TO THIS
    01:35
    INFORMATION.
    01:36
    SO HE AND HIS MERRY BAND OF
    01:40
    DEMOCRATIC VOTERS AND TRUMP
    01:41
    HATERS THAT, MEANS THEY LIED IN
    01:44
    THE REPORT.
    01:45
    AND MUELLER CAST A DARK SHADOW
    01:48
    THIS INDIVIDUAL'S REQUEST TO
    01:52
    PRESENT A PEACE PLAN TO THE
    01:55
    TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN 2016.
    01:57
    THE VERY SAME PLAN WAS PRESENTED
    01:59
    TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THE
    02:00
    SAME YEAR AND MUELLER'S TEAM
    02:04
    KNEW IT.
    02:05
    MUELLER, WHY WOULD HE DO THAT.
    02:11
    SOLOMAN IS NOT THE FIRST
    02:13
    REPORTER TO RAISE CONCERNS AND
    02:15
    WON'TING THE LAST.
    02:17
    THIS IS OUT RIGHT LYING FROM
    02:19
    MUELLER AND HIS DEMOCRATIC DONOR
    02:20
    FRIENDS HE APPOINTED.
    02:22
    A DISTURBING PATTERN OF LIES AND
    02:25
    CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.
    02:26
    ON MONDAY WE FIRST REPORTED THAT
    02:29
    MUELLER EDITING A TRANSCRIPT
    02:32
    FROM A FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY
    02:35
    JOHN DOWD WHO WAS ON THIS
    02:36
    PROGRAM AND CALLED THAT REPORT A
    02:39
    FRAUD.
    02:39
    DURING A PRIVILEGED CALL BETWEEN
    02:44
    ATTORNEYS, MUELLER OMITTED
    02:48
    DOWD'S STATEMENT AND HIS REQUEST
    02:50
    FOR COMMUNICATION WAS NOT ONLY
    02:51
    FOR THE PRESIDENT BUT FOR THE
    02:53
    COUNTRY AND HE WAS NOT ASKING
    02:56
    FOR ANY CONFIDENTIAL
    02:58
    INFORMATION.
    02:58
    THAT EVIDENCE WAS RIPPED OUT.
    03:01
    THAT'S A CLASSIC TACTIC.
    03:05
    SIDNEY POWELL'S BOOK "LICENSE TO
    03:10
    LIE."
    03:10
    WISEMAN WITH HELD EVIDENCE IN
    03:12
    THE PAST.
    03:13
    WHY WAS HE APPOINTED?
    03:14
    THAT'S NOT ALL.
    03:16
    AND MUELLER'S 9 MINUTE LONG
    03:19
    DIATRIBE LAST WEEK.
    03:22
    THE MEDIA WAS FULL OF HOPE AND
    03:26
    ANTICIPATION THAT THEY FINALLY
    03:27
    GOT THE PRESIDENT.
    03:28
    THAT ENDED UP BEING DEBUNKED A
    03:31
    FEW HOURS LATER.
    03:34
    IN FACT, THE DOJ POLICY
    03:37
    INDICTING A CITY THE PRESIDENT
    03:42
    WAS NEVER A CONSIDERATION.
    03:44
    HIS PRESS CONFERENCE WAS A
    03:45
    CONTRADICTION OF EVERYTHING HE
    03:46
    SAID.
    03:47
    IN A JOINT STATEMENT HOURS
    03:49
    LATER, THE DOJ, BARR AND THE
    03:53
    SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE WAS
    03:55
    FORCED TO WALK BACK AND CLARIFY
    03:57
    THE 9.5 MINUTES THAT MUELLER BUT
    04:02
    COMMENTING AND REAFFIRMED THAT
    04:04
    THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT
    04:06
    MADE CLEAR THE OFFICE CONCLUDED
    04:07
    IT WOULD NOT REACH A
    04:09
    DETERMINATION ONE WAY OR THE
    04:12
    OTHER ABOUT WHETHER THE
    04:12
    PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME.
    04:14
    IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
    04:17
    JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY WITH
    04:19
    WHETHER YOU CAN OR CAN NOT
    04:23
    INDICT A PRESIDENT.
    04:25
    EVERYTHING MUELLER SAID WAS FAKE
    04:28
    AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR BAILED
    04:30
    HIM OUT.
    04:31
    HE WAS BEGGING NADLER NOT TO
    04:32
    TESTIFY OR BE SUBPOENAED BECAUSE
    04:34
    HE KNOWS HE HAS TO ANSWER
    04:36
    QUESTIONS FROM JIM JORDAN, AND
    04:39
    MARK MEDICINE AND DEVIN NUNES
    04:41
    WHO WILL JOIN US IN A FEW
    04:43
    MINUTES.
    04:44
    WELL, MR. MUELLER, WHEN DID YOU
    04:47
    KNOW THERE WAS NO COLLUSION?
    04:49
    WHY DIDN'T YOU END THIS WITCH
    04:52
    HUNT?
    04:52
    WHY DID YOU ONLY HIRE HARD-CORE
    04:56
    DEMOCRATIC DONORS INCLUDING A
    04:59
    FORMER HILLARY CLINTON ATTORNEY
    05:00
    FOR THE CLINTON FOUNDATION.
    05:05
    WHY HIRE WEISSMAN WHO LOST IN
    05:13
    THE SUPREME COURT 9-0 AND HAD 4
    05:16
    MARYLAND OFFICIALS PUT IN JAIL
    05:19
    AND THAT WAS OVERTURNED.
    05:20
    WHY APPOINT WEISSMAN KNOWN FOR
    05:24
    ATROCIOUS CONDUCT.
    05:25
    ATTENDED HILLARY CLINTON'S
    05:26
    VICTORY PARTY ON ELECTION NIGHT.
    05:28
    IT DIDN'T WORK OUT WELL.
    05:29
    THE PATTERN IS CLEAR.
    05:31
    WHAT WE SEE NOW TIME AND TIME
    05:34
    AGAIN, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL M
    05:41
    MANIPULATES INFORMATION ABOUT
    05:46
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
    05:46
    STATES.
    05:49
    WHY DIDN'T HE HAVE TIME FOR THE
    05:53
    DIRTY RUSSIAN DOSSIER THAT
    05:57
    HILLARY CLINTON PAID FOR THAT
    05:59
    WAS USED TO INFLUENCE THE
    06:00
    AMERICAN PEOPLE?
    06:01
    NO EXCUSE FOR THAT.
    06:03
    NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION ON
    06:10
    THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN'S PART.
    06:12
    THE TRUMP HATERS REVERTED TO
    06:15
    PLAN-B.
    06:16
    THEY CREATED A DOCUMENT INTENDED
    06:18
    TO FUEL EVEN MORE LIES AND
    06:21
    CONSPIRACY THEORIES FROM
    06:23
    DEMOCRATS AND THEIR ALLIES IN
    06:25
    THE BIASSED AND CORRUPT MEDIA
    06:27
    MOB.
    06:28
    IT WAS A POLITICAL HIT JOB FROM
    06:29
    THE BEGINNING THROUGH AND
    06:30
    THROUGH.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    ...Barr's mis-characterization...
    You mean the bit from Muller about how Barr's statement didn't fully capture the tone and mood of the report? lol. If Mueller thinks that, or something else, then all he as to do is be more specific in testimony before Congress, or in answers to media questions, or in another printed statement. Why isn't your side demanding any of that? Because he's got nothing substantive to say, and you know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    and perjury... most importantly Barr.
    What perjury? Show me, in detail.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  16. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You mean the bit from Muller about how Barr's statement didn't fully capture the tone and mood of the report? lol. If Mueller thinks that, or something else, then all he as to do is be more specific in testimony before Congress, or in answers to media questions, or in another printed statement. Why isn't your side demanding any of that? Because he's got nothing substantive to say, and you know it.
    Mueller doesn't have to (but it'd be nice, I think he probably will) because the report already says it. It did when Barr made the statements - before the report was released BTW. Regardless, he already did in his statement (above).

    ---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    What perjury? Show me, in detail.
    Barr said the OLC decision was not a factor in Mueller's decision under oath. That is a lie.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Mueller doesn't have to (but it'd be nice, I think he probably will) because the report already says it. It did when Barr made the statements - before the report was released BTW. Regardless, he already did in his statement (above).

    ---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------



    Barr said the OLC decision was not a factor in Mueller's decision under oath. That is a lie.
    Show me the text of what Barr said, and explain how it was a lie. It sounds to me like you're just repeating a claim made by your side without examining it yourself.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Show me the text of what Barr said, and explain how it was a lie. It sounds to me like you're just repeating a claim made by your side without examining it yourself.
    Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found obstruction,” Barr said Wednesday.

    Also:

    Schiff pointed to Barr’s exchange in a committee meeting with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in which Barr said he didn’t know whether Mueller supported his conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to accuse Trump of criminal obstruction of justice.

    The Post reported Tuesday that Mueller had written a letter to Barr expressing his displeasure with how Barr was characterizing the special counsel’s findings.

    “I think his statement is deliberately false and misleading, and yes, most people would consider that to be a lie,” Schiff said. “It’s hard, I think, for the country to have confidence in the top law enforcement official in the country if he’s asked a direction question as he was and he gives a directly false answer.”
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Are you totally incapable of analyzing someone's words and making an argument yourself? Reading what others think is fine, but seriously, try to do some analysis yourself instead of just lazily pasting what Schiff thinks.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    “Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found obstruction,” Barr said Wednesday.
    This has not been shown to be a lie. Further, it isn't a he said she said kinda thing because Barr was not alone in hearing the call.
    So it seems pretty clear that Mueller did indeed tell Barr that exact thing. Basically, he couldn't conclude obstruction even if the OLC was different.

    Shiff hasn't got a leg to stand on in his claims that Barr lied. It's just political posturing on his part.
    To serve man.

  21. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Are you totally incapable of analyzing someone's words and making an argument yourself? Reading what others think is fine, but seriously, try to do some analysis yourself instead of just lazily pasting what Schiff thinks.
    That's exactly what you asked for.

    ---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This has not been shown to be a lie. Further, it isn't a he said she said kinda thing because Barr was not alone in hearing the call.
    So it seems pretty clear that Mueller did indeed tell Barr that exact thing. Basically, he couldn't conclude obstruction even if the OLC was different.
    That's what Barr wants you to believe but that's not what Mueller said, in the report or in his statement.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    That's what Barr wants you to believe but that's not what Mueller said, in the report or in his statement.
    Your correct, that is irrelevant to what he actually told Barr.. with witnesses.
    It is more reasonable to simply say that Meullar mis-spoke when answering Barr's question.
    there simply is no reason at all to conclude lying. Especially becuase Meullar didn't say "I didn't tell Barr that", so as to create a conflicting account of the conversation.

    don't mistake the political spin for facts.
    To serve man.

  23. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Mueller Report

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your correct, that is irrelevant to what he actually told Barr.. with witnesses.
    It is more reasonable to simply say that Meullar mis-spoke when answering Barr's question.
    there simply is no reason at all to conclude lying. Especially becuase Meullar didn't say "I didn't tell Barr that", so as to create a conflicting account of the conversation.
    This:

    Basically, he couldn't conclude obstruction even if the OLC was different.
    Is the political spin.

    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.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •