So he takes 22 months, hires a few dozen investigators and prosecutors, spend tens of millions of dollars... and then he doesn't make any actual decisions. He comes out for eight minutes, says a whole bunch of nonsensical baloney, and then demands that he will not answer any questions nor agree to go before Congress to answer any questions.
Ironically, nobody from the liberal MSM seemed to have a problem with this.
Now these same media members demanded that Bill Barr was non-forthcoming for his part in all of this. But of course, Barr provided several updates, released the report when he didn't have to, and spent most of a day being personally insulted and answering questions from Senators.
Not enough, according the media.
Oh, and the media accused Bill Barr of lying about a meeting he had with Mueller, Rosenstein, and O'Callaghan, even though nobody from that meeting has contradicted what Barr stated. Apparently our media is so corrupt, partisan, and full of themselves that they are willing to simply take themselves at their own reasoning as to why it is that Barr must have lied. Without any actual evidence or proof of any kind other than their own partisanship.
On the flip side, a whole slew of legal experts (including many who have defended Mueller throughout this) found the whole charade to be below the office of a Special Counsel and well outside all established norms of the Department of Justice and law enforcement in general.
In eight minutes, what we learned from Robert Mueller is two things:
- The Russians who hacked our election are innocent until proven guilty.
- The President of the United States (who was cleared of the underlying crime of election conspiracy) is guilty of something else until Mueller (and apparently only Mueller himself) says he is exonerated.
You can't make this shit up, folks.
28 comments:
So far I have not seen one legal expert...
who believes that Mueller did the right thing with his eight minute dialogue.
BWAAAAAA!!!! You must be looking on faux or breitbart channels only....keep trying the are many out there.....!!!!!
Let’s start with the Mueller team’s unique take on the nature of a prosecutor’s job. The standard American view of justice, affirmed and enforced by the U.S. Constitution, is that all are presumed innocent absent conviction by a jury of a specific charge of criminal wrongdoing. That is, the natural legal state of an individual in this country is innocence. It is not a state or a nature bestowed by cops or attorneys. Innocence is not granted by unelected bureaucrats or federal prosecutors.
At one point in his remarks, Mueller seemed to agree. Referring to indictments against various Russian individuals and institutions for allegedly hacking American servers during the 2016 election, Mueller said that the indictments “contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant.”
“Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”
Had he stopped there, he would have been correct. But then he crafted a brand new standard.
“The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said. “After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent. Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.
Another C+P perfectly posted by our loser with out a single comment of his own on why he thinks it is germane....That's what happens when you drink too much and cannot think on your own especially living ITP low rent district!!!! BTW.....mueller being an decorated veteran would never postulate the Russians were innocent of anything....IOW's the federalist opinion is worse than speculation, it is utter and complete BULLSHIT!!!!! Figures that our low IQ loser salesman posted such drivel....!!!!
So Denny,
Someone who drinks too much and spends all their time cutting and pasting is bothering you? Why are you so hard on Roger!
Hilarious, lo iq "anonymous" thinking he has company here.
Well he does spend an awful lot of time defending his lo iq mantle.
Last I checked he still didn't understand what a prosecutor was. And his repetitive lo iq posts that aren't copies are so full of errors a second grader would be embarrassed.
ROFLMFAO !!!
Someone who drinks too much and spends all their time cutting and pasting is bothering you
Hey, lil scotty....sure got your attention!!!....too bad I bothered you enough to respond which I find Highly amusing at your lack of anything to actually say but pass the buck to Roger who quit drinking some time ago....You are getting more vain daily in your adoration of the lying criminals in the WH and DOJ who only spread lies and ignore the real threat of Putin....just like you.....LOLOLOLO
Fatty is suffering from toxoplasmosis, he's essentially the crazy cat lady of the blog. Throw in the plaque build up in his carotid arteries from obesity its little wonder his posts are all complete gibberish
Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
Fatty is suffering from toxoplasmosis,
BWAAAAAAAA!!!! While you remain a low brow trump sucking asshole who lives in the slums of Atlanta.....Throw in he drinks and parties like a teenager should be telling on why he is a loser selling insurance.....LOLOLOLOL
I win, fatty's gone over the edge
LMAO
Yep loser you fucking win asshole of the day !!!!! Congrats there are many more in your future!!!!!! BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!! Keep sucking there sport, it is what UGA losers do best!!!!!
I don't drink.
“We concluded that we would not reach a determination, one way or the other, about whether the president committed a crime,”
I wish that he would be have actually said that he had committed a crime, instead of implying law violations that the Congress had to pursue via impeachment hearings.
Scott, you know that the report lays out 12 cases of objection of justice allegations.
But if you really were Thecoldheartedtruth, you would support the congressional hearings on impeachment.
But you just cling to the Deep State Conspiracy theories. Strictly for partisan reasons.
I wish that he would be have actually said that he had committed a crime
He told three people from the DOJ, including his boss and his boss's boss differently. He told them that the regulations against indicting a President was NOT the reason he didn't make the call.
Quite obviously he was once again called to task by the A.G. which is why they basically had to walk back much of his implications from his statement with the joint statement from the DOJ and Office of Special Counsel.
The guy desperately wants to imply something he cannot say out loud, because deep down he knows it's not the truth.
_____
Bottom line Roger.
This was Mueller's job. HIS FUCKING JOB to investigate. He spent 22 months, 35 million dollars, and wrote a 440 page report.
It was (according to the laws of Special Counsel, the regulation of the DOJ, and the opinion of his superiors) his job to make a call.
Robert Mueller is quite literally the "ONLY" person within any of this who believes he couldn't draw a conclusion.
Or at least that is what he is stating.
The more likely conclusions is that Robert Mueller knew how weak that case was. He knew that Barr, Rosenstein, and the rest of the legal experts in the DOJ would crush him if he were to have suggested anything in his list was a crime. He knew that Barr, Rosenstein, and others in the DOJ would flat out disagree with him.
But he didn't want to follow the law either, because that would have exonerated Trump, which was something him and his partisan staff would never do in a million years.
So they made implications that they could not back up.
The reasons he won't answer questions, Roger... is because he doesn't want to be asked how he believes that the President committed obstruction because he didn't like being investigated, or that he didn't want leaked investigation information in the press.
He didn't want to ask why (if Cohen's suggestions about witness tampering and promises of Pardons were actually a crime) that he didn't charge Trump's counsel (Jay Sekulow) who actually "made" the offers.
So know... there have been more than enough investigations (including three Congressional investigations - I forgot that one of the judicial committees investigated as well as both intelligence committees) for all of this.
If Democrats want to impeach... they have a 35 million dollar investigation and over 200 pages of B.S. they can go through and make a decision. Having them investigate again would be like bringing a six pack to a kegger. It makes no sense.
Other than to push it politically, because they are too fucking stubborn and immature to let it go.
Three of the world's biggest entertainment companies — Netflix, Disney and WarnerMedia — say they may stop producing movies and TV shows in Georgia if the state's new abortion law takes effect.
And a fourth, Comcast's NBCUniversal, says the spread of these anti-abortion bills, if upheld by the courts, "would strongly impact our decision-making on where we produce our content in the future."
The state is a hub for entertainment industry production, in part because of generous tax breaks Georgia offers filmmakers and producers.
The more likely conclusions is that Robert Mueller knew how weak that case was. He knew that Barr, Rosenstein, and the rest of the legal experts in the DOJ would crush him if he were to have suggested anything in his list was a crime. He knew that Barr, Rosenstein, and others in the DOJ would flat out disagree with him.
Your conclusion is your opinion based upon your personal partisan opinions, not reality.
Well Roger...
Nobody (including Mueller's bosses) understands why Mueller refuse to do his job and make a prosecutorial decision. Nobody really accepts his explanation at face value.
So, stop it with the hero worship of Mueller. He's a dud. He proved it with the least exciting eight minute speech ever given on a topic that everyone wanted to hear about.
The only question is what is the "real reason" Mueller decided not to make the call. The only actual reason we can eliminate is the one he gave.
Only 600 lawyers disagree with the paper pusher who claims to be Thecoldheartedtruth
Well good for them...
But guess who "DOES" agree with me. The Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General. The Assistant Attorney General of legal counsel. You know, those in the legal industry that made it to the very, very top of their fields. Along with every legal analyst that I keep track of that has gotten every single thing right all along.
Here is the deal, Roger... no way to get around it.
You can only indict someone if you think you can secure a guilty verdict. When you cannot convince the highest ranking law enforcement decision makers, many (if not most) of the top legal analysts, along with the other million plus attorneys and former prosecutors who did NOT sign the stupid letter... that what you are attempting to prosecute isn't even a crime by definition.
How can you actually secure a unanimous guilty verdict?
Answer. You couldn't. Not in a million years.
Looks like 600 people forgot what they learned in Law 101.
My apologies...
I accidently deleted that comment by Roger regarding the 600 lawyers.
Not that we all haven't seen the same C&P comment like 50 times from Roger.
51 times
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:
· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence
Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.
Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”
Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation
The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.
First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.
Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.
As the report explains, “[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.
All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.
Witness tampering and intimidation
The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”
Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.
We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.
As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.
If you are a former federal prosecutor and would like to add your name below, click here. Protect Democracy will update this list daily with new signatories.
Objection of justice
As the report explains, “[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.
All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions
Over 600 lawyers disagree with the paper pusher who said he is Thecoldheartedtruth
600 out of over one million attorneys?
That would mean that only 0.06% of attorneys hold this view!
You said
So far I have not seen one legal expert...
who believes that Mueller did the right thing with his eight minute dialogue.
600 ex prosecutors disagree with the paper pusher who said he is Thecoldheartedtruth
And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.
President for Life!
Scott would be a brick wall syndrome stage four.
If the House were to impeach for a non-crime, the president's lawyer could make a motion to the chief justice to dismiss the case, just as a lawyer for an ordinary defendant can make a motion to dismiss an indictment that did not charge a crime. The chief justice would be asked to enforce the senatorial oath by dismissing an impeachment that violated the words of the Constitution. There is no assurance that the chief justice would rule on such a motion, but it is certainly possible.
No one should criticize President Trump for raising the possibility of Supreme Court review, especially following Bush v. Gore, the case that ended the 2000 election. Many of the same academics ridiculed the notion that the justices would enter the political thicket of vote-counting. But they did and, in the process, weakened the "political question" doctrine. The case for applying the explicit constitutional criteria governing impeachment is far more compelling than was the case for stopping the Florida recount.
So no one should express partisan certainty regarding President Trump's suggestion that the Supreme Court might well decide that impeaching a president without evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors is unconstitutional.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School. His new book is "The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump." You can follow him on Twitter
If Trump loses, but he will declare a National emergency and refuse to leave the White House
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446394-dershowitz-supreme-court-could-overrule-an-unconstitutional-impeachment
Fox legal analyst Andrew Napolitano: And Lawyer
Mueller has evidence that Trump committed a crime.
By Will Bishop - May 29, 2019
Andrew Napolitano, the senior legal analyst at Fox News, said minutes after Special Counsel Robert Mueller spoke Wednesday morning that it’s clear Mueller did indeed find evidence of crimes committed by President Donald Trump and the only reason he didn’t indict the president was because it was against Department of Justice policy.
Appearing on Fox Business, Napolitano told host Stuart Varney:
“EFFECTIVELY WHAT BOB MUELLER SAID IS WE HAD EVIDENCE THAT HE COMMITTED A CRIME BUT WE COULDN’T CHARGE HIM BECAUSE HE’S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS IS EVEN STRONGER THAN THE LANGUAGE IN HIS REPORT. THIS IS ALSO A PARTING SHOT AT HIS SOON-TO-BE FORMER BOSS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BECAUSE THIS STATEMENT IS 180 DEGREES FROM THE FOUR-PAGE STATEMENT THAT BILL BARR ISSUED AT THE TIME HE FIRST SAW THE REPORT.”
Desperate to try and minimize the impact of Mueller’s remarks, Varney asked:
“IS IT THAT BAD?”
The former judge replied:
“I THINK SO. BASICALLY HE’S SAYING THE PRESIDENT CAN’T BE INDICTED, OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE INDICTED HIM AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME BECAUSE THERE’S NO FORUM IN WHICH FOR HIM TO REFUTE THE CHARGES, BUT WE COULD NOT SAY THAT HE DIDN’T COMMIT A CRIME, FILL IN THE BLANK, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE HE DID.”
Near the end of the segment, Napolitano added that the evidence Mueller presented was “remarkably similar” to that which was used against both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton when it comes to obstruction of justice.
Nixon, you may recall, resigned before he was impeached. Clinton was impeached by acquitted by the Senate. It remains to be see what Trump’s fate will be.
Post a Comment