• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller report summary sent to Congress

Chomsky said:
That's why we need to hear from Meuller. Remember, Barr claims "A President cannot obstruct". Is that how Barr arrived at his conclusion?
Click to expand...


Why don't you read the letter?

Barr said: "... 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. ..."
 
Chomsky said:
Well he (Barr) claims "A President cannot be indicted", and perhaps that was the basis for Barr's decision not to prosecute.
Click to expand...

It specifically wasn't, though. See post #173.
 
Idiometer said:
Yeah! What a mess! How dare they? It's just like Comey and the Clinton email investigation!

Seriously, read the actual four page memo from Barr and Rosenstein. Not enough conclusive evidence to indict Trump on conspiracy or obstruction, key words being "not enough."

But what most seem to forget or just not know, a sitting president can be impeached for things that would not necessarily be considered indictable crimes.

Also, it's quite possible that various congressional committees can subpoena documents and witnesses that Mueller didn't have the legal cause to pursue.
Click to expand...
I think it would be important to know why Mueller didn't have the evidence? Could it be because he couldn't interview Trump, due to Trump's lack of cooperation? That's an important consideration with political consequence.
 
Chomsky said:
That's why we need to hear from Meuller. Remember, Barr claims "A President cannot obstruct". Is that how Barr arrived at his conclusion?
Click to expand...

The “a President cannot obstruct” you mention and further to “a President cannot be indicted” should be settled at the USSC. Elections have consequences.

Picking your own AG and DoJ is kind of cool. The Senate is like the great catcher, a backstop.
 
I'm sure someone in the thread has already made this point, but Barr did not say there was no collusion at all. Only not on the two points that no one has ever accused Trump of colluding. Additionally, the "no collusion" crowd seems to be forgetting all the people who have been indicted for their work with Russia as part of the campaign.

Barr's letter is intentionally limited in scope.
 
JANFU said:
His personal viewpoint would not be included in the report.
Click to expand...

"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."
 
Chomsky said:
I think it would be important to know why Mueller didn't have the evidence? Could it be because he couldn't interview Trump, due to Trump's lack of cooperation? That's an important consideration with political consequence.
Click to expand...

not really.
there is nothing there.

mueller didn't have enough evidence to form a conclusion.
that doesn't mean he didn't have evidence.

it just means the evidence he had wasn't enough to form an opinion so
he deffered to the AG's office and the DOj.

they looked at it and said there was not enough evidence for an Obstruction charge.

PS trump did submit a written statement to mueller.
that is all he needed to do.
 
Chomsky said:
But not by Mueller; instead by Barr who claims, "Presidents cannot obstruct".
Click to expand...

I've always thought Mueller would do a detailed and efficient investigation. I'm not so sure Barr's conclusion on obstruction will stand just from everything that's known.

I've always thought it was a mistake for the president to open the doors to a SC with the firing of Comey because his life hasn't always been the diary of a choir boy. Mueller farmed out a lot from what I understand. Just another phase that might otherwise have been ovr with had he just let the FBI finish what they started.
 
Chomsky said:
I think it would be important to know why Mueller didn't have the evidence? Could it be because he couldn't interview Trump, due to Trump's lack of cooperation? That's an important consideration with political consequence.
Click to expand...

Trump filled out the crayon request

Written by his lawyers, and I am sure Trump would be arguing with them against his own best interests.

If he had been interviewed, well the lies would abound. So critical areas of obstruction were not answered.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm sure someone in the thread has already made this point, but Barr did not say there was no collusion at all. Only not on the two points that no one has ever accused Trump of colluding. Additionally, the "no collusion" crowd seems to be forgetting all the people who have been indicted for their work with Russia as part of the campaign.

Barr's letter is intentionally limited in scope.
Click to expand...

Aaccording to Barr's letter, "The special counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its effort" to interfere with the 2016 presidential election in that manner.

"The Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated" with Russians who worked on those hacking efforts, according to Barr's letter, "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

Barr'rs letter concluded: “After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues… 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 an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

no collusion
no obstruction.

sorry you don't like facts doesn't change them.
 
Chomsky said:
But not by Mueller; instead by Barr who claims, "Presidents cannot obstruct".
Click to expand...
Mueller says it too. Read Barr's summary letter.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Prosecutors don't exonerate. As Giuliani has said, how does one prove a negative?
Click to expand...
??

Despite your claims, for some reason Mueller specifically put in his report that Trump is "not exonerated" in obstruction. Something compelled Mueller to include that in his report.

But regardless as I posted above - Trump indeed lied - and you've done nothing to disprove my claim to that effect.
 
upsideguy said:
Yep, one matter down, 16 to go for Trump and his corrupt colleagues.

A Complete Guide to All 17 (Known) Trump and Russia Investigations | WIRED

Of course, the his big worry should be what is going on with the NY AG and the USA-SDNY.



Whether or not the DoJ chooses or NOT to charge a sitting President, if crimes were committed it remains their job to investigate them. As it is the job of Congress. That all said, the State of New York can charge the President.

In the end, this will be political. Will America re-elect a man that is tarnished by corruption if that corruption is well documented? Not likely.
Click to expand...

All charges from against Trump while in office has to come from DoJ. SDNY and so forth.. won't matter as they have no power to do this. State of New York has no power. Only way they get Trump from now on is after he is President.
 
Chomsky said:
The big picture here, as you & I surmised and Micheal Cohen testified, is that Trump's Presidency is the result of a PR farce gone terribly wrong, and his farcical campaign attracted and accepted a cadre of neer-do-wells who willingly entertained Russia's immense overtures towards them!

That's it, in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
And that's what Congress needs to investigate now - that's where the meat is at.

One little thing has, thus far, gone unnoticed about Barr's letter.

"I must identify any information that could impact ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices".

Notice plural use of "matters" and "offices", which now confirms there are other investigations ongoing. It is those investigations which Flynn, Gates, and Nader are witnesses, and have produced other indictments, yet to be revealed, or at least so it appears.

Those would likely be the investigations into
1. UAE and the Saudi Nuclear deal.
2. The Inaugural Committee.
3. General influence peddling in the campaign.
 
Chomsky said:
??
Despite your claims, for some reason Mueller specifically put in his report that Trump is "not exonerated" in obstruction. Something compelled Mueller to include that in his report.
But regardless as I posted above - Trump indeed lied - and you've done nothing to disprove my claim to that effect.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because he is that POS we know him to be.
 
MovingPictures said:
Without an underlying offense that shows an intent to keep investigators from finding the truth, it's a nonstarter for impeachment.

I'd be far more interested in what Mueller found regarding the proposed hotel in Moscow.
Click to expand...
Yeah, impeachment's out. It's impractical too, including with the election a year and a half away. Besides, it's easier to get a preponderance of electoral votes than a super majority of Senators!
 
SkyFox76 said:
I've always thought Mueller would do a detailed and efficient investigation. I'm not so sure Barr's conclusion on obstruction will stand just from everything that's known.

I've always thought it was a mistake for the president to open the doors to a SC with the firing of Comey because his life hasn't always been the diary of a choir boy. Mueller farmed out a lot from what I understand. Just another phase that might otherwise have been ovr with had he just let the FBI finish what they started.
Click to expand...
Trump was worried that what happened to Bill Clinton would happen to him, and that ANY investigation could grow into a monster that looked into his financial background and schemes.
 
Are the financial crimes Trump is accused of subject to Concurrent Jurisdiction with the SDNY?
I daresay many of the financial crimes he and his criminal family presumably committed are almost assuredly subject to both federal and state laws, so there is concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm sure someone in the thread has already made this point, but Barr did not say there was no collusion at all. Only not on the two points that no one has ever accused Trump of colluding. Additionally, the "no collusion" crowd seems to be forgetting all the people who have been indicted for their work with Russia as part of the campaign.

Barr's letter is intentionally limited in scope.
Click to expand...
But the bottom line is there wasn't a criminal conspiracy, even if we have seen collusion.

That's a big win for the Mad Hatter.
 
Linc said:
#45 says he wants the report made public to ‘his people’. Since he always lies about consequential matters, he doesn’t. And we know how Barr feels from his past writings, as well as Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Like I said, my mantra would be: "Release the Report!"

It's short, snappy, direct. And it's supported by a large majority of the electorate.
 
Chomsky said:
Trump's Russian Collusion situation has indeed come to an end. He has been exonerated on that issue.

The Dems may continue to make an issue on an obstruction, since that was a Barr - not Mueller - determination. In fact, I believe they will try to pursue this by interviewing Mueller, which I think is fair enough. I'd like to hear from Mueller myself, on this.
Click to expand...

If they wish, although I think that would be a strategic error. They can excite their base over obstruction, but no one else will care.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Are the financial crimes Trump is accused of subject to Concurrent Jurisdiction with the SDNY?
I daresay many of the financial crimes he and his criminal family presumably committed are almost assuredly subject to both federal and state laws, so there is concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts.
Click to expand...
No, the US attorney's must aide by DOJ policy and not indict Trump, while he is in office.

The NY AG is under no such mandate and may do so.
 
Jack Hays said:
If they wish, although I think that would be a strategic error. They can excite their base over obstruction, but no one else will care.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Chomsky said:
I think it would be important to know why Mueller didn't have the evidence? Could it be because he couldn't interview Trump, due to Trump's lack of cooperation? That's an important consideration with political consequence.
Click to expand...

A summary of which Presidents have actually been put under oath would show a clear partisan divide. This is his entire life, tied up in courts. The disinformation campaign from the beginning plus refusal to testify or present documents has led to a country that is exhausted by all of this.

At least we have baseball ⚾️ and basketball 🏀 this week Will we ever get back to solving Issues? Seriously! Apologies to you and all here on DP for my earlier posting. Sad 😢 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom