• 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!

[W:914,1223] Robert Mueller's report is out

Obscurity said:
Trump illegally hired immigrant workers to build Trump Tower. The sole reason he was not criminally tried is because of the statute of limitations. He also illegally refused payments to multiple contractors throughout the construction of many and various buildings he built.

Again. It's all out there for you to see, but we know you won't look.
Click to expand...

again no conviction no charges no crime.
you still don't get it.

you realize that when you talked out of your house yesterday and went through the streets and driving your car you
probably broke about 1000 laws on books. i guess you are a criminal then according to your own logic.
 
pamak said:
In other words, you missed the first quote which shows that Mueller accepted the OLC's position that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, which shows that there WOULD be a problem for Mueller to charge a sitting president with obstruction of Justice
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats why special Counsels or Special Prosecutors instead of recomending charges, they reccomentd impeachment. Like the Starr report did. Mueller didnt.
 
sjmay said:
Everyone on both sides are going off of the deep-end,

People on the left had their minds made up before this report, AS did people on the right, and nothing, ANYONE says about ANYTHING is going to change that....ie (Saladin is gonna be Saladin, and Moindig is gonna be Moindig)

But if you objectively look at those 10 instances where Mueller felt there MIGHT be Obstruction,

1. PRESSURE ON COMEY TO END PROBE OF MICHAEL FLYNN - Has anyone OTHER than Comey corroborated this? If not, then it's a matter of interpretation of WHAT was said, and the meaning behind it.

2. RESIDENT’S REACTION TO THE CONTINUING RUSSIA INVESTIGATION - He was angry because he felt nothing warranted it, (he was right in the end, he did nothing wrong, but he was wrong in that nothing warranted it) but to be angry at an investigation you don't think is warranted and to get sniped in the press over everything you do or say, pretty normal.

3. FIRING OF COMEY AND AFTERMATH - Well within his Presidential right, and even the reason HE GAVE, is up for interpretation.

4. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL AND EFFORTS TO REMOVE HIM - This might be legit considering McGann's testimony, but WANTING to be rid of someone and actually doing it, two different things...

5. FURTHER EFFORTS TO CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’s INVESTIGATION - This goes to Lewandoski's testimony about Trump wanting Sessions to say Mueller had conflicts etc, again, wanting, and doing, two different things.

6. EFFORTS TO PREVENT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE - Again, this has merit in the deleting of a line, lying by omission first of all, but again, WANTING stuff to stay private, and it staying, are two different things.

7. ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO HAVE SESSIONS TAKE CONTROL OF INVESTIGATION - Well ok, yes, he wanted his AG to control the investigation, again, WANTING and DOING separate things.

8. TRUMP ORDERS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO DENY THAT PRESIDENT TRIED TO FIRE MUELLER - Goes back to # 4, they seem to be borne of the same circumstance, probably legit

9. TRUMP’S ACTIONS TOWARD, FLYNN, MANAFORT AND OTHER POSSIBLE WITNESSES - This seems, arbitrary at best, he reached out to Flynn, a guy he liked, and said, he still had warm feelings, that's extremely insidious, right?

10. TRUMP ACTIONS TOWARD MICHAEL COHEN - That's a can of worms, praise to castigation, personal relationships etc, Trump felt betrayed (I am assuming) so he lashed out, kinda human I suppose...


At the end of the day, a lot of #1-#10 is based on WANTING and not ACTIONS......and like I said to begin, people who hate Trump, will look at that list and go OMG he's evil, people who like Trump, will look at that list, and go, meh, nothing there....and the truth is somewhere in the middle...

And nothing will change.
Click to expand...

I have not read all the relevant parts of the report and I do not want to answer all the points. I just want to point two things about the first two

1 If I recall well, Sessions said that Trump told him to leave so that Trump and Comey can talk in private. If my memory does not fail me, such action strengthens Comey's version of events. Also, Comey had no motive to lie and rather than see it as an issue of interpretation, one should see it as an issue of who is more credible

2. You make assumptions. You do not know what Trump felt! You only know what Trump said! You also do not know if Trump was correct. In fact, Trump could NOT know if anybody from his staff had illicit contacts of any kind with the Russians . It is therefore obvious that no reasonable person could be "angry" about the whole investigation and call it "witch hunt."

As for the wanting and action argument, it is difficult to make clear separation because Trump expressed his wanting very clear and it was his people who acted based on such wanting. The fact that we had cases of perjuries by multiple Trump associates could very well be the action that came as a result of Trump's expectations.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The problem Mueller had with charging obstruction is that there wss nothing to obstruct. There was no crime, Trump had said this for two years. And he was right.
The president is thus exercising his lawful authority.
No obstruction.
Click to expand...

Well, this is not a problem that Mueller felt he had according to the quotes I read You just put Barr's words in Mueller's mouth!

or to put it different,

If the next president is a Democrat, and decides to investigate Trump again having Mueller under a "blue" AG, Mueller does not seem to have any constitutional problem with bringing a criminal charge of obstruction of justice against a former president.
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
Well, this is not a problem that Mueller felt he had according to the quotes I read You just put Barr's words in Mueller's mouth!
Click to expand...

What I mean is that there was nothing Mueller could say was obstruction. Hence the problem he had.
 
Athanasius68 said:
What I mean is that there was nothing Mueller could say was obstruction. Hence the problem he had.
Click to expand...

I say there was no obstruction of Justice charge that Mueler could bring because he was part of the executive branch and accepted the OLC view that the DOJ cannot go after a sitting president. This is what I get from the first quote I read

Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.
 
pamak said:
I say there was no obstruction of Justice charge that Mueler could bring because he was part of the executive branch and accepted the OLC view that the DOJ cannot go after a sitting president. This is what I get from the first quote I read

Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

That's a different issue.
 
pamak said:
I have not read all the relevant parts of the report and I do not want to answer all the points. I just want to point two things about the first two

1 If I recall well, Sessions said that Trump told him to leave so that Trump and Comey can talk in private. If my memory does not fail me, such action strengthens Comey's version of events. Also, Comey had no motive to lie and rather than see it as an issue of interpretation, one should see it as an issue of who is more credible

2. You make assumptions. You do not know what Trump felt! You only know what Trump said! You also do not know if Trump was correct. In fact, Trump could NOT know if anybody from his staff had illicit contacts of any kind with the Russians . It is therefore obvious that no reasonable person could be "angry" about the whole investigation and call it "witch hunt."

As for the wanting and action argument, it is difficult to make clear separation because Trump expressed his wanting very clear and it was his people who acted based on such wanting. The fact that we had cases of perjuries by multiple Trump associates could very well be the action that came as a result of Trump's expectations.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding, blind, or both?

" You do not know what Trump felt! " EVERYONE KNEW WHAT TRUMP FELT, he tweeted it out for everyone, cmon man, stop being a partisan hack for ONCE in your life....

If you convicted people for WANTING something, that's a sad freaking world you live in.
 
dixon01767 said:
??? Comey corroborated the incident AND stated he doesnt believe it was obstruction.
Click to expand...

Hence, OTHER THAN COMEY in the piece that you quoted.....
 
pamak said:
I say there was no obstruction of Justice charge that Mueler could bring because he was part of the executive branch and accepted the OLC view that the DOJ cannot go after a sitting president. This is what I get from the first quote I read

Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Thats why special prosecutors and special counsels in the cases of President make reccomendations for impeachment as opposed to prosecution. Like Starr did and mueller did not.
 
trixare4kids said:
I demand to see what Schiff and Swawell found that Mueller obviously missed. ;)
Click to expand...

:lamo What Schiff and Swawell say they found does not exist in reality. Perhaps, if we could read their minds we could find the fantasy they cooked up in their dreamy lil' minds.

Roseann:)
 
sjmay said:
Are you kidding, blind, or both?

" You do not know what Trump felt! " EVERYONE KNEW WHAT TRUMP FELT, he tweeted it out for everyone, cmon man, stop being a partisan hack for ONCE in your life....

If you convicted people for WANTING something, that's a sad freaking world you live in.
Click to expand...

If you think that you can know how Trump really felt based on what he was saying and tweeted, I find it very naive!

And I did not say anything about convicting people for wanting something. You misrepresented what I said...I was talking about the case of giving clear messages regarding the expectations of conduct so that other people DO the things you WANT to do in order to disrupt an investigation.
 
pamak said:
If you think that you can know how Trump really felt based on what he was saying and tweeted, I find it very naive!

And I did not say anything about convicting people for wanting something. You misrepresented what I said...I was talking about the case of giving clear messages regarding the expectations of conduct so that other people DO the things you WANT to do in order to disrupt an investigation.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, then NOTHING HE SAID OR TWEETED, should be considered in obstructing justice....right?

Nothing he ASKED people to do should be considered either....right?
 
ajn678 said:
Why would I be sad? I get to watch a bunch of delusional people think there's a chance in hell that Trump will be impeached.
Click to expand...

Who said he's going to be impeached? He should be impeached and the Mueller report supports it, but with the current state of dishonorable Republicans it's less likely Democrats will try.

This is why it's important to read the report or else you end up having a low information opinion which is what has happened here.
 
dixon01767 said:
Thats why special prosecutors and special counsels in the cases of President make reccomendations for impeachment as opposed to prosecution. Like Starr did and mueller did not.
Click to expand...

I agree!

Of course, Starr had a higher level of freedom than Mueller, and a friendly House, so we do not know if Starr would have ben so brave under a pro-Clinton partisan AG and a Democrat "Nunes" in the House planning to attack in any way possible Starr's credibility!
 
sjmay said:
Fair enough, then NOTHING HE SAID OR TWEETED, should be considered in obstructing justice....right?

Nothing he ASKED people to do should be considered either....right?
Click to expand...

Wrong!

The fact that a President's words have power and affect people has nothing to do with how Trump really felt regarding the necessity of the investigation.
 
pamak said:
Wrong!

The fact that a President's words have power and affect people has nothing to do with how Trump really felt regarding the necessity of the investigation.
Click to expand...

Now you are contradicting yourself.....

You literally said you can't tell anything about Trump by way of his tweets...... (it's obvious, you can)

So when I say that, you say I am wrong...

You sir, are a partisan hack.
 
jmotivator said:
So the conclusion was that Trump was innocent of all the BS conspiracy charges that all the nitwits in media were sure were just around the corner? Cool.

Also, the Russians had a pretty busy BLM ad campaign as well, and promoted Bernie, and "Back the Blue" and the 2A... pretty much whatever we Americans are fighting about the most the Russians are placing ads. It's Russia.

Also, most of the busiest ad buy period, and by FAR the most interest in the ads came after the election, soooo...

As I have been trying to tell you people for two years, the goal of the Russian ad scam was to divide the US, and they succeeded... Democrats and their supporters were the hooked fish. To THIS day the Russian ad scam is still working on Democrats and their supporters, feeding their reckless, ignorant crusade to unseat the President.
Click to expand...

Not innocent, just that there wasn't enough evidence. For criminal/legal standings people are presumed innocent unless evidence can be shown to the contrary. So the conclusion isn't that he's innocent, just that they didn't think there was enough evidence to demonstrate direct involvement in Russia's plot to get Trump elected. So I guess as much as you can say OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron, Trump didn't collude.

The Russians did certainly succeed in dividing America, there has been no President more divisive than Trump. But I've maintained for some time that we can get him out in 2020 or 2024, and if the Dems are interested in getting him out of office, their best efforts are spent finding a smart candidate. But we will see.
 
sjmay said:
Now you are contradicting yourself.....

You literally said you can't tell anything about Trump by way of his tweets...... (it's obvious, you can)

So when I say that, you say I am wrong...

You sir, are a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

I said that you cannot arrive at conclusions about Trump's FEELINGS based on what Trump was tweeting or saying.

The issue that a president's words have power is common knowledge to anybody who has even a basic course in managerial skills for his job. Do not tell me that a businessman like Trump could not know that when a figure of authority asks nicely a subordinate to do something could not sound as an order to do so!
 
Ikari said:
Not innocent, just that there wasn't enough evidence. For criminal/legal standings people are presumed innocent unless evidence can be shown to the contrary. So the conclusion isn't that he's innocent, just that they didn't think there was enough evidence to demonstrate direct involvement in Russia's plot to get Trump elected. So I guess as much as you can say OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron, Trump didn't collude.

The Russians did certainly succeed in dividing America, there has been no President more divisive than Trump. But I've maintained for some time that we can get him out in 2020 or 2024, and if the Dems are interested in getting him out of office, their best efforts are spent finding a smart candidate. But we will see.
Click to expand...

Or in the case of Jared and Don Junior, the special council did not think that he could convince a jury that that either of them was intelligent enough to understand that their actions were illegal.
 
Fletch said:
Alright, I will concede that. But continuing to believe A when an exhaustive search turned up no evidence of the existence of A, means you defending an arbitrary assertion. The likelihood that some sort of criminal activity took place between Trump an/or his campaign and the Russians, and Mueller wasnt able to find it, is zero. If I accuse you of a crime for which I have no evidence. That crime is investigated and they find no evidence of your envolvement or even that the crime itself even happened, do you not get to declare yourself innocent of the charge?
Click to expand...

Indeed you do. Mind you, I have never been of the opinion that either Mr. Trump or "Team Trump" SPECIFICALLY AND DIRECTLY "colluded/conspired" with the Russians.

What Mr. Mueller's report DOES DO is establish:


  1. that the Russians DID "inter-meddle" in the 2016 elections;
  2. BOTH Mr. Trump and "Team Trump" WERE aware that the Russians were inter-meddling in the 2016 elections;
  3. NEITHER Mr. Trump nor "Team Trump" were aware of the details or extent of the Russian inter-meddling in the 2016 elections;
  4. members of "Team Trump" DID provide the Russians with information that they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, were useful to the Russian inter-meddling in the 2016 elections;
  5. BOTH Mr Trump and "Team Trump" were more than willing to accept the benefits of the Russian inter-meddling in the 2016 elections;
  6. NEITHER Mr. Trump nor "Team Trump" took any steps to hinder Russian inter-meddling in the 2016 elections;
  7. the INTENT of both Mr. Trump and "Team Trump" was to secure the election of Mr. Trump to the office of President of the United States of America;
  8. attempting to secure the election of a specific person to the office of President of the United States of America is NOT a "criminal act"; and
  9. the Russians "played" both Mr. Trump and "Team Trump" like an expert angler who has hooked a 10 pound trout.


Although I don't like either option, I would be "happier" (i.e. "less miserable") to see a situation where a competent person was actually a part of a nefarious scheme to secure election specifically for personal financial gain than I would be with a situation where an incompetent buffoon (and a bunch of "useful idiots") was manoeuvred into power by interests inimical to the stated goals and aspirations of the United States of America. AT least one of those options has been eliminated.
 
pamak said:
I said that you cannot arrive at conclusions about Trump's FEELINGS based on what Trump was tweeting or saying.

The issue that a president's words have power is common knowledge to anybody who has even a basic course in managerial skills for his job. Do not tell me that a businessman like Trump could not know that when a figure of authority asks nicely a subordinate to do something could not sound as an order to do so!
Click to expand...

I think what eludes you is that, had Trump pushed the issue past saying, 'Hey Buddy, can ya drop this crap?', after the answer was obviously 'No.' then maybe. But not as things actually transpired. You may agree or disagree with what Trump wanted...but you can't prosecute people for voicing their desires. Hence no crime.
 
Buzz62 said:
I think what eludes you is that, had Trump pushed the issue past saying, 'Hey Buddy, can ya drop this crap?', after the answer was obviously 'No.' then maybe. But not as things actually transpired. You may agree or disagree with what Trump wanted...but you can't prosecute people for voicing their desires. Hence no crime.
Click to expand...
A very good argument for not becoming educated. Where did this standard come from? We were all taught ignorance of the law is not a defense.
 
Plus Ultra said:
Buried in footnote 745 (page 120), Mueller’s Report crushes last remaining MSM "collusion" hopes centered on June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting involving Donald Trump Jr:

Mueller's report makes no reference to the involvement of Fusion GPS in the Trump tower meeting, but the Russian attorney involved in it, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was a Fusion GPS associate and met with founder Glenn Simpson before and after the Trump Tower meeting, why didn’t Mueller look into that? The Report also notes Veselnitskaya's work for Prevezon, which was charged with money laundering and sanctions violations, yet fails to note that Clinton campaign contractor Fusion GPS was working for her and Prevezon on that issue. How does a collusion investigation miss that?

This meeting was supposed to be the best evidence of collusion; Junior was meeting up with this Russian government attorney to negotiate over sanctions in exchange for promised “dirt” on Hillary! The DNC reported their hack about 10 days before the meeting, I’d expect Junior thought he’d be offered the hacked DNC material, what “dirt” did the Russian lawyer have? She offered records of wire transfers from Russia to accounts related to Hillary’s campaign, but said Trump’s team would need to investigate these for any illegalities. She said the Russian banking authorities deemed the transactions a tax evading capital flight exercise, but she figured they’d be illegal foreign campaign contributions which could be of interest smearing Hillary. Junior wasn’t interested and left, the Russian lawyer tried to persuade those who remained that Trump should try to get the Magnitsky Act repealed. There was no deal.
Click to expand...

Just One Mention of the - Steele Dossier - is very strange.Ask yerself why is that.
Probably because it's the virtual lynchpin in this entire effort to spy on Trump and
leak to the Media and Sensationalize.Using a Corrupt Mainstream media as a go to
5th column in order to play Yellow Journalism.There is no debate about that.
We the People had to endure it.A Duly elected sitting President had to put up with it
come hell or high water.Using this Obama-syled Media as a sort of Politburo.
Not just daily but hourly.Even on the weekends.And the Holidays.
Kinda like the way the A$$klown Obama ran around for weeks making a spectacle over
what instigated the Benghazi Attack.
He just Lied.Had all his White House merry men lie as well.Took that Lie to
the United Nations.However,strangely enough not once did this CORRUPT MSM even
hint at Interviewing this A$$klown Obama as to what he was doing during the Benghazi attack.
Or how he tried his best to shield His AG { Eric Holder } by using executive Priviledge to
keep his Holder communications from being read.
The exact opposite of what President Trump did.Trump never used any executive Priviledge.
Handed over to this Mueller mug everything.This Mueller Report was too long.It was made
and presented as a way to Keep the pressure On a sitting President.Paving the way for
House Democrats to go after this President with full steam.Almost pointing to the ways
it can proceed.

" nowadays to be intelligible is to be found out " -- Oscar Wilde
 
pamak said:
In other words, you missed the first quote which shows that Mueller accepted the OLC's position that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, which shows that there WOULD be a problem for Mueller to charge a sitting president with obstruction of Justice

this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.

and you missed the third quote which shows the "but"

Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
Click to expand...

An interesting thought arises from that sentence.

Why would the phrase "corrupt exercise of the powers of office" be included if the investigators had NOT concluded that there was (at least) an "arguable case" to be made out that someone had indulged in a "corrupt exercise of the powers of office"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom