Mueller Left Open the Door to Charging Trump After He Leaves Office

Atomic Kid said:

No, I think my response was entirely appropriate as stupid is as stupid does. Just calling as them as I see'em. FISA judges aren't inclined to suffer fools. They expect you to have to have all your ducks before you appear before them so as to not waste their time. Hard to conceive how an approved FISA application could be later deemed to have been illicit given the process.

Click to expand...

:doh. I hope nobody let's you near anything even remotely important.

humbolt said:

:doh. I hope nobody let's you near anything even remotely important.

Click to expand...

You mean anything remotely important to you? Yeah, I would guess you better hope so.

Atomic Kid said:

You mean anything remotely important to you? Yeah, I would guess you better hope so.

Click to expand...

Your comments on the operation of the FISA warrant process are hopelessly uninformed - flat out wrong, in fact. Ther is no investigative arm of the FISA court. That courts depends of the fundamental honesty of those who apply for warrants. Do you always just make crap up?

bubbabgone said:

That was what was meant by "... a negative position which is legally peculiar."
That's just not how things are done in the USA legal system.
"Guilty until proven innocent" is not how the saying goes.
Think about it a little.

Click to expand...

Everything to do with a sitting President is legally peculiar. Many paragraphs explaining that.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is about courts; not investigations.

"The conclusion that 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."

AncientGeek said:

Mueller says he cannot indict a sitting president. That is not spin.
Mueller says he cannot publish a conclusion of guilt about an unindicted person. That is not spin.
Mueller says if he believed the President was innocent, he would say so but because of the evidence he cannot say that. That is not spin.
You are spinning like a top.

Click to expand...

If Mueller can't publish a conclusion about guilt, why did he do it anyway? What does the equivalent of "no crime, but then again" mean?

"this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,"


You are desperate like many members of the New Democratic Party have been convinced to be.

Atomic Kid said:

No the second part that he cannot exonerate him is significant given the fact of that Mueller was constrained by the DOJ OLC's legal opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted and the lack of cooperation from the President in conclusively establishing his state of mind and intent. Even though he had opined that that the President's intent appeared to be readily apparent in a number of the possible incidents of obstruction that he cited in his report.

Click to expand...

The DOJ OLC's legal opinion was about indictment, not whether there could be a determination of a crime.
You're not the only one, but it's puzzling why some people here just refuse to see the distinction.
But all things considered, it's not that puzzling.

lurchadams said:

Frequently? There's only been one election that he actually lost, if you go by the popular vote.

Does the right-wing have any grip on reality at all anymore?

Click to expand...

Trump didn't actually lose the 2016 election. He won the most electoral votes. Oh, you're referring to the popular vote? Well, that's not how presidents are elected per The Constitution. Anyway, demanding the president with the most popular votes win an American election would be like a baseball team demanding they win because they have the most hits...:lamo Whatd'yaknow, baseball isn't democratic, either.

bubbabgone said:

The DOJ OLC's legal opinion was about indictment, not whether there could be a determination of a crime.
You're not the only one, but it's puzzling why some people here just refuse to see the distinction.
But all things considered, it's not that puzzling.

Click to expand...

I'm just hoping these folks aren't responsible for things like monitoring steam generator #3 at a nuclear power plant, or something similar.

AncientGeek said:

Everything to do with a sitting President is legally peculiar. Many paragraphs explaining that.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is about courts; not investigations.

"The conclusion that 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...

Right, but Congress isn't a law enforcement body.
The DOJ is, and a Special Counsel they designated was assigned to do an investigation to determine if crimes were committed.
Pertaining to the President, he (they) found none or he (they) would have said since so he (they) were under no constraints not to.
After all, that was his (their) job, wasn't it?

TU Curmudgeon said:

If your position is that "Mr. Trump DID NOT commit a crime BECAUSE he was not convicted of committing one.", then how can you say that Mr. Clinton DID commit a crime when he was NOT convicted of committing one"?

If it is your position that "Mr. Clinton DID commit a crime because he was "impeached" (read as "indicted") with respect to a crime, what is your position with respect to every other person who has ever been "indicted" for committing a crime but who was NOT convicted (and you can toss in those who WERE convicted but later exonerated when the real perpetrator was convicted)?



"Beating him in the next election" does fall into the "doing anything and everything they can to remove Trump" category - doesn't it?



QUESTION - Is it "What they ARE doing." or is it "What Mr. Trump's supporters are saying that they are doing."?

Click to expand...

Let me show you to the Conspiracy Forum. I can tell you where to go.

humbolt said:

I'm just hoping these folks aren't responsible for things like monitoring steam generator #3 at a nuclear power plant, or something similar.

Click to expand...

heh heh
"I was just cleaning up after the lunch break and yeah I saw the big blinking red light but my job is to clean up. It's Joey Fafatone's job to watch the lights and shut down the generator."

If a former president can be charged wth crimes, after they leave office, than this means Obama and Bill Clinton are also game. This is a trap for the Democrats. They are blinded by bias and hate, and are working to come up with a precedent to get Trump, after he is no longer president. Trump will use all their hard legal work, to apply this to the crimes of the Obama administration; spying and treason.

The obstruction narrative is a test and second chance for the Democrats. There is no sound legal basis for obstructing justice, if there is no crime. Self defense was used to obstruct injustice, not obstruct justice. Those who continue with the absurd legal angle, will single themselves out as unrepentant. Those who use some common sense and human decency will be spared.

The Democrats threw a sucker shot at an unprepared foe. Trump was staggered and went down to one knee, but he got back up. Now it is his turn to take his best shot. Unlike the Democrats, he will face them, eye to eye, and knock those who show no remorse and have no conscience into next Tuesday. My advice if is this is not your last ditch fight, to stay out of jail, go the other way.

cabse5 said:

Trump didn't actually lose the 2016 election. He won the most electoral votes. Oh, you're referring to the popular vote? Well, that's not how presidents are elected per The Constitution. Anyway, demanding the president with the most popular votes win an American election would be like a baseball team demanding they win because they have the most hits...:lamo Whatd'yaknow, baseball isn't democratic, either.

Click to expand...

Whatd'yaknow trump supporters echo trump's insecurity regarding how he barely squeaked by and won. Remember the margins Obama won by in '08 and '12? No wonder trump and his supporters are so bitter!

TU Curmudgeon said:

If your position is that "Mr. Trump DID NOT commit a crime BECAUSE he was not convicted of committing one.", then how can you say that Mr. Clinton DID commit a crime when he was NOT convicted of committing one"?

Click to expand...

Trump didn't commit a crime, the Clintons both did.

If it is your position that "Mr. Clinton DID commit a crime because he was "impeached" (read as "indicted") with respect to a crime, what is your position with respect to every other person who has ever been "indicted" for committing a crime but who was NOT convicted (and you can toss in those who WERE convicted but later exonerated when the real perpetrator was convicted)?

Click to expand...

No, he was on video committing his crime.

"Beating him in the next election" does fall into the "doing anything and everything they can to remove Trump" category - doesn't it?

Click to expand...

They've been trying to remove him since he won the election. I believe it was Maxine Waters calling for impeachment a couple of days after the election. No reason other than he won, and they lost. Screw the election process, right? (Except when they win, then it's okay).

QUESTION - Is it "What they ARE doing." or is it "What Mr. Trump's supporters are saying that they are doing."?

Click to expand...

They have no shame, it's clear what they are doing.

Atomic Kid said:

So you think it's possible to get a FISA warrant application approved with "nothing", never mind "next to nothing"? You really think the FISA court is in the habit of approving illicit applications? Have you any idea how stupid that line of reasoning sounds?

Click to expand...

No, I am not saying that, you misunderstand.

The fact that they got a FISA warrant proves that they were spying on the Trump campaign. That alone is enough reason to look into why they were doing that and not looking at Hillary also. Why was the current administration using the FBI to gather information on the opposing party?

They used the Hillary funded dossier to get the warrant. They told the judge that it was backed up by a news article saying the same thing. They deceived the judge by not telling him that the news article was not an independent back up and it was just based on the unverified, salacious (Comey's word) dossier.

Certainly more than enough reason to investigate. A SC was appointed to look into Trump for much less.

bubbabgone said:

Right, but Congress isn't a law enforcement body.
The DOJ is, and a Special Counsel they designated was assigned to do an investigation to determine if crimes were committed.
Pertaining to the President, he (they) found none or he (they) would have said since so he (they) were under no constraints not to.
After all, that was his (their) job, wasn't it?

Click to expand...

According to the DOJ, Congressional oversight is the only law enforcement for the President.
"The conclusion that 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."

Mueller found plenty of crime: George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Richard Pinedo, Thirteen Russian nationals and three businesses, including the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency, Alex van der Zwaan, Gene “Taxi King” Freidman, Konstantin Kilimnik, Twelve Russian intelligence officers, Michael Cohen, W. Samuel Patten, and Roger Stone.

Mueller could not say the President committed a crime:
"The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”"

"Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through an speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”"

However, Mueller can say:
“Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

ocean515 said:

If Mueller can't publish a conclusion about guilt, why did he do it anyway? What does the equivalent of "no crime, but then again" mean?

"this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,"


You are desperate like many members of the New Democratic Party have been convinced to be.

Click to expand...

If you want to pick just a few words out of Mueller's report, how about:

"the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office "

Anthony60 said:

No, I am not saying that, you misunderstand.

The fact that they got a FISA warrant proves that they were spying on the Trump campaign. That alone is enough reason to look into why they were doing that and not looking at Hillary also. Why was the current administration using the FBI to gather information on the opposing party?

They used the Hillary funded dossier to get the warrant. They told the judge that it was backed up by a news article saying the same thing. They deceived the judge by not telling him that the news article was not an independent back up and it was just based on the unverified, salacious (Comey's word) dossier.

Certainly more than enough reason to investigate. A SC was appointed to look into Trump for much less.

Click to expand...

FISA warrants are not granted to 'spy' on Americans. The purpose of FISA courts are to approve or deny warrants requested by the United States government for surveillance of foreign spies inside of the United States. That warrant requests and the intelligence gathering is generally done by federal law enforcement agencies or U.S. intelligence agencies. The authorization allows for wiretapping a "foreign power or an agent of a foreign power". Which could include American citizens suspected of acting as agents, or of being under the influence of a foreign power. The FISA warrant in question was in relation to Carter Page. Who was no longer a part of or associated with the Trump campaign at the time of the application. The so called 'dossier' did NOT account for any main part of the warrant application and was pretty much an addendum to it. The source of it and it's funding was sufficiently disclosed and identified to the court even if names of those who were not targets of warrant were redacted as per normal practices. But the judges knew who or which entities were behind it. Unlike some people currently in Washington they're not stupid. A SC counsel was appointed because the President's conduct in regards to General Flynn, his questionable personal interactions with and subsequent firing of Comey, his statements about the Russia investigation to Lester Holt and to the Russians he invited into the Oval office and his oddly fawning statements about Putin, taking his side over US intelligence and law enforcement, were by far more concerning than anything Carter Page could have possibly been doing.

Anthony60 said:

Trump didn't commit a crime, the Clintons both did.

No, he was on video committing his crime.


They've been trying to remove him since he won the election. I believe it was Maxine Waters calling for impeachment a couple of days after the election. No reason other than he won, and they lost. Screw the election process, right? (Except when they win, then it's okay).

They have no shame, it's clear what they are doing.

Click to expand...

The earliest reference to Maxine Waters expressing any opinion about impeaching Trump was mid April 2017 and by that time the hacking and Russian election interference discussions were full blown.

Do you know who said this and when?

"“This is about a person out of control .... He encouraged people to lie for him. He lied. I think he obstructed justice, I think there’s a compelling case that he has in fact engaged in conduct that [it] would be better for him to leave office than stay in office.”

bubbabgone said:

The DOJ OLC's legal opinion was about indictment, not whether there could be a determination of a crime.
You're not the only one, but it's puzzling why some people here just refuse to see the distinction.
But all things considered, it's not that puzzling.

Click to expand...

Mueller makes a reference to the OLC's legal opinion on page 214 of the report, Introduction to Volume II.

cabse5 said:

Trump didn't actually lose the 2016 election. He won the most electoral votes. Oh, you're referring to the popular vote? Well, that's not how presidents are elected per The Constitution. Anyway, demanding the president with the most popular votes win an American election would be like a baseball team demanding they win because they have the most hits...:lamo Whatd'yaknow, baseball isn't democratic, either.

Click to expand...

Just as a hypothetical question,


PLEASE NOTE, since that is a hypothetical question, "That did not happen." is NOT a responsive answer to it.

cabse5 said:

Let me show you to the Conspiracy Forum. I can tell you where to go.

Click to expand...

Did you know that your "response" does not actually address any of the questions that were actually asked?

I mentioned absolutely nothing whatsoever about anything even remotely resembling a "conspiracy" - unless you think that YOUR position is a conspiracy.

Second and 10.

Atomic Kid said:

The earliest reference to Maxine Waters expressing any opinion about impeaching Trump was mid April 2017 and by that time the hacking and Russian election interference discussions were full blown.

Do you know who said this and when?

"“This is about a person out of control .... He encouraged people to lie for him. He lied. I think he obstructed justice, I think there’s a compelling case that he has in fact engaged in conduct that [it] would be better for him to leave office than stay in office.”

Click to expand...

Did you now that quoting D_____ J___ T____ to the supporters of D_____ J___ T____ can be considered to be a violation of the BNBR rule?

AncientGeek said:

If you want to pick just a few words out of Mueller's report, how about:

"the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office "

Click to expand...

Yeah, well, much like the New Democratic Party's corrupt exercise of powers, in collusion with the MSM propaganda wing, context would be very important to the snippet you extracted.


But nice try, nonetheless.


Here is a bit more of the section involved, and from which you extracted your argument fail. That section was presenting "what if" scenarios regarding Constitutional Defenses. It is from the general section titled "Statutory and Constitutional Defenses". It isn't discussing guilt or innocence of President Trump. Maybe you weren't told that.

Heading the specific section you extracted your words from was this:


And the section you extracted your out of context quote from:



The key words to the whole investigation and report: this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime

ocean515 said:

Yeah, well, much like the New Democratic Party's corrupt exercise of powers, in collusion with the MSM propaganda wing, context would be very important to the snippet you extracted.


But nice try, nonetheless.


Here is a bit more of the section involved, and from which you extracted your argument fail. That section was presenting "what if" scenarios regarding Constitutional Defenses. It is from the general section titled "Statutory and Constitutional Defenses". It isn't discussing guilt or innocence of President Trump. Maybe you weren't told that.

Heading the specific section you extracted your words from was this:

Constitutional defenses. As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues.
​

And the section you extracted your out of context quote from:

Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that 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.​

The key words to the whole investigation and report: this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime

Click to expand...

I know what is in that section. I was just pulling some key words out of context like you do.