• 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 testimony delayed by one week

MTAtech said:
There is no concept of blanket executive privilege. Mueller is also not covered by privilege since he doesn’t work for the executive any longer. Moreover, he issued a report on these matters which waives any privilege.
Click to expand...

Never said there was blanket executive privilege.
Nor is it true that nobody has testified before Congress over these types of issues.
Nobody is preventing Mueller from testifying.
The investigation was a executive in origin with no legal obligation to be revealed to Congress. Executive privlege has not been waived.
 
haymarket said:
To all rational people who have not become intoxicated on the Trump kool aid - yes, really.



First, Clinton obtained the info from an American company and was 100% legal. So it is NOT similar.

Second, This is this. This is not something else. This is this.

Deal with it and not some lame example of right wing whataboutism.
Click to expand...

Mr. Trump received NO information from Russian sources. That would also seem to be legal.

If we wish to condemn an American involvement in Russia's efforts, no matter how trivial, incidental and , then Mrs. Clinton also must come in for criticism.
And we must also question why the Obama Admin was so quick to use anonymous Russian sources at a time when it knew Russia was up to something.

It's not 'whataboutism' to point this out. It's weighing the evidence. And the evidence would seem that the most consequential interference in the election came from the dossier. And that wasn't from anything Trump did.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Never said there was blanket executive privilege.
Nor is it true that nobody has testified before Congress over these types of issues.
Nobody is preventing Mueller from testifying.
The investigation was a executive in origin with no legal obligation to be revealed to Congress. Executive privlege has not been waived.
Click to expand...
So, let me understand what you are saying: the executive branch formed an investigation to see if there was interference in the 2016 election, which the current executive won -- and further, whether there was assistance by the Trump campaign. Yet, the only people who would see the conclusion are the people who are being investigated.

Does that make any rational sense? Of course Congress has oversight authority in this matter. The fox doesn't investigate itself with only the fox reviewing the findings.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
Mr. Trump received NO information from Russian sources. That would also seem to be legal.

If we wish to condemn an American involvement in Russia's efforts, no matter how trivial, incidental and , then Mrs. Clinton also must come in for criticism.
And we must also question why the Obama Admin was so quick to use anonymous Russian sources at a time when it knew Russia was up to something.

It's not 'whataboutism' to point this out. It's weighing the evidence. And the evidence would seem that the most consequential interference in the election came from the dossier. And that wasn't from anything Trump did.
Click to expand...
That's contrary to what the Mueller report found.

Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.
source
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
So, let me understand what you are saying: the executive branch formed an investigation to see if there was interference in the 2016 election, which the current executive won -- and further, whether there was assistance by the Trump campaign. Yet, the only people who would see the conclusion are the people who are being investigated.

Does that make any rational sense? Of course Congress has oversight authority in this matter. The fox doesn't investigate itself with only the fox reviewing the findings.
Click to expand...

It's the law. There was no legal obligation to release the report.
Congress is free to investigate what they wish. Doesnt mean a president has to jump in obedience to it.
Checks and balances.
 
MTAtech said:
That's contrary to what the Mueller report found.
Click to expand...

And no disparaging information was received.
Moreover, Russia approached Trump.

Meanwhile, The Clinton campaign sought, and received, anti-Trump dirt from anonymous Russian sources.
And the Obama Admin used it as evidence in court proceedings and, it appears, in inttelligence assessments of the activities and intentions of Russia.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Alleged criminality-- which in any event is a prosecutorial (Executive) issue.
It's not just an issue national security. Presidents have a right to receive unfettered advice from advisors.
Click to expand...

Of course it is - when the prosecutor is allowed to do their job unimpeded.

What Trump is trying t do goes far beyond hearing advice. It involves potential criminality and unethical behavior and the cover up of that same activity and that is NOT protected by any invented claim of Executive Privilege.
 
j-mac said:
So, let me get this straight. Muller specifically that there was "No conspiracy or coordnation", but that like everyone else found that Russia tried to meddle, so, that means Trump was involved how again?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Report clearly outlines that starting with his public invitation to the Russians to help him and their affirmative response that very same day.
 
hanger4 said:
You made the claim, Mueller's report made no such determination, whether or not I, or you for that matter, read the report is irrelevant and a moving of the goalposts diversion on your behalf.
Click to expand...

There was no movement of the goalposts. It is completely relevant to Mueller laying out 10 cases that satisfy legal requirements for obstruction charges. In fact if it werent for DOJ policies, he would have a solid case against Trump. You really havnt read the report.
 
bomberfox said:
There was no movement of the goalposts. It is completely relevant to Mueller laying out 10 cases that satisfy legal requirements for obstruction charges. In fact if it werent for DOJ policies, he would have a solid case against Trump. You really havnt read the report.
Click to expand...

The AG and Asst. AG say otherwise and Mueller rendered no decision concerning OoJ. You stated he did, you were corrected.
 
haymarket said:
Of course it is - when the prosecutor is allowed to do their job unimpeded.

What Trump is trying t do goes far beyond hearing advice. It involves potential criminality and unethical behavior and the cover up of that same activity and that is NOT protected by any invented claim of Executive Privilege.
Click to expand...

That's the claim-- sure.
Lots of people can say lots of things. Doesn't mean it's true.
Doesn't mean the suspected had to roll offer.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It's the law. There was no legal obligation to release the report.
Congress is free to investigate what they wish. Doesnt mean a president has to jump in obedience to it.
Checks and balances.
Click to expand...

It's not the law. You're just making that up. How do I know? The Mueller report WAS transmitted to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The Justice Department has also made the report available to the public on its website here.
 
bomberfox said:
There was no movement of the goalposts. It is completely relevant to Mueller laying out 10 cases that satisfy legal requirements for obstruction charges. In fact if it werent for DOJ policies, he would have a solid case against Trump. You really havnt read the report.
Click to expand...

The DOJ policy has nothing to do with whether Mueller has a solid case against Trump. The policy has to do with whether it could be pursued (Barr had said Mueller could have recommended indictment notwithstanding the OLC ruling).
 
MTAtech said:
It's not the law. You're just making that up. How do I know? The Mueller report WAS transmitted to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The Justice Department has also made the report available to the public on its website here.
Click to expand...

That's right. But there was no legal obligation to do so. I believe it was Trey Gowdy who had recommended against it.
Politically, it was of course not possible not to release.
 
hanger4 said:
The AG and Asst. AG say otherwise and Mueller rendered no decision concerning OoJ. You stated he did, you were corrected.
Click to expand...

The opinion of Barr and his subordinate is irrelevant to the facts of the Mueller Report.

But them you knew that when you typed those words.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Because Mueller made no such claim.
Click to expand...

You base a positive statement of your own on no statement from Mueller? That is rather inventive of you.

Here is what you said

Quote Originally Posted by Athanasius68 View Post
Mr. Trump received NO information from Russian sources.
Click to expand...

So where are you getting this alleged statement of fact from or are you inventing it as I suspect?
 
Athanasius68 said:
That's the claim-- sure.
Lots of people can say lots of things. Doesn't mean it's true.
Doesn't mean the suspected had to roll offer.
Click to expand...

So let Congress do their job and not obstruct and impede it.
 
haymarket said:
The opinion of Barr and his subordinate is irrelevant to the facts of the Mueller Report.

But them you knew that when you typed those words.
Click to expand...

Just to emphasize:

In the hours after the public release of the redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller, President Donald Trump took to Twitter with a message that reads, in part, “NO OBSTRUCTION!”
That’s not at all what the Mueller report says, though.


“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
SOURCE
Click to expand...
 
hanger4 said:
Considering Mueller said;

) “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

then when what Mueller said about collusion is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The whole report was attempted to be rendered irrelevant by Barr''s loyalty to Trump rather than justice. Trump supporters played their part by claiming that only seeing a big, gray trunk sticking out is no indication that an elephant is in the closet.

How can justice ever prevail in such an atmosphere of deliberate ignorance? The Republican voters have decided that denial is the same as innocence. They have betrayed the fundamental principles we depend upon to keep power in check.
 
D_NATURED said:
The whole report was attempted to be rendered irrelevant by Barr''s loyalty to Trump rather than justice. Trump supporters played their part by claiming that only seeing a big, gray trunk sticking out is no indication that an elephant is in the closet.

How can justice ever prevail in such an atmosphere of deliberate ignorance? The Republican voters have decided that denial is the same as innocence. They have betrayed the fundamental principles we depend upon to keep power in check.
Click to expand...

"Justice" is in the hands of House democrats. And they aren't doing squat. So you can stop blaming Barr and republicans.
 
haymarket said:
The opinion of Barr and his subordinate is irrelevant to the facts of the Mueller Report.

But them you knew that when you typed those words.
Click to expand...

The AG and Asst. AG rendered their legal opinion as prosecutors, Mueller did not, which is the only question bomberfox and I are discussing.
 
haymarket said:
You base a positive statement of your own on no statement from Mueller? That is rather inventive of you.

Here is what you said



So where are you getting this alleged statement of fact from or are you inventing it as I suspect?
Click to expand...

And upon what statement do you make the contrary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom