• 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!

4 key things to look for in the Mueller report once it’s released

MovingPictures

WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
12,844
Reaction score
10,484
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Here are my thoughts on some of these questions going around.

Mueller report: 4 key things to look for once it’s released - Vox

4 key things to look for in the Mueller report once it's released

1)Did Mueller conclude there was no collusion — or just that he couldn't bring a charge?
There's nothing illegal about people in Trump's campaign seeking dirt on their political opponents, so long as they don't ask anybody to break the law. It's incredibly corrupt, but it's not in violation of a law, unless proof of any campaign members giving a directive to any Russian nationals to break the law before hand could be established. I'll say right now, there's probably going to be no evidence of this in the report.

However, I suspect Mueller's report will find that Trump campaign associates Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Don Jr, Paul Manafort, and Peter Smith, all reached out to Russian operatives and hackers on the dark web to encourage the Russian's to leak - what they believed - were Clinton's lost State Department emails in their possession.

There will also be evidence that not only was the campaign warned of Russian meddling in the election, but they ignored those warnings and welcomed the help, while lying publicly about it, and under oath at times.

Illegal? No, unless they lie about it, otherwise it's just really, really corrupt.

2) Why didn't Mueller make a traditional prosecutorial recommendation on obstruction of justice?
Because most of the actions Trump took were a use of his presidential powers, Mueller was in not the authority to conclude when those powers meet the bar for a crime. That would be the job of Congress.

I'd also bet that Trump dodging a direct interview played a major factor in Mueller not being able to determine Trump's intent, thus the "this report does not exonerate him" line.

3) What did Mueller find out about obstruction of justice — and why do some on his team think it's worse for Trump than Barr let on?
A lot.

Tampering with his sons public statements, dangling pardons behind the scenes, asking Comey, Coats, Rogers, McCabe, and Sessions to control the investigation from damaging him, making loyalty requests related to the investigation, and firing people who refused to go along with this scheme.

I suspect the evidence is damning.

4) How much will Barr redact, and will he explain each redaction?
I doubt very much, but who knows with these Republicans. It's hard to imagine it adding up to more than a few pages.

Questions I would like to see answered.

How long did talks of a Moscow hotel go on in Trump world? Was it all the way up to the election as we've heard? That would be a real revelation.

What where Trump's answers to Mueller? Remember, even though Trump never sat down for a direct interview, he did answer questions related to Russian interference in the election, the Inaugural, the odd Ukrainian peace deal, and his talks of potential real estate deals in Moscow via written answers.

Though evidence of a crime was not revealed, the answers could be surprising confessions of corrupt conduct, because lying on those sworn statements would be perjury, and so this was the moment of 'truth time', where Trump's lawyers had need to come clean about corrupt conduct, that was never the less not a crime.
 
Here are my thoughts on some of these questions going around.

Mueller report: 4 key things to look for once it’s released - Vox

4 key things to look for in the Mueller report once it's released


There's nothing illegal about people in Trump's campaign seeking dirt on their political opponents, so long as they don't ask anybody to break the law. It's incredibly corrupt, but it's not in violation of a law, unless proof of any campaign members giving a directive to any Russian nationals to break the law before hand could be established. I'll say right now, there's probably going to be no evidence of this in the report.

However, I suspect Mueller's report will find that Trump campaign associates Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Don Jr, Paul Manafort, and Peter Smith, all reached out to Russian operatives and hackers on the dark web to encourage the Russian's to leak - what they believed - were Clinton's lost State Department emails in their possession.

There will also be evidence that not only was the campaign warned of Russian meddling in the election, but they ignored those warnings and welcomed the help, while lying publicly about it, and under oath at times.

Illegal? No, unless they lie about it, otherwise it's just really, really corrupt.


Because most of the actions Trump took were a use of his presidential powers, Mueller was in not the authority to conclude when those powers meet the bar for a crime. That would be the job of Congress.

I'd also bet that Trump dodging a direct interview played a major factor in Mueller not being able to determine Trump's intent, thus the "this report does not exonerate him" line.


A lot.

Tampering with his sons public statements, dangling pardons behind the scenes, asking Comey, Coats, Rogers, McCabe, and Sessions to control the investigation from damaging him, making loyalty requests related to the investigation, and firing people who refused to go along with this scheme.

I suspect the evidence is damning.


I doubt very much, but who knows with these Republicans. It's hard to imagine it adding up to more than a few pages.

Questions I would like to see answered.

How long did talks of a Moscow hotel go on in Trump world? Was it all the way up to the election as we've heard? That would be a real revelation.

What where Trump's answers to Mueller? Remember, even though Trump never sat down for a direct interview, he did answer questions related to Russian interference in the election, the Inaugural, the odd Ukrainian peace deal, and his talks of potential real estate deals in Moscow via written answers.

Though evidence of a crime was not revealed, the answers could be surprising confessions of corrupt conduct, because lying on those sworn statements would be perjury, and so this was the moment of 'truth time', where Trump's lawyers had need to come clean about corrupt conduct, that was never the less not a crime.

As long as William Barr is USAG the people will never know the truth.

I appreciate the time and effort that went into this post. But, as long as Trump has his Presidential Defense Attorney/Guardian of the Trump Family as USAG, nothing will ever come out of the Justice Department that isn't favorable to the WH.
 
As long as William Barr is USAG the people will never know the truth.

I appreciate the time and effort that went into this post. But, as long as Trump has his Presidential Defense Attorney/Guardian of the Trump Family as USAG, nothing will ever come out of the Justice Department that isn't favorable to the WH.
He doesn't have a choice in the matter.

If he redacts a significant amount the Judiciary can absolutely get the grand jury information themselves, then subpoena the full thing. However, I tend to doubt that makes up a significant amount of Mueller's report, as most of the interviews were 302's that, thanks to Jason Chaffetz, the Dems can demand from the DOJ now.
 
He doesn't have a choice in the matter.

If he redacts a significant amount the Judiciary can absolutely get the grand jury information themselves, then subpoena the full thing. However, I tend to doubt that makes up a significant amount of Mueller's report, as most of the interviews were 302's that, thanks to Jason Chaffetz, the Dems can demand from the DOJ now.

I'm pretty sure Republicans will just use the thoroughly tested method of telling the Democrats to **** off. You know the "Republicans make it up as they go along because Democrats are living pestilence" argument.
 
Here are my thoughts on some of these questions going around.

Mueller report: 4 key things to look for once it’s released - Vox

4 key things to look for in the Mueller report once it's released


There's nothing illegal about people in Trump's campaign seeking dirt on their political opponents, so long as they don't ask anybody to break the law. It's incredibly corrupt, but it's not in violation of a law, unless proof of any campaign members giving a directive to any Russian nationals to break the law before hand could be established. I'll say right now, there's probably going to be no evidence of this in the report.

However, I suspect Mueller's report will find that Trump campaign associates Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Don Jr, Paul Manafort, and Peter Smith, all reached out to Russian operatives and hackers on the dark web to encourage the Russian's to leak - what they believed - were Clinton's lost State Department emails in their possession.

There will also be evidence that not only was the campaign warned of Russian meddling in the election, but they ignored those warnings and welcomed the help, while lying publicly about it, and under oath at times.

Illegal? No, unless they lie about it, otherwise it's just really, really corrupt.


Because most of the actions Trump took were a use of his presidential powers, Mueller was in not the authority to conclude when those powers meet the bar for a crime. That would be the job of Congress.

I'd also bet that Trump dodging a direct interview played a major factor in Mueller not being able to determine Trump's intent, thus the "this report does not exonerate him" line.


A lot.

Tampering with his sons public statements, dangling pardons behind the scenes, asking Comey, Coats, Rogers, McCabe, and Sessions to control the investigation from damaging him, making loyalty requests related to the investigation, and firing people who refused to go along with this scheme.

I suspect the evidence is damning.


I doubt very much, but who knows with these Republicans. It's hard to imagine it adding up to more than a few pages.

Questions I would like to see answered.

How long did talks of a Moscow hotel go on in Trump world? Was it all the way up to the election as we've heard? That would be a real revelation.

What where Trump's answers to Mueller? Remember, even though Trump never sat down for a direct interview, he did answer questions related to Russian interference in the election, the Inaugural, the odd Ukrainian peace deal, and his talks of potential real estate deals in Moscow via written answers.

Though evidence of a crime was not revealed, the answers could be surprising confessions of corrupt conduct, because lying on those sworn statements would be perjury, and so this was the moment of 'truth time', where Trump's lawyers had need to come clean about corrupt conduct, that was never the less not a crime.

I suspect that, even if you DID get to see the entire report...unredacted...the answers to those "4 key things" will be disappointing to you.

But hey...keep your hope alive, eh?
 
As long as William Barr is USAG the people will never know the truth.

I appreciate the time and effort that went into this post. But, as long as Trump has his Presidential Defense Attorney/Guardian of the Trump Family as USAG, nothing will ever come out of the Justice Department that isn't favorable to the WH.

How sad is this simple truth.

How bad for democracy.

We are truly 3rd world in governing now.
 
How sad is this simple truth.

How bad for democracy.

We are truly 3rd world in governing now.

I wouldn't say that, to say that is to do a disservice to what is actually happening. It's really just elites stroking each other off.

Trump=coastal elite who is allowed flagrant law breaking because of status in society.
 
Here are my thoughts on some of these questions going around.

Mueller report: 4 key things to look for once it’s released - Vox

4 key things to look for in the Mueller report once it's released


There's nothing illegal about people in Trump's campaign seeking dirt on their political opponents, so long as they don't ask anybody to break the law. It's incredibly corrupt, but it's not in violation of a law, unless proof of any campaign members giving a directive to any Russian nationals to break the law before hand could be established. I'll say right now, there's probably going to be no evidence of this in the report.

However, I suspect Mueller's report will find that Trump campaign associates Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Don Jr, Paul Manafort, and Peter Smith, all reached out to Russian operatives and hackers on the dark web to encourage the Russian's to leak - what they believed - were Clinton's lost State Department emails in their possession.

There will also be evidence that not only was the campaign warned of Russian meddling in the election, but they ignored those warnings and welcomed the help, while lying publicly about it, and under oath at times.

Illegal? No, unless they lie about it, otherwise it's just really, really corrupt.

You lost me on why if he didnt break any laws its still corrupt to dig up dirt on the person your running against.

If your making stuff up i would agree its corrupt but if its honest than its just information that paints the person in an unflattering light.

Because most of the actions Trump took were a use of his presidential powers, Mueller was in not the authority to conclude when those powers meet the bar for a crime. That would be the job of Congress.
I somewhat agree with you here, but and its a big but, the DOJ does not work for Congress or report to them. Demanding the full report to be released is an overreach of their authority.

I'd also bet that Trump dodging a direct interview played a major factor in Mueller not being able to determine Trump's intent, thus the "this report does not exonerate him" line.

I think you may be exactly right on this. The only way to prove obstruction is to establish intent and Mueller can not say what Trumps intent was without asking him. He really has no choice but to not charge him.

Tampering with his sons public statements, dangling pardons behind the scenes, asking Comey, Coats, Rogers, McCabe, and Sessions to control the investigation from damaging him, making loyalty requests related to the investigation, and firing people who refused to go along with this scheme.

I suspect the evidence is damning.
Thats all speculation and even if any of those things happened you still need to show intent.

How long did talks of a Moscow hotel go on in Trump world? Was it all the way up to the election as we've heard? That would be a real revelation.
A revelation of what? That he wanted to build another hotel. Thats not a crime and there is no evidence of any quid pro quo

What where Trump's answers to Mueller? Remember, even though Trump never sat down for a direct interview, he did answer questions related to Russian interference in the election, the Inaugural, the odd Ukrainian peace deal, and his talks of potential real estate deals in Moscow via written answers.

Though evidence of a crime was not revealed, the answers could be surprising confessions of corrupt conduct, because lying on those sworn statements would be perjury, and so this was the moment of 'truth time', where Trump's lawyers had need to come clean about corrupt conduct, that was never the less not a crime.
Judging by Barr's testimony i think you may get your wish. He seemed to suggest he was only gonna redact information related to xharges involving private sectors people not public figures.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
1)Did Mueller conclude there was no collusion — or just that he couldn't bring a charge?


"Collusion" was not being investigated. Please stop using their word.
 
You left out the sound of the WAILING and GNASHING of the DEMLEFT RUSSIANISTA TEETH.....
 
Here are my thoughts on some of these questions going around.

Mueller report: 4 key things to look for once it’s released - Vox

4 key things to look for in the Mueller report once it's released


There's nothing illegal about people in Trump's campaign seeking dirt on their political opponents, so long as they don't ask anybody to break the law. It's incredibly corrupt, but it's not in violation of a law, unless proof of any campaign members giving a directive to any Russian nationals to break the law before hand could be established. I'll say right now, there's probably going to be no evidence of this in the report.

However, I suspect Mueller's report will find that Trump campaign associates Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Don Jr, Paul Manafort, and Peter Smith, all reached out to Russian operatives and hackers on the dark web to encourage the Russian's to leak - what they believed - were Clinton's lost State Department emails in their possession.

There will also be evidence that not only was the campaign warned of Russian meddling in the election, but they ignored those warnings and welcomed the help, while lying publicly about it, and under oath at times.

Illegal? No, unless they lie about it, otherwise it's just really, really corrupt.


Because most of the actions Trump took were a use of his presidential powers, Mueller was in not the authority to conclude when those powers meet the bar for a crime. That would be the job of Congress.

I'd also bet that Trump dodging a direct interview played a major factor in Mueller not being able to determine Trump's intent, thus the "this report does not exonerate him" line.


A lot.

Tampering with his sons public statements, dangling pardons behind the scenes, asking Comey, Coats, Rogers, McCabe, and Sessions to control the investigation from damaging him, making loyalty requests related to the investigation, and firing people who refused to go along with this scheme.

I suspect the evidence is damning.


I doubt very much, but who knows with these Republicans. It's hard to imagine it adding up to more than a few pages.

Questions I would like to see answered.

How long did talks of a Moscow hotel go on in Trump world? Was it all the way up to the election as we've heard? That would be a real revelation.

What where Trump's answers to Mueller? Remember, even though Trump never sat down for a direct interview, he did answer questions related to Russian interference in the election, the Inaugural, the odd Ukrainian peace deal, and his talks of potential real estate deals in Moscow via written answers.

Though evidence of a crime was not revealed, the answers could be surprising confessions of corrupt conduct, because lying on those sworn statements would be perjury, and so this was the moment of 'truth time', where Trump's lawyers had need to come clean about corrupt conduct, that was never the less not a crime.

A few points:

1. From the Mueller investigation, it's clear that Russians approached a PapaD or a Trump Jr, not the other way around.
The Trump campaign apparently did not receive Amy formal warning of Russian meddling until August 2016.
It needs to be stressed, if Trump contact with Russia was corrupt in some fashion, then the Obama DOJ using anonymous Russian sources as evidence in court is worse.

2. Congress doesn't prosecute crime. They don't determine whether obstruction occurred.

3. None of that stuff is obstruction.

4. He will redact that which he is legally required to: grand jury testimony and classified information. He said he will explain the rationale for each redaction. There is no reason to doubt him.
 
Back
Top Bottom