• 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 finding on obstruction confusing to everyone but a lawyer!

Athanasius68 said:
Because Mueller wants to argue that a president exercising his legal authority can be obstructing justice when there is no crime for underlying.

Barr correctly recognised that this means that a prosecutor making routine decisions (adjusting personnel, investigative choices ECT) could be open to claims that those decisions are based upon obstruction.
The same would be true for future presidents.
Click to expand...

That is not what Mueller is stating. Mueller is stating that:
- he could not prosecute a sitting President based on the Justice Dept policy regarding Indicting a sitting President
- he is stating that he was unable to garner evidence of Trump's state of mind and therefore his intent. If his intent was criminal and corrupt then he was NOT exercising his "legal" authority.

That would be the President abusing his power. Nobody in this country is above the law.
 
jnug said:
Mueller hadn't the means to prove State of Mind. He needed to Interview Trump for that and he didn't get that opportunity. That is one of the key standards for Obstruction as a crime. The Prosecutor has to have some evidence of State of Mind. Mueller had none.

Plus Mueller has made it clear that he did not think he could or should breach the Justice Dept Policy on Indicting a sitting President (in contradiction to Barr's lie on that very topic).

The House does not need State of Mind for an Impeachment proceeding.
Click to expand...
Ah people forget the obvious. The President can be obstructing justice, and doing so intentionally, as long as the crime was NOT COLLUSION. What if Trump was more worried about OTHER charges that have not finished their investigations and were not directly under Muellers purview, such as the very crimes Mueller asked the Manhatten office to investigate themselves including campaign finance law, fraud, and tax evasion. We can't conclude that there was no obstruction because there was no collusion, if there are other crimes out there that first Comey, then Mueller were closing in on.


That's the thing about Trump's possible illegalities. There may be some behind Door #2 or Door #3, even if Door #1 leads nowhere.

I think that is why Mueller left this one blank. He can't possibly know what the Manhatten office may find sufficient evidence for on which the obstruction charge may successfully lean.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
The Steele Dossier.
Click to expand...

JUST SPIT IT OUT WILL YA'

If you are referring to Carter Page, the FBI had been following Page for years before this whole dust up for passing documents to Russians. The Steele Dossier was raw intel which never forms the actual basis for any FISA Warrant.
 
jnug said:
That is not what Mueller is stating. Mueller is stating that:
- he could not prosecute a sitting President based on the Justice Dept policy regarding Indicting a sitting President
- he is stating that he was unable to garner evidence of Trump's state of mind and therefore his intent. If his intent was criminal and corrupt then he was NOT exercising his "legal" authority.

That would be the President abusing his power. Nobody in this country is above the law.
Click to expand...

There was NO crime to prosecute.
Mueller is talking about obstruction in that which is cited.

Mueller cited Trump's intent; he was worried that appointing an SC would mean his administration was "f*****". Otherwise, Trump was cooperative
 
btthegreat said:
Ah people forget the obvious. The President can be obstructing justice, and doing so intentionally, as long as the crime was NOT COLLUSION. What if Trump was more worried about OTHER charges that have not finished their investigations and were not directly under Muellers purview, such as the very crimes Mueller asked the Manhatten office to investigate themselves including campaign finance law, fraud, and tax evasion. We can't conclude that there was no obstruction because there was no collusion, if there are other crimes out there that first Comey, then Mueller were closing in on.


That's the thing about Trump's possible illegalities. There may be some behind Door #2 or Door #3, even if Door #1 leads nowhere.
Click to expand...

There does not actually have to be any underlying crime for a case for Obstruction to be made nor an underlying Collusion nor underlying Coordination.

The problem in trying to make a case of Obstruction against Trump where the President does have Executive Authorities is whether or not he was exercising his executive authorities "legally" or if he was exercising executive authorities criminally and corruptly which would then make his actions Abuses of Power as opposed to legal exercises of Executive Authority.
 
jnug said:
JUST SPIT IT OUT WILL YA'

If you are referring to Carter Page, the FBI had been following Page for years before this whole dust up for passing documents to Russians. The Steele Dossier was raw intel which never forms the actual basis for any FISA Warrant.
Click to expand...

The point is that was used. Unverified ECT -- you know the drill.
At a time when the Obama Admin KNEW that Russia was trying to screw with the election, they used such documents. Was that less stupid and idiotic than a bunch of political neophytes being conned by Russian spies? I don't think so.
 
Athanasius68 said:
There was NO crime to prosecute.
Mueller is talking about obstruction in that which is cited.

Mueller cited Trump's intent; he was worried that appointing an SC would mean his administration was "f*****". Otherwise, Trump was cooperative
Click to expand...

Read the Report. Mueller specifically states that he could not establish intent. Wake me up when you stop talking in riddles. Its boring frankly.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It used to be that Mueller took on and beat the mob; he wasnt worried about the orange guy. Now it's he beat a retreat from him.

What Mueller really retreated from is a stronger argument from Barr, one that protects the long-term interests of the DOJ and future presidents.
Click to expand...


Hardly. Barr has lost his way. That is clear.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The point is that was used. Unverified ECT -- you know the drill.
At a time when the Obama Admin KNEW that Russia was trying to screw with the election, they used such documents. Was that less stupid and idiotic than a bunch of political neophytes being conned by Russian spies? I don't think so.
Click to expand...


"They"....don't you mean the FBI was using Steel who was using his Russian Contacts from having worked the Russia Desk for MI-6 for 17 years? Steele's entire value to the FBI springs from having been a British Intelligence Officer for 17 years. Intelligence Officers cultivate AGENTS, often agents resident within their target State, in Steele's case Russia. Its what they do.

What do you think a British Intelligence Officer does, drop guys in Derby's carrying umbrellas and a London Times into their target country and hope they come out alive?
 
jnug said:
Comey was bounced out of the FBI soon after Mueller got started. Somebody needs to ask Comey what he thinks today.
Click to expand...

He said that right in the middle of it all. There would be no better time to for him to answer it then when it was asked at that time. Your making something up later doesn't float.
 
Fishking said:
He said that right in the middle of it all. There would be no better time to for him to answer it then when it was asked at that time. Your making something up later doesn't float.
Click to expand...

In the middle of what? Comey did not have access to anything after he was dumped on his butt and out of the FBI. Somebody should ask him today, now that the Report is out. Comey did not have much more to base his opinion on than we did....UNTIL TODAY.

Comey was fired BEFORE the Special Counsel was even named. I am not making anything up. i don't know what you are doing.
 
jnug said:
"They"....don't you mean the FBI was using Steel who was using his Russian Contacts from having worked the Russia Desk for MI-6 for 17 years? Steele's entire value to the FBI springs from having been a British Intelligence Officer for 17 years. Intelligence Officers cultivate AGENTS, often agents resident within their target State, in Steele's case Russia. Its what they do.

What do you think a British Intelligence Officer does, drop guys in Derby's carrying umbrellas and a London Times into their target country and hope they come out alive?
Click to expand...

Steele himself doesn't know from where the Russian sources of information he received originated. Do we assume they were legit? Seems kind of foolish amd idiotic to have done so- at a time when it was known by the government that Russia wss seeking you screw with the election.
 
jnug said:
There does not actually have to be any underlying crime for a case for Obstruction to be made nor an underlying Collusion nor underlying Coordination.

The problem in trying to make a case of Obstruction against Trump where the President does have Executive Authorities is whether or not he was exercising his executive authorities "legally" or if he was exercising executive authorities criminally and corruptly which would then make his actions Abuses of Power as opposed to legal exercises of Executive Authority.
Click to expand...
You are technically correct, but prosecutors do not waste a lot of time and resources prosecuting those cases, when it is doubly hard to get a jury interested with a 'ghost' of an underlying charge and intent is even harder, when defense argues that defendant 'knew all along' there was no underlying charge to be afraid of. They just point out he apparently was right!. its almost never prosecuted under those circumstances. Your second point is well taken, though. Big picture, I really think Mueller did the right thing not to speculate in an area of constitutional law where he and his direct superior may have been completely at odds and the Manhattan office could do a far better job, later and more thoroughly than he could. Their case, if there is one, will definitely have a road map for obstruction sitting in their laps.
 
Last edited:
Grokmaster said:
It is available to BE READ YOURSELF....but firing Comey CAN NOT BE OBSTRUCTION, because NOTHING WAS OBSTRUCTED...and any President can fire any FBI Director for ANY REASON, or NO REASON.

TALKING ABOUT FIRING Mueller, Rosenstein, WHOEVER, is NOT "Obstruction" either.



https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Click to expand...

According to the report, trump not only asked white house officials to fire Mueller, but he asked them to lie about it - why would anyone have to lie about trump wanting to fire Mueller if trump was "well within his rights to do it".
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I’ll wait until I read the whole report before I comment much on specifics but from pg 256 of the report:

White House counsel Don McGahn received a phone call at home from Trump on June 17, 2017. Trump directed McGahn to call Rosenstein and tell him Mueller "had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn refused and said he would "rather resign than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre."

If Obama had passed along an order to have someone appointed to investigate him removed I would call that obstruction of justice. Whether it should lead to impeachment is a separate question.
Click to expand...

but the action wasn't carried out. there's no way that passes the legal scrutiny, because no action was taken.

even if it HAD been, there is a case for the fact that the president can hire and fire executive branch employees.
 
Grokmaster said:
Why? I would WELCOME SUCH DEMIDIOCY...as would the White House.

ESPECIALLY as the "Origins of the Witch Hunt" DOJ probe gets going....
Click to expand...

You mean, "the Oranges of the Witch Hunt".

You're welcome.
 
Moderate Right said:
Mueller was full aware that the report would be handed over to Trump's DOJ. If he felt there was enough evidence to prosecute then he would have indicted Trump .
[...]

.
Click to expand...


Apparently you did not read the report, Mueller specifically expressed he accepted the DOJ rule not to indict a sitting president ( I lost the link )
and thus the report is presented in that prosecutorial context.
 
Chomsky said:
The goal is removal. I believe it is far more likely at this time to find a simple majority of electoral college electors, than to find a supermajority of senators.
Click to expand...

I agree. If the democrats spend the next year working only on impeachment proceedings when it is obvious and clear that republican senators will never, ever vote to convict, all the democrats will have going into 2020 is "we did our part to get rid of Trump, but those damned republicans..." instead of "we prepared a comprehensive health bill, a long-range infrastructure revitalization plan, a tax restructure that can provide funding without increasing deficits, but those damned republicans..."

Guess which statements are more likely to bring in massive democratic votes, lol.
 
jnug said:
Mueller hadn't the means to prove State of Mind. He needed to Interview Trump for that and he didn't get that opportunity. That is one of the key standards for Obstruction as a crime. The Prosecutor has to have some evidence of State of Mind. Mueller had none.

Plus Mueller has made it clear that he did not think he could or should breach the Justice Dept Policy on Indicting a sitting President (in contradiction to Barr's lie on that very topic).

The House does not need State of Mind for an Impeachment proceeding.
Click to expand...

Mueller report: what you actually need to know, explained - Vox

For instance, Mueller writes that Trump “repeatedly” asked people associated with his campaign to “find” tens of thousands of emails Hillary Clinton had deleted, and that campaign adviser Michael Flynn embarked on an (unsuccessful) effort to do so. The special counsel also describes how Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort gave a Russian associate internal polling data and stressed a focus on Midwestern states. And the report’s volume on obstruction of justice lays out facts about Trump’s behavior on 11 different episodes, from FBI Director James Comey’s firing to his efforts to intimidate one-time Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.
Click to expand...

C'mon man! trump's a guilty ****. Our AG has squandered his reputation for what? A guaranteed show on Faux Noose?

Our president called the Mueller team, "dirty cops"! He sounds like Mob Boss.

Wake up, man!
 
Moderate Right said:
Mueller was full aware that the report would be handed over to Trump's DOJ. If he felt there was enough evidence to prosecute then he would have indicted Trump . Mueller obviously felt that there just wasn't enough evidence to indict. If he was afraid Barr would have whitewashed the report he would have come to a conclusion. The report left the conclusion up to the DOJ.
Click to expand...

No. In fact Mueller said just the opposite, that since the OSC accepts Justice Dept. policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, that an accusation of a crime when the defendant (Trump) would not be allowed to defend himself at trial would be unfair. Mueller specifically laid out the facts of the case which could be used (A) by congress, in their oversight capacity; or (B) by prosecutors when Trump leaves office.
 
DiAnna said:
I agree. If the democrats spend the next year working only on impeachment proceedings when it is obvious and clear that republican senators will never, ever vote to convict, all the democrats will have going into 2020 is "we did our part to get rid of Trump, but those damned republicans..." instead of "we prepared a comprehensive health bill, a long-range infrastructure revitalization plan, a tax restructure that can provide funding without increasing deficits, but those damned republicans..."

Guess which statements are more likely to bring in massive democratic votes, lol.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that the Dems are not ignoring Heathcare or Infrastructure. As for deficits. Nobody can get voters to care. Does not matter what side of the aisle they sit on...nobody can get voters to care.

The Dems can do both. Whatever Oversight is engaged in for a long while will be restricted to the appropriate committees. An full House impeachment vote is not in the offing if they started proceedings tomorrow.
 
jnug said:
Seems to me that the Dems are not ignoring Heathcare or Infrastructure. As for deficits. Nobody can get voters to care. Does not matter what side of the aisle they sit on...nobody can get voters to care.

The Dems can do both. Whatever Oversight is engaged in for a long while will be restricted to the appropriate committees. An full House impeachment vote is not in the offing if they started proceedings tomorrow.
Click to expand...

At this point impeachment hearings would be great political theater, but would further divide the country and it's democrats, not republicans, who would pay the price at the ballot box, in my opinion.

OTOH, once the House Judiciary Committee gets un-redacted copies and conducts its own investigation, it may decide that the public needs to hear testimony on the extent of Trump's obstruction... like the times he threatened his staff trying to get them to commit obstruction on his behalf... and may dive right into impeachment. It's a coin-flip how the public will ultimately react; my two-cents is that the democrats would be playing with a land mind. I'm with Pelosi on this; I see nothing positive that can come of it, and a lot of potential disasters that could be unleashed.
 
jnug said:
Read the Introduction to Volume 1 of the Report. Mueller did not even look for Collusion for all the reasons many of us opined he likely would not before we even saw the report. So NO....that is not what Mueller stated in the Report. See post #35 in this thread for the exact language from the Mueller Report.
Click to expand...

no no no , I am talking about details further in.. also, the section you cite it DISTINCTLY says: "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the FRAMEWORK OF CONSPIRACY LAW, not the concept of collussion. in doing so the office recognized that the word "collude" was used in communications withthe acting attorney general, etc, etc... BUT COLLUSSION is NOT A SPECIFIC OFFENSE OR THEORY of LIABILITY found in the UNITED STATES CODE, etc, etc..

he is saying they investigated for CONSPIRACY because collusion is not a legally defined word or crime.

further in their introduction to volume 1 they state that "the investigation DID NOT establish that members of the trump campaign CONSPIRED or COORDINATED with the Russian government in its election interference activities. "

the collusion theory is dead... there MAY be an argument for obstruction, but it is somewhat thin in places. haven't finished reading yet though, so we'll see.
 
Grokmaster said:
Agreed. PLEEEEEEEEEASE DEMAND that the House IDIOT-O-CRATS start impeachment proceedings!!

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEASE.....
Click to expand...

That's your only hope, begging-meme. But only NEWT could be that stupid.:toilet:

But keep begging, grokkie, it's kinda sorta cute. Maybe. To a REALLY drunk sailor... Nah...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom