Muller on obstruction of justice

[j-mac]

That's the premise that current President ran on, in case you forgot. Except he actually deserves it...

:doh Oh come on...Are you Democrats really so thin skinned that only you people are allowed to use hyperbole on the campaign trail to rile up your crowds?

I hope not...

 

[Stealers Wheel]

it's within his right to fire the FBI Director, for ANY REASON.

Are you of the opinion that Trump can lawfully fire anyone at the DOJ for any reason? Including the purpose of obstructing justice? ANY REASON? If that is what you are saying ...

History says you are wrong. I refer you to something that is quaintly known as the "Saturday Night Massacre."

In that episode, no less than three people lost their jobs in one night, at the direction of the president. Robert Bork, Solicitor General, became acting Attorney General for Richard Nixon and carried out Nixon's order to fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox.

Why did Nixon want Cox fired? Because Cox had obtained a subpoena ordering Nixon to hand over recently discovered Oval Office recordings. Nixon would claim the firing was for 'insubordination.' These recordings later proved not only had the president known about and participated in the cover-up, but it made it clear that Nixon fired all these people in order to keep the tapes, which he knew to be incriminating, from coming to light. That, is by definition, obstruction of justice. A court later ruled, and was never reversed, that firing the prosecutor was illegal. In other words, firing someone in order to thwart an investigation is not within the purview of the president.

Furthermore, it was later revealed in Bork's posthumously published memoirs, that Nixon had held out an offer of nominating Bork to the USSC in order to get him to follow his firing directive.

No, the president cannot legally fire anyone for any reason.

 

[sjmay]

Are you of the opinion that Trump can lawfully fire anyone at the DOJ for any reason? Including the purpose of obstructing justice? ANY REASON? If that is what you are saying ...

History says you are wrong. I refer you to something that is quaintly known as the "Saturday Night Massacre."

In that episode, no less than three people lost their jobs in one night, at the direction of the president. Robert Bork, Solicitor General, became acting Attorney General for Richard Nixon and carried out Nixon's order to fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox.

Why did Nixon want Cox fired? Because Cox had obtained a subpoena ordering Nixon to hand over recently discovered Oval Office recordings. Nixon would claim the firing was for 'insubordination.' These recordings later proved not only had the president known about and participated in the cover-up, but it made it clear that Nixon fired all these people in order to keep the tapes, which he knew to be incriminating, from coming to light. That, is by definition, obstruction of justice. A court later ruled, and was never reversed, that firing the prosecutor was illegal. In other words, firing someone in order to thwart an investigation is not within the purview of the president.

Furthermore, it was later revealed in Bork's posthumously published memoirs, that Nixon had held out an offer of nominating Bork to the USSC in order to get him to follow his firing directive.

No, the president cannot legally fire anyone for any reason.

Trump can fire the director at the FBI for ANY REASON..... and....absent of an obvious crime....his action should be construed as lawful.....what you describe....isn't the same, you realize that right?

 

[Slavister]

:doh Oh come on...Are you Democrats really so thin skinned that only you people are allowed to use hyperbole on the campaign trail to rile up your crowds?

I hope not...

Hyporbole of locking up your opponents? Give me a break... you were the one who just complained about this in the post to which I responded. I will respond to you with your own words...

That would be a wonderful proposition in the effort to turn America into a Banana Republic....Yes, the precedent of locking up opposition politicians that we ideologically disagree with would be hailed as 'enlightened' by the rest of the despots, and miscreants in the world....:roll:

 

[ludin]

That's an outright lie. Mueller made no such specific referral. He pointed out in his report that Congress has the power and the right to adjudicate the President on the question of obstruction. He also pointed out that the President could be possibly liable to being criminally charged once he is no longer the President.

it isn't an outright lie.
the mueller report punted the obstruction and gave 0 opinion on the matter.

both Barr and Rosenstein looked at the evidence and both agreed that it did not confirm any obstruction.

 

[Atomic Kid]

it isn't an outright lie.
the mueller report punted the obstruction and gave 0 opinion on the matter.

both Barr and Rosenstein looked at the evidence and both agreed that it did not confirm any obstruction.

It is an outright lie and Mueller definitely gave an opinion on obstruction by pointing that if the evidence showed that he could clear the President of obstruction. He certainly would have done so. But in his opinion, given the evidence, he cannot exonerate the President of having obstructed justice.

 

[Obscurity]

LMAO, you literally said Trump directed his lackey's to obstruct...

This is one of the 10 items that Mueller looked into,

Are you in agreement that saying an investigation is unfair, is NOT obstruction?

There was nothing unfair about the investigation.

 

[ludin]

It is an outright lie and Mueller definitely gave an opinion on obstruction by pointing that if the evidence showed that he could clear the President of obstruction. He certainly would have done so. But in his opinion, given the evidence, he cannot exonerate the President of having obstructed justice.

No it isn't a lie. you need to learn to read what it says no what you want it to say.

He deferred the matter to the DOJ.

both Barr and rosenstein have looked at it and said there is not enough evidence to warrent obstruction.
you can continue to yell at clouds it isn't going to change facts.

the report offered no opinion and deferred the case to the DOJ.
the DOJ then cleared trump of any obstruction issues.

 

[Atomic Kid]

No it isn't a lie. you need to learn to read what it says no what you want it to say.

He deferred the matter to the DOJ.

both Barr and rosenstein have looked at it and said there is not enough evidence to warrent obstruction.
you can continue to yell at clouds it isn't going to change facts.

the report offered no opinion and deferred the case to the DOJ.
the DOJ then cleared trump of any obstruction issues.

Page 214 of the Mueller Report. Introduction to Volume II.

 

[ludin]

Page 214 of the Mueller Report. Introduction to Volume II.

View attachment 67255627

thank you for proving me correct.
it punts.

This report does not conclude that the president committed a crime.
by default if there is no crime then he is exonerated.

that last part is pure bull****. he is either guilty of committing a crime or he isn't.
since the report fails to say that he violated a law or that he obstructed anything.

it very easily could have read we find that the actions of the president were cause in violating
the obstruction laws.

it didn't. it says that this report does not conclude that the president has committed a crime.

if there is no crime he is exonerated by default.

sorry you don't like it not my problem.

 

[Atomic Kid]

thank you for proving me correct.
it punts.

This report does not conclude that the president committed a crime.
by default if there is no crime then he is exonerated.

that last part is pure bull****. he is either guilty of committing a crime or he isn't.
since the report fails to say that he violated a law or that he obstructed anything.

it very easily could have read we find that the actions of the president were cause in violating
the obstruction laws.

it didn't. it says that this report does not conclude that the president has committed a crime.

if there is no crime he is exonerated by default.

sorry you don't like it not my problem.

No your problem is illiteracy. He clearly stated in the last sentence in that passage it "DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM"

 

[Hypothetical]

No your problem is illiteracy. He clearly stated in the last sentence in that passage it "DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM"

right, it also doesn't charge him.... so what does he expect to happen next?

 

[ludin]

No your problem is illiteracy. He clearly stated in the last sentence in that passage it "DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM"

Sorry if there is no crime then you are exonerated.
that is the way it works.

maybe not in your country but i live in the US.

 

[Slavister]

Sorry if there is no crime then you are exonerated

... and therefore, following your logic, since Mueller did NOT exonerate him, there IS a crime. Mueller just was not allowed to say that, as he explained.

It's now up to Congress to convict him now or for future US attorney to prosecute him so after his term ends.

 

[ludin]

... and therefore, following your logic, since Mueller did NOT exonerate him, there IS a crime. Mueller just was not allowed to say that, as he explained.

It's now up to Congress to convict him now or for future US attorney to prosecute him so after his term ends.

no mueller never mentioned a crime. he said they could come to no conclusion. therefore they have 0 opinion on if he committed a crime.
if they cannot say what crime he committed then by default he is innocent. that is how our country works.

Correction mueller very much could have stated that given the information we obtained that the president was obstructing the investigation.

he didn't he came to no conclusion of a crime.
since there is no crime trump is innocent.

he cannot say he gives no opinion but then say he isn't exonerated.
that logically makes 0 sense.

his job was to find if the president violated obstruction laws.
he has 0 opinion if he did.

which by default means the president is innocent.

 

[Slavister]

he didn't he came to no conclusion of a crime. since there is no crime trump is innocent.

You keep repeating that. But that's obviously wrong. He did not give you a conclusion because he was not allowed to come to a conclusion. You keep talking about it as if he tried to look for whether he committed a crime but could not find one. But he clearly explained that was not the case. He was not allowed to look (as far as the President is concerned).

 

[Slavister]

Much of the report talks about very questionable behavior of the President, esp. when discussing obstruction of justice. It took me a while to find why no charges were brought but I found a nice 4 point summary on pages 213-214 (in Introduction to Volume II). Here is my summary of that Mueller summary:

1. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding 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." Mueller agreed with that opinion too.

2. Trump can be impeached or criminally prosecuted after his term ends. So, 'we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.'

3. It would be unfair to conclude in this document that Trump committed a crime without formally charging him (since Trump could not defend this before a judge)

4. if we had confidence of no obstruction, we would state so, but we can't and therefore, we do NOT exonerate Trump



In short, we are not allowed to say he committed a crime in this case but here we will document all his "interesting" activity for potential future case, and note that he can be prosecuted later or impeached now for it... and in case we are not clear, if we thought he were innocent we'd tell you but we are not telling you that... wink, wink

Mueller today reiterated what I said in the OP back on April 18.