• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

ImTheCaptain said:
republicans have lost their minds
Click to expand...

I wish they cared as much about actual injustice in our criminal justice system. They’re losing their minds because there was an investigation based on plenty of evidence that resulted in numerous indictments and jail time for several people.
 
PhDeac said:
I wish they cared as much about actual injustice in our criminal justice system. They’re losing their minds because there was an investigation based on plenty of evidence that resulted in numerous indictments and jail time for several people.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/senate-criminal-justice-bill.html

Meanwhile, the Mueller Investigation yielded an inversion in the burden of proof by stating that it couldn’t be proven that Trump didn’t commit a crime. Is that the standard we should apply to the accused? Trump signed the biggest criminal reform bill in ten years. Even Van Jones applauded. Perhaps you should read more and post less.
 
aocs3281 said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/senate-criminal-justice-bill.html

Meanwhile, the Mueller Investigation yielded an inversion in the burden of proof by stating that it couldn’t be proven that Trump didn’t commit a crime. Is that the standard we should apply to the accused? Trump signed the biggest criminal reform bill in ten years. Even Van Jones applauded. Perhaps you should read more and post less.
Click to expand...

The standards for a crime aren’t the same as the standards for impeachment or not voting for a president to get re-elected.

Either way, Trump would be indicted if he wasn’t president.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
republicans have lost their minds
Click to expand...

Haha. I barely even post here anymore because the left has collective Trump derangement. So much so though it is the left that is suggesting we start investigating people to find out if they did something. That’s crazy.

Ya’ll have lost it. I just lurk for the occasional laugh.
 
Wrangor said:
Haha. I barely even post here anymore because the left has collective Trump derangement. So much so though it is the left that is suggesting we start investigating people to find out if they did something. That’s crazy.

Ya’ll have lost it. I just lurk for the occasional laugh.
Click to expand...

Ya...this ain't it, chief.
 
PhDeac said:
The standards for a crime aren’t the same as the standards for impeachment or not voting for a president to get re-elected.

Either way, Trump would be indicted if he wasn’t president.
Click to expand...

First of all, Mueller directly refuted your last statement. He said that despite the ruling that the president can’t technically obstruct, if the evidence was there, they would disregard that ruling and pursue obstruction anyway. So hat is an incorrect statement.

Secondly, You realize the AG doesn’t recommend impeachment right? If the House wants to impeach they should do it. But that doesn’t have anything to with Barr. That is a congressional decision.

Trump is a scumbag but Barr seems to have handled this correctly. His job is to pursue crimes. Mueller could not prove a collusion crime and abstained from recommending an obstruction charge because the evidence was mediocre at best. Barr pretty much affirmed that in his recommendation and then released the entire report (other than redactions that were coauthored with Muellers team).

The Left getting way over their skis again.

Mueller report confirms Trump is a scumbag and doesn’t deserve to be president. It didn’t prove a crime. If house wants to impeach him, They should, they have that power if they have the votes. If the democrats want to use this against trump in 2020 they should, that is the political process. When the AG does his job and then releases the report in as much of its entirety as he possibly can, it’s a difficult sell that he is covering for the president. Seems to me he did his job and he did it well. Democrats just don’t like the fact that Trump didn’t technically commit any crimes.

You would figure they would be happy that mueller couldn’t convict our sitting president of collusion. (Shrug).
 
Coach O said:
Ya...this ain't it, chief.
Click to expand...

"The Evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal or political concerns"

That is exactly what that is stating. It is an ask to the FBI to investigate an individual to try and find something damaging to that person. Particularly the last phrase "that would give rise to personal or political concerns". That is some scary language. Not sure how you can get around that?

"The FBI should investigate Coach O, because by doing so they could potentially find some crimes, or perhaps find information that is personally or career damaging". - thats authoritarian crazy talk brother, and not the way we want our justice system to function.
 
"First of all, Mueller directly refuted your last statement. He said that despite the ruling that the president can’t technically obstruct, if the evidence was there, they would disregard that ruling and pursue obstruction anyway."

Pretty sure that's incorrect. If I remember correctly, Mueller said that due to DOJ regulations that state the sitting president can't be indicted it wouldn't be fair to charge a president who would have no forum in which to defend himself against the charges.
 
PhDeac said:
"First of all, Mueller directly refuted your last statement. He said that despite the ruling that the president can’t technically obstruct, if the evidence was there, they would disregard that ruling and pursue obstruction anyway."

Pretty sure that's incorrect. If I remember correctly, Mueller said that due to DOJ regulations that state the sitting president can't be indicted it wouldn't be fair to charge a president who would have no forum in which to defend himself against the charges.
Click to expand...

Barr testified under oath the following:

"Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting (March 5) in response to our questioning that he emphatically was NOT saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction. He (Mueller) said that in the future, the facts of the case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion but this is not such a case."

Summary - if we had real prosecutorial evidence that a sitting president was guilty of obstruction, we would throw out / step aside/ abandon the OLC precedent and proceed with charges anyway. The case against Donald Trump does not have the evidence basis to make that move.
 
Here is the article that I referenced the quote from by the way PH.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/01/ag-...r-not-saying-if-trump-obstructed-justice.html

I get the frustration...this has been building for so long and the accounts in the report show that Trump is exactly who we knew him to be: a petty, lying, backstabbing, emotionally unstable, unfit person for the president. I get it, and I agree with that. But that doesn't mean you throw out the rules of the justice system (ie: call for investigations to essentially blackmail their political career or to try and discover a crime that you aren't currently investigating). I firmly believe that if Mueller had the evidence to recommend obstruction or collusion, he would have done so. He spent a boatload of money, he took his time, and he investigated. In the end, he didn't have the evidence to move forward. Barr represented the facts of Mueller's case (Mueller admits so himself even though Mueller lamented that Barr didn't communicated the tone of his report, he admitted that Barr reported the facts accurately), and then he released all the facts that he was legally able to do (again - in consultation with Mueller who we know is not a Trump fan).

This is just a political swing and miss. Democrats should use all of this to drum up 2020 material, but if they get out over their skis it will continue to backfire on them.
 
Here's the wording:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...-section-suggests-if-trump-weren-t-ncna996176


Despite Barr's initial contention that Mueller declined to recommend prosecution of the president for obstruction because of difficult issues regarding his actions and intent, the decision was foreordained by Mueller's explicit adherence to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel's policy statement that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Mueller acknowledged that, as a department employee, he had to accept the legal conclusion of the department. Mueller concluded that, if his report even suggested that President Trump could otherwise face federal charges, that would not be fair because the president could never clear himself (as would happen if a jury found him "not guilty") since there would never be a trial.


Of course, that policy did not bar Mueller from exonerating the president, if that is what the facts warranted. He did not do that, saying the investigation "does not exonerate him."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top