The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Please don’t do this

[TwiceHorn 31280]

59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I really think their ought to be something more definitive than Federal Regulations governing it.  There were a lot of legitimate criticisms of the old law, and it was revised a couple of times.  And any of them are probably going to raise separation of powers concerns.

Under I think all iterations of the old law, the Independent Counsel answered to a panel of judges and had to clear changes of scope with them.  The judges also decided whether and how much of the report to make public.

And on the Starr Report, they chose to let it all hang out, which was a decision subject to much criticism, both partisan and objective.  It's one of the reasons the current rule does not require full disclosure of the report, according to Neal Katyal.

It seems to me that maybe some laws addressing the periphery of it, like who gets the report and under what circumstances, could be done without a bunch of constitutional concerns.  But of course Congress would have to pass it and would probably try to overreach.

*there, damn

[jimmyjazz 45558]

3 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

“We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most all cases, be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in lengthy and detailed reports filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute,” Janet Reno, Clinton’s attorney general, told Congress at the time. “The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry.”

It doesn't all have to be made public.  It needs to be released to Congress.  Limit the full release to the Judiciary committees, and anyone with the appropriate security clearance who wants to see it, but otherwise, redact appropriate portions and release that version to the entire Congress.  This doesn't have to have anything to do with "the public".

[Enchubben 5509]

Just now, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Why, in your mind, don't Republicans want us, their employers, to see the full report?

What, in your mind, does Barr mean when he writes that the report does not exonerate the President?

Don't more than half of the republicans want the full report released?  I don’t think I’ve seen one person on here say they don’t want the report released. If anything it’s been complaints about the investigation and why it was allowed.

They’re in the process of redacting and removing the portions that can’t be released to the public and it will be out Mid April regardless, so we get to argue for two more weeks at a minimum.

He is summarizing the muller report findings with respect to collusion was my understanding. I would expect to see similar language in that report. Hard to call him guilty if they’re not going to indict him, no? Or are republicans guilty until proven innocent?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

❤️ Sally Yates

[TwiceHorn 31280]

22 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Schiff's response mirrors Nadler's:

 

House has levers to pull if WH continues to completely stonewall oversight:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I couldn't quite nail it down, quickly, but I thought Nadler's statement about grand jury material was an overstatement, and it appears that that is correct.

There have been a shit ton of special counsel investigations and I can't find anything that indicates that it's routine to give the grand jury evidence to anyone.

In Watergate, the grand jury itself asked Sirica to give certain of their evidence to the Watergate Select Senate Committee, "the roadmap."  Sirica did so and backed it up with an opinion, 46 years ago.  Judge Howell released it to the public just recently, citing Sirica's opinion.I don't see anything that says it's routine to do that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

4 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Hard to call him guilty if they’re not going to indict him, no? 

Due to current DOJ protocol, the only way to indict a sitting president is to impeach him in the House.  The Senate gets to decide whether or not to convict and remove from office.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31280]

Congress can subpoena the report, right now, if they want, and kick that process off.  Then it will be up to the courts.  The rest is jawboning.

Or, a private party can sue directly on FOIA type grounds.  I suppose the FOIA requests have already been made and may need to be responded to before that's ripe.

[bolverk 29399]

18 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Don't more than half of the republicans want the full report released?  I don’t think I’ve seen one person on here say they don’t want the report released.

1

I put up a poll to gauge support on this board.

[Chrispy 132]

6 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Why, in your mind, don't Republicans want us, their employers, to see the full report?

What, in your mind, does Barr mean when he writes that the report does not exonerate the President?

Some do and some don’t. It’s smart to err on the side of caution when it concerns classified information. 

That the evidence they currently possess does not rise to an obstruction charge. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Or the republicans can just release the damn thing and let everyone decide for themselves. They can put it on amazon like the Starr report currently is for sale. I bet they can fetch a whole lot more for it though, since the Starr report costs 99 cents. Maybe get one of trump’s friends another rub and tug as part of the proceeds.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Chrispy said:

Some do and some don’t. It’s smart to err on the side of caution when it concerns classified information. 

That the evidence they currently possess does not rise to an obstruction charge. 

Oh come on Chrispy troll. I should have expected this type of response from you, given that you are just simply trolling the board, but while we are at it, do tell us, why should the report not be released due to “classified information.” Since you have read the thing I figure you can give us all the greatness of your wisdom.

[Crusher 127]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Due to current DOJ protocol, the only way to indict a sitting president is to impeach him in the House.  The Senate gets to decide whether or not to convict and remove from office.

How many times do you have to read the letter to get this part through your thick skull? Direct quote from the Barr letter:

"Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President."

So, basically they are saying that they believe that there is not enough evidence in the Mueller report to indict not only the President but even me , you or a dog named Boo. The fact that Trump is the President does not factor in the decision.

If the House decides to try and impeach the President without an underlying crime I think they will have issues come 2020.

[bolverk 29399]

Should the Mueller Report be released poll?

 

[TwiceHorn 31280]

3 minutes ago, Crusher said:

How many times do you have to read the letter to get this part through your thick skull? Direct quote from the Barr letter:

"Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President."

So, basically they are saying that they believe that there is not enough evidence in the Mueller report to indict not only the President but even me , you or a dog named Boo. The fact that Trump is the President does not factor in the decision.

If the House decides to try and impeach the President without an underlying crime I think they will have issues come 2020.

We don't know what the report actually says.  Everyone is speculating.

[bolverk 29399]

13 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Some do and some don’t. It’s smart to err on the side of caution when it concerns classified information. 

That the evidence they currently possess does not rise to an obstruction charge. 

Take a stance and tell us what you think.

[Chrispy 132]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

We don't know what the report actually says.  Everyone is speculating.

Not Barr. 

[Crusher 127]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

We don't know what the report actually says.  Everyone is speculating.

Barr does. He and Rosenstein and however many other lawyers the DOJ has. Apparently Mueller tossed this water balloon full of piss in their laps 3 weeks before he turned in the full report. I agree Mueller should have made a choice. Right or wrong. All he did was fuck up the country even more (if possible) until 2020, maybe longer.

[bolverk 29399]

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Not Barr. 

Thanks for voting.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

20 minutes ago, Crusher said:

How many times do you have to read the letter to get this part through your thick skull? Direct quote from the Barr letter:

"Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President."

So, basically they are saying that they believe that there is not enough evidence in the Mueller report to indict not only the President but even me , you or a dog named Boo. The fact that Trump is the President does not factor in the decision.

If the House decides to try and impeach the President without an underlying crime I think they will have issues come 2020.

Fuck off troll. 

[Crusher 127]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Fuck off troll. 

Ahh yes, the Hugo liberal cabal's answer to any post that threatens to prick their perfect Trump is the Antichrist bubble. You forgot some of the best ones. Saving them for later?

[GW Hayduke 1952]

32 minutes ago, Crusher said:

How many times do you have to read the letter to get this part through your thick skull? Direct quote from the Barr letter:

"Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President."

So, basically they are saying that they believe that there is not enough evidence in the Mueller report to indict not only the President but even me , you or a dog named Boo. The fact that Trump is the President does not factor in the decision.

If the House decides to try and impeach the President without an underlying crime I think they will have issues come 2020.

 

You are free to read Barr's four page letter as many times as you want and you will likely have the same misunderstanding of the situation.  The memo is not addressing you, or someone like you. It is addressing the president. Do you think that Barr feels your actions are protected under Article II of the constitution? Was Barr talking about your actions when he wrote that POTUS is exempt from obstruction under Article II?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/bill-barrs-very-strange-memo-obstruction-justice

Edited March 30, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[Crusher 127]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

 

You are free to read Barr's four page letter as many times as you want and you will likely have the same misunderstanding of the situation.  The memo is not addressing you, or someone like you. It is addressing the president. Do you think that Barr feels your actions are protected under Article II of the constitution? Was Barr talking about your actions when he wrote that POTUS is exempt from obstruction under Article II?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/bill-barrs-very-strange-memo-obstruction-justice

Did you even bother to read the sentence quoted above the part you chose to bold? Just in case you missed it...

"Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I read “does not exonerate” and Mueller has evidence of obstruction.

Barr does not get to decide shit. 

Congress and the public will assess the facts Mueller found. 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

1 minute ago, Crusher said:

Did you even bother to read the sentence quoted above the part you chose to bold? Just in case you missed it...

"Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President."

Yeah. I did. I recommend you consider reading more than just one sentence since you are having a hard time with all this. That sentence is simply limited to addressing DOJ's policy of not indicting a sitting president. See below link. That sentence is not addressing Barr's stance that POTUS actions are protected from obstruction charges under Article II - see Barr's Junes 2018 memo.

 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

[TwiceHorn 31280]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I read “does not exonerate” and Mueller has evidence of obstruction.

Barr does not get to decide shit. 

Congress and the public will assess the facts Mueller found. 

I'm certain he has evidence of obstruction.  The Holt interview is some evidence of obstruction.  The question is, how much, of what quality, and how does Mueller interpret it.  It sounds like he may have passed on interpreting it.  Hard to tell.

[EMAWesome 101]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Barr has no business in this process.  The Mueller report should have gone directly from Mueller to Congress.  Congress can oversee the appropriate redactions and screen it through DOJ for public release.  The whole point of Mueller was to produce an honest assessment without political interference.  Barr inserting himself in the process undermines the whole thing. 

I'm pretty sure that is not something Congress has the authority to do in regards to DOJ documents.  Separation of powers, etc. etc.  Congress is the legislative branch.  This is not legislation.  Most of the bureaucratic paper pushing and other assorted bureaucracy stuff is under the auspice of the executive branch since that is where all the regulatory bureaus, commissions, administrations, etc.  report to.

[TwiceHorn 31280]

1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm pretty sure that is not something Congress has the authority to do in regards to DOJ documents.  Separation of powers, etc. etc.  Congress is the legislative branch.  This is not legislation.  Most of the bureaucratic paper pushing and other assorted bureaucracy stuff is under the auspice of the executive branch since that is where all the regulatory bureaus, commissions, administrations, etc.  report to.

Congress can absolutely subpoena information from DOJ.  Whether they get it, assuming DOJ refuses to comply, depends on what degree it can legitimately be called "oversight" or corresponds to a need of congress to do its job, like maybe impeachment.  They couldn't interfere with ongoing executive business or usurp it, if it's squarely within the executive ambit.  I think theres a better than decent argument they get most of what they want via subpoena.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

4 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm pretty sure that is not something Congress has the authority to do in regards to DOJ documents.  Separation of powers, etc. etc.  Congress is the legislative branch.  This is not legislation.  Most of the bureaucratic paper pushing and other assorted bureaucracy stuff is under the auspice of the executive branch since that is where all the regulatory bureaus, commissions, administrations, etc.  report to.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm certain he has evidence of obstruction.  The Holt interview is some evidence of obstruction.  The question is, how much, of what quality, and how does Mueller interpret it.  It sounds like he may have passed on interpreting it.  Hard to tell.

What is bullshit is I’m 99.9% certain Mueller has his own conclusions in the report.  Why the fuck would Barr write a letter opining and making conclusions on Mueller’s conclusions?!?

How about just release Mueller’s conclusions?

[Crusher 127]

35 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Yeah. I did. I recommend you consider reading more than just one sentence since you are having a hard time with all this. That sentence is simply limited to addressing DOJ's policy of not indicting a sitting president. See below link. That sentence is not addressing Barr's stance that POTUS actions are protected from obstruction charges under Article II - see Barr's Junes 2018 memo.

 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

You keep posting this link like it is something different than what Barr was referencing to?  Read the Barr letter again and pay attention to references. Particularly the quote I used. You will see a superscript 2. That superscript 2 references directly the link you keep posting as if it something Barr is not aware of.. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Crusher

[yoladu 4067]

i feel like Congress is going to have to subpoena Mueller with copy of the report he has on a thumb drive in his sock drawer and go through it line by line, against whatever Barr submitted, for accuracy.

Edited March 30, 2019 by yoladu

[GW Hayduke 1952]

7 minutes ago, Crusher said:

You keep posting this link like it is something different than what Barr was referencing to?  Read the Barr letter again and pay attention to references. Particularly the quote I used. You will see a superscript 2. That superscript 2 references directly the link you keep posting as if it some sort of evidence that Barr is not aware of. 

How do I keep posting that link when I only posted it once? I'll provide you again with the link I posted the first time. I suggest you read it this time. 

Barr's letter is not referring to his belief of obstruction immunity under Article II.  Seriously. Click the link and read.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/bill-barrs-very-strange-memo-obstruction-justice

[Crusher 127]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

How do I keep posting that link when I only posted it once? I'll provide you again with the link I posted the first time. I suggest you read it this time. 

Barr's letter is not referring to his belief of obstruction immunity under Article II.  Seriously. Click the link and read.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/bill-barrs-very-strange-memo-obstruction-justice

OK.. You posted two links. One that the Barr letter directly references and one that is opinion piece. There is only one of those links that really matter in this case. This leads me back to my original post: The fact that a sitting President cannot be indicted was not considered in reviewing the evidence presented to the DOJ in this case.

[Bama Chick 28596]

So release the full report.

Not Barr’s Brief.

[bolverk 29399]

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

Don't more than half of the republicans want the full report released?  I don’t think I’ve seen one person on here say they don’t want the report released. If anything it’s been complaints about the investigation and why it was allowed.

1

This post is what inspired me to post the poll. As of right now, you are one of only four to have voted for a less-than-full-release of the report to anyone in Congress. So, now you've seen three, including yourself, who don't want the report released.

[Gatorubet 30105]

9 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Dude just stop. You look like a fool

He can't stop.  He has a brother who lives in The Villages who forwards emails to him.  And Hillary ran that Pizza shop pedophile ring, and killed Vince Foster.

[bolverk 29399]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

He can't stop.  He has a brother who lives in The Villages who forwards emails to him.  And Hillary ran that Pizza shop pedophile ring, and killed Vince Foster.

As an aside, The Villages is the only place I've ever seen a traffic jam caused solely by a line of golf carts.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

7 minutes ago, Crusher said:

OK.. You posted two links. One that the Barr letter directly references and one that is opinion piece. There is only one of those links that really matter in this case. This leads me back to my original post: The fact that a sitting President cannot be indicted was not considered in reviewing the evidence presented to the DOJ in this case.

No. Both links matter. They are referring to two separate things. 

Barr’s obstruction analysis was based on a standard that only applies to POTUS, and that analysis used Barr’s belief that Artcile II actions are immune. Barr’s standard wouldn't apply to you or anyone other than POTUS.

[Crusher 127]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

No. Both links matter. They are referring to two separate things. 

Barr’s obstruction analysis was based on a standard that only applies to POTUS, and that analysis used Barr’s belief that Artcile II actions are immune. Barr’s standard wouldn't apply to you or anyone other than POTUS.

That is exactly opposite of what he said in the summary letter. Barr is saying that they didn't even have to consider Trumps position as President in their analysis of the Mueller report as pertains to obstruction.

I just don't see any other way to read the letter.

 

[Enchubben 5509]

43 minutes ago, bolverk said:

This post is what inspired me to post the poll. As of right now, you are one of only four to have voted for a less-than-full-release of the report to anyone in Congress. So, now you've seen three, including yourself, who don't want the report released.

Interesting; I see 0 people voting for not releasing it.

[triplehorn 2664]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Congress can subpoena the report, right now, if they want, and kick that process off.  Then it will be up to the courts.  The rest is jawboning.

Or, a private party can sue directly on FOIA type grounds.  I suppose the FOIA requests have already been made and may need to be responded to before that's ripe.

House leaders appear to understand available options and are attempting an initial voluntary process, but aren't going to wait for it to drag out.  No report by next Tuesday will likely trigger an escalation of House efforts. 

They're fully aware R's are going to play dirty and pull every stunt imaginable.  The 9 R's on HSCI signing a letter calling for Schiff's resignation got blown the fuck up.  So that's a good start responding to what's in store.

 

[yoladu 4067]

22 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Interesting; I see 0 people voting for not releasing it.

[zork 629]

3 hours ago, bolverk said:

I put up a poll to gauge support on this board.

the full report won't be released due to the nature of the redactions process that naturally happens to protect whomever the redactions typically protect.  

I'd prefer to not have any but asking for that is foolhardy.  

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

19 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

9 R's on HSCI signing a letter calling for Schiff's resignation got blown the fuck up. 

Will Hurd signing that letter should haunt him in nightmares forever.  He’s just like all the rest when it comes down to it, party over country phony.  

Fuck him.

[Crusher 127]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Will Hurd signing that letter should haunt him in nightmares forever.  He’s just like all the rest when it comes down to it, party over country phony.  

Fuck him.

Well at least he tried. Would you really want a lying sack of shit like Schiff running any investigation?

[Anastasis 23395]

Love our political process. 

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/03/mueller-report-is-a-chance-for-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-to-find-new-donors/

OPENSECRETS NEWS

Mueller report a chance for Democratic presidential hopefuls to find new donors

• By Karl Evers-Hillstrom
• March 25, 2019

•  
•  
•  
•  

Robert Mueller (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report is suddenly a more complicated issue for Democrats, but it also provides Democratic presidential contenders with an avenue to find new donors through the frenzy.

Democrats have responded to Attorney General Bill Barr’s four-page summary of the special counsel’s findings by calling for the entire report to be unveiled — a position they took just before the letter’s release — and asking their supporters to demand the same.

As expected, the three members of the Senate Judiciary Committee vying for the presidency —  Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) — have put themselves on the forefront of the fight.

Klobuchar was front and center during the committee’s questioning of Barr in January. She called for a full release of the Mueller report on the Rachel Maddow Show on Friday. She then took to social media this weekend, urging users to sign her petition for a full release of the Mueller report.

Klobuchar spent a whopping $198,390 on Facebook ads last week, more than any other 2020 hopeful, as she attempted to take advantage of Mueller mania to draw in potential donors.

Though these petitions inform Democratic voters that the candidate is interested in a specific issue, they really serve one primary purpose — to get the names and email addresses of potential donors. By building a list of supporters, Democratic candidates have a well they can go to during the 2020 election cycle and in future elections.

Cash-rich campaigns spend large sums on Facebook ads to pull in new donors, specifically small donors, a strategy first popularized by the Trump campaign in 2016. In February, the Republican National Committee spent millions with Trump’s digital media guru Brad Parscale and experienced gains with small contributions.

Harris’ donor-drawing petition says the American people need “total transparency” on the report’s findings. Booker said in a campaign emails that Barr’s four-page summary of the Mueller report was “not good enough” before linking to a petition page.

Perhaps as much as any of his primary opponents, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) put a large focus on the Mueller report. Shelling out $68,600 on Facebook ads, several of them ask users to sign his petitionthat the report be public.

Warren also put out ads on the subject. She shelled out $121,278 on Facebook ads last week, second only to Klobuchar among Democratic hopefuls. Warren’s campaign has released a flurry of so-called petitions on various issues, ranging from providing statehood to D.C. to eliminating the electoral college.  

Former Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) spent more on Facebook this week than any other week, shelling out $56,545 and urging users to sign his own petition on the Mueller report. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) also put a focus on the report as she spent $45,507.

Polls have shown that likely Democratic voters care about the special counsel’s investigation and its findings. A February Washington Post poll found that a majority of self-proclaimed liberal respondents said the Mueller investigation had already proved the Trump campaign “coordinated with the Russian government in an effort to help Trump win the 2016 election.”

Still, not every Democratic candidate thinks the Mueller report presents a good fundraising opportunity. Though Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) told reporters that Trump obstructed justice “beyond a shadow of doubt,” his campaign hasn’t yet run any ads related to Mueller. He instead continued to bring up his campaign’s record-shattering fundraising.

Of course, Donald Trump’s campaign is also using Barr’s letter to raise money, offering a quadruple match on contributions in celebrating of what he calls “COMPLETE EXONERATION” — despite the letter’s note that while the report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Trump campaign released a “video montage” on social media, encouraging viewers to text “Witchhunt” to the campaign in another effort at list-building and bringing new donors into the fold.

[Crusher 127]

Yep.. How much is this guy gonna get paid?

A commercial featuring Mueller will be worth his weight in gold.

[ChiTownDoc 21101]

1 hour ago, Crusher said:

Yep.. How much is this guy gonna get paid?

A commercial featuring Mueller will be worth his weight in gold.

I don’t think he’s a grifter, unlike some people...

[Crusher 127]

43 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I don’t think he’s a grifter, unlike some people...

Oh...So he's telling the truth? No collusion. Not enough evidence to charge on obstruction?