Jump to content

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted

Goddammit dont make me defend Barr:

Quote

After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other - as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

* * *

After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. 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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3386

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

do you have the statute handy? I only ask because knowingly doesn't necessarily mean knowing that you are breaking the law. For example, in obstruction of justice they need only show that you knowingly made a false statement. Not that you knew it was illegal to make a false statement.

It's based on case law.  Here's the link to the cites provided on p. 187 of the Mueller Report:

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2145572/bluman-v-federal-election-comn/

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download

And who wrote the Bluman opinion you might ask?  Mr. "I Like Beer" himself ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, retread said:

^ That seems to be the calculation and the hope of Barr/Trump.

Other than a far-fetched hope that he would indict Trump, there was no other potential outcome.

This moves the needle a little further toward impeachment for incompetence and violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.  But there was plenty of that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28539

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Bullfuckingshit and you know it. Any President would be pissed even if completely innocent because it would take the wind out of the sails of the momentum and mandate that a Presidential winner naturally has at the beginning of their term. No President would shrug it off and not think there would be a major drag and cloud on their Presidency. Trump is an impetuous moron and that is the best “evidence” that they can show. Like when a wife ignores grumpy husband rantings, thankfully so have the President’s staff have ignored his bs. They have their eye on the ball of what the true goals are: halting illegal immigration, rebuilding America’s manufacturing base, not coddling terrorist mullahs in Tehran, etc. I’m looking forward to a Republican President with tact and discipline that induces less hostility by his style than the current guy. I always be grateful for him killing off the free trade at all costs and don’t give a shit about hordes of illegals and neocon Bill Kristol and Bush war criminal wings of the Party.

The mandate from winning without a majority popular vote? Fucking please

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Other than a far-fetched hope that he would indict Trump, there was no other potential outcome.

This moves the needle a little further toward impeachment for incompetence and violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.  But there was plenty of that already.

Yep. Get your talking points out there for 3 weeks by themselves. Then do a press conf. to reinforce the positive spin. Then see if Pelosi has the stones to impeach. :popcorn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mo Horn

Mo Horn 8938

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

This seems really damning for Trump...and Barr. What's the surly consensus? What happens now?

We'll go to bed tonight and tomorrow will be Friday. If anything was going to happen the countless things that have already occurred would have made a difference. Hell, the report could have said he was guilty as sin and the GOP would spin it as a good thing. He's truly teflon Don. Way out on Brisket's ledge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30720

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The mandate from winning without a majority popular vote? Fucking please

The mandate he got the stamp of approval for in his 2018 GOP Red Wave Congressional Election victory?  That mandate?

Edited by Gatorubet
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I see the misunderstanding.   Correct, Barr's letter didn't make that claim.  Barr himself made that claim today at the press conference. So... 

Actually, what I said is incorrect.   I just checked the transcript from this morning, and Barr very carefully stated that Mueller didn't make a determination of what the result would have been without the OLC opinion.  Which is true, albeit misleading in response to the question that was asked. 

https://www.axios.com/bill-barr-transcript-mueller-report-press-conference-42a9fb6a-741b-4af8-adb1-0693b8f15c25.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18447

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Where is that dumbass sheeeeit?  He was adamant that Natalia was only at Trump tower to talk about adoptions and anyone saying anything to the contrary was an idiot. Oooooooooops!

 

He wasn’t lying.  That meeting was all about Trump adopting Russian policy recommendations.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21345

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, 'stache said:

Can a Trump supporter please inform me why, even if there was “no collusion,” you’re okay with the fact that an enemy of our country worked to get your guy elected? And how was it okay for him to praise the interference publicly (i.e. “Russia if you’re listening..” and “I love Wikileaks...”)? Is it okay simply because it was Hillary Clinton? I’m still at a loss how, even if the report is as good as he and Barr claim, this whole situation is okay. From my perspective it’s clearly all about your “team” and hatred for the opposition, essentially anything that keeps a Democrat out of office is okay, including interference from an enemy that supports your team. I just can’t believe that’s where we are in our two party system.

Dude the Russians hate colored folk and gays just as much.  If the far right has the option of this country burning in ashes vs giving it up to librulz what do you think they’ll choose?

Why the fuck are people still surprised?  Why do you still need an explanation?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29225

Posted
Posted

ok, so i'm trying to pay attention but also get a little tiny bit of work in, so i'm behind.

it seems as if he didn't obstruct justice "officially" because the underlings didn't follow his orders to obstruct justice.  while earlier i asked if "attempted obstruction" is a thing, i think the more accurate assessment is "conspiracy to obstruct justice" which i'm pretty damn sure is a thing.  has this been discussed?  he obviously has a history of instructing his people to do illegal things for him - a bunch are already going to jail for it.

secondly, i know the metaphors with the pawn shops and how "receiving stolen goods" is a crime, but receiving stolen/hacked info used in a conspiracy to defraud the public to win an election (see clip below) is somehow not a crime, because the administration didn't technically "ask" or "organize" the front end of the theft.  but what if somehow they took his campaign "hey russia, can you please hack this for me..." and presumed he was legit asking, since within 5 hours, they starting hacking?

it's not really something, but it sure seems like it's not nothing.  if that makes sense.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 22143

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

This seems really damning for Trump...and Barr. What's the surly consensus? What happens now?

Nothing. The same 63 million people who voted for him in 2016 vote for him again in 2020. There is literally nothing he can do that will convince them otherwise. Meanwhile young democrat voters will refuse to vote because a democrat is who is not "woke" enough or who does not speak strongly enough about some particular liberal topic is deemed "the same" and just as bad as Trump. That is where we are today.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47203

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Where is that dumbass sheeeeit?  He was adamant that Natalia was only at Trump tower to talk about adoptions and anyone saying anything to the contrary was an idiot. Oooooooooops!

Junior's email dump was clear on this.  sheeeit is just another Trumpkin who has no interest in the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29225

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Nothing. The same 63 million people who voted for him in 2016 vote for him again in 2020. There is literally nothing he can do that will convince them otherwise. Meanwhile young democrat voters will refuse to vote because a democrat is who is not "woke" enough or who does not speak strongly enough about some particular liberal topic is deemed "the same" and just as bad as Trump. That is where we are today.

while i agree with "nothing", i do not agree with the part i bolded.  he may win again, it may even be the same combination of states in the ec.  but there are plenty of people disgusted with themselves for voting "against hillary" or "for an outsider they thought would be good for a change".  what i'm hoping is that a lot of the gop that doesn't like what's going on decides to sit this one out just enough to turn the tides.

i still think there are at least 5 dems that can take this shit in the general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47203

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

ok, so i'm trying to pay attention but also get a little tiny bit of work in, so i'm behind.

it seems as if he didn't obstruct justice "officially" because the underlings didn't follow his orders to obstruct justice

I don't know if the report supports that interpretation.  I believe the report supports the idea that Mueller felt POTUS could not be indicted.  He specifically concludes that he was not exonerating the President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27022

Posted
Posted

Look. I think the important thing for us all to understand here is [REDACTED]... We each and every one of us need to understand that. In fact, [REDACTED] ... Wisconsin [REDACTED] ... And when your dog [REDACTED] ... seventeen peanuts each. In short, [REDACTED].

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29225

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't know if the report supports that interpretation.  I believe the report supports the idea that Mueller felt POTUS could not be indicted.  He specifically concludes that he was not exonerating the President.

so essentially mueller said "we think he obstructed, here you go" and barr, who previously didn't give a shit about the policy (not law) used the policy to avoid the obstruction charge?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47203

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so essentially mueller said "we think he obstructed, here you go" and barr, who previously didn't give a shit about the policy (not law) used the policy to avoid the obstruction charge?

I guess.  I don't know if Mueller's declination to indict was intended to allow Barr to make the call or if it was just in line with what was established DOJ policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 22143

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

while i agree with "nothing", i do not agree with the part i bolded.  he may win again, it may even be the same combination of states in the ec.  but there are plenty of people disgusted with themselves for voting "against hillary" or "for an outsider they thought would be good for a change".  what i'm hoping is that a lot of the gop that doesn't like what's going on decides to sit this one out just enough to turn the tides.

i still think there are at least 5 dems that can take this shit in the general.

Nope, neither of these types of people exist. There may be some people who in polite company say they are "not really comfortable with how he conducts himself" and some may even go so far as to express something like this in public, but all of them--every single one--will vote for him again. The opponent will be a "socialist" who is "just too dangerous" to let win. He was a shitbag when they voted for him the first time, there was zero legitmiacy to him as a candidate then and they still gladly voted for him. They will do it again, no doubt about it.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29225

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Nope, neither of these types of people exist. There may be some people who in polite company say they are "not really comfortable with how he conducts himself" and some may even go so far as to express something like this in public, but all of them--every single one--will vote for him again. The opponent will be a "socialist" who is "just too dangerous" to let win. He was a shitbag when they voted for him the first time, there was zero legitmiacy to him as a candidate then and they still gladly voted for him. They will do it again, no doubt about it.

on a macro level, you may be right.  specifically, i have relatives who absolutely did this and i'm pretty sure they exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elguapo

elguapo 4620

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Wow, this has gotta be disappointing for you guys. 

Yes, I am extremely disappointed that a POS con man is POTUS, that he repeatedly tried to obstruct justice and seems to have succeeded in doing so.  I"m disappointed that we have an AG who believes that his primary job responsibility is to protect this POS, and I"m disappointed that ~40% of the country thinks this is all fine.

There's a lot to be disappointed about today.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...