The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Dbeasy 14966]

Can someone please clarify why Mueller did not provide a different recommendation on the obstruction of justice charge?

[David Dennison 18655]

6 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Can someone please clarify why Mueller did not provide a different recommendation on the obstruction of justice charge?

He made no recommendation.

[notre dame joe 172]

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Can someone please clarify why Mueller did not provide a different recommendation on the obstruction of justice charge?

Mueller strikes me as a company man.  It's not in his Department's interest to gamble on a Hail Mary theory to prosecute their superior for the fuzzy crime of Obstruction.  So he fired at as many associates as he could hit before the new Sheriff came in and called it a day.

[TtomTerrific 200]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the mueller report has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's going to get smoked in the 2020 election.  you know that, right?

russia didn't win it for him in 2016, and they won't lose it for him in 2020.  he's taking care of that all by himself.

have a good weekend.

respectfully disagree.

Instead of some sort of self-awareness, pivoting and putting someone......ANYONE in front of a policy agenda that is going to keep the economy humming, capturing the populist opportunity on immigration and forwarding a platform that will keep us out of combat, ahead of China in trade deals and suggesting something that keeps corporations from running over success seeking small businessmen (and women)..the Dems are going to double all of the way down on a hand they have lost...alllow this Nader and AOC to be the face of their effort to, hopefully stop the race to the bottom

but....nope...too many of them and their base are too "all in" on this farce emotionally and psychologically and will ride this all of the way down to somehow getting a "Donald Trump" elected ...twice.

have a nice weekend also and I appreciate the civil tone.

[Dbeasy 14966]

He made no recommendation.

That’s my question. He drew a conclusion on conspiracy not on obstruction. Why not?

[David Dennison 18655]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

That’s my question. He drew a conclusion on conspiracy not on obstruction. Why not?

Because he knew he couldn't indict a sitting president. He handed it to Congress.

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

Instead of some sort of self-awareness, pivoting and putting someone......ANYONE in front of a policy agenda that is going to keep the economy humming, capturing the populist opportunity on immigration and forwarding a platform that will keep us out of combat, ahead of China in trade deals and suggesting something that keeps corporations from running over success seeking small businessmen (and women)..the Dems are going to double all of the way down on a hand they have lost...alllow this Nader and AOC to be the face of their effort to, hopefully stop the race to the bottom

nah.  some members of congress will get worked up, and why not, they have nothing else to do for the next 18 months.  it's their responsibility to begin impeachment proceedings when deemed necessary, and it's their responsibility to call mueller if they think his testimony will help them come to a conclusion on that matter.

but the dems aren't running on that, despite what fox news may say.  and they shouldn't.  voters don't care about russia.  voters don't care that much about china either, or keeping our troops safe. 

voters care about getting trump out of the white house.  that's what the dems will run on.  it's handy, it's popular, and it's the truth.  trump's about to find out what it's like when you're the unlikable candidate.  it's not gonna be pretty.

[henrygandorf 29174]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Because he knew he couldn't indict a sitting president. He handed it to Congress.

he also knew conspiracy would be a much much harder thing to prove, especially when the entire back half of the report revolved around covering up conspiracy tracks and obstructing the investigation into it.

[Dbeasy 14966]

Because he knew he couldn't indict a sitting president. He handed it to Congress.

I could not find any reference to that view point in the report. If that were the case, why not just specifically say in the report that there is enough evidence for congress to consider impeachment? Instead, I believe the report was non-committal and simply left it to the AG. Why? He didn’t leave the first charge to the AG. Why the second?

[David Dennison 18655]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

I could not find any reference to that view point in the report. If that were the case, why not just specifically say in the report that there is enough evidence for congress to consider impeachment? Instead, I believe the report was non-committal and simply left it to the AG. Why? He didn’t leave the first charge to the AG. Why the second?

That's a very good question, one I am sure he will be asked when he testifies before the House Judiciary Committee.

[Incredulity 11564]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

I could not find any reference to that view point in the report. If that were the case, why not just specifically say in the report that there is enough evidence for congress to consider impeachment? Instead, I believe the report was non-committal and simply left it to the AG. Why? He didn’t leave the first charge to the AG. Why the second?

Because some decisions are very hard and he was obviously not interested in staking his reputation on something marginal.  Kind of the way of the world, specifically in Washington.

The whole special prosecutor being appointed is a fucking cop-out by congress any way.

[Incredulity 11564]

Just now, David Dennison said:

That's a very good question, one I am sure he will be asked when he testifies before the House Judiciary Committee.

It may get asked.  It won't get answered. And that interaction won't get any coverage by the press.

 

 

[David Dennison 18655]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Because some decisions are very hard and he was obviously not interested in staking his reputation on something marginal.  Kind of the way of the world, specifically in Washington.

The whole special prosecutor being appointed is a fucking cop-out by congress any way.

Congress did not appoint the special counsel.

[Dbeasy 14966]

Trump pushing for Mueller not to testify is a really big deal from my perspective. It is very very important that everyone hears him answer the question as to why he left the obstruction charge to the AG. It helps fundamentally answer the question of whether or not it is appropriate to be pursuing impeachment.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

28 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Can someone please clarify why Mueller did not provide a different recommendation on the obstruction of justice charge?

YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BE COOL?!?? IF WE COULD HAVE SOMEONE ASK MUELLER THESE QUESTIONS ON LIVE TELEVISION UNDER OATH.

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I could not find any reference to that view point in the report. If that were the case, why not just specifically say in the report that there is enough evidence for congress to consider impeachment? Instead, I believe the report was non-committal and simply left it to the AG. Why? He didn’t leave the first charge to the AG. Why the second?

you could be right.  but there are a lot of other people that know mueller, that think he did things the way he did to "leave a roadmap to impeachment for the house".  without hearing from him, i can only surmise he was trying his best to straddle the fence.  report his findings, then let someone else draw the next logical conclusions.  once that didn't happen, you started hearing rumblings from his team, and a couple phone calls/letters from mueller himself about misrepresentation.

i would love for mueller to answer the two questions - why did you punt?  and would you do the same if given the chance to go back?  he might've felt that a damning report and a strong recommendation for impeachment would be bad for this country.  he's a republican and a lifetime "lawman" and that wouldn't surprise me at all.  he's a professional, but he's dealing with a president that takes everything very personal.

after two years of drowning in obstruction evidence, he may have thought it was fucking obvious enough not to have to spell out the "i" word in all caps and watermark it on the bottom of each page.  he was always very careful and phrased things in such a way like his whole "i couldn't find...but this does not exonerate...if i found this i would've stated so..." and so on.  like i said, straddling.  i bet he regrets the fact that so many now are forced to opine on wtf he meant.

[Dahobbs 17444]

17 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I could not find any reference to that view point in the report. If that were the case, why not just specifically say in the report that there is enough evidence for congress to consider impeachment? Instead, I believe the report was non-committal and simply left it to the AG. Why? He didn’t leave the first charge to the AG. Why the second?

In my opinion it is because impeachment is a political process and I think he felt it was beyond his role to make such a recommendation. All he could do was lay out the facts that would support impeachment, which he did very well. 

[Dbeasy 14966]

In my opinion it is because impeachment is a political process and I think he felt it was beyond his role to make such a recommendation. All he could do was lay out the facts that would support impeachment, which he did very well. 

Except that he should have anticipated an AG potentially leaning towards the administration in their assessment, and he should have anticipated that such a wishy washy response in the report would lead to the exact situation we have today.

[elfenix 34171]

4 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

None of this supports or refutes your assertion. I'm not saying that Russia switched votes and that Trump didn't win on his own, but they were meddling and I would like to know to what extent and how they did it so we can mitigate the impact in the future. Calling this all some delusional request blows my mind. Trump wouldn't have been in the cross hairs of the investigation if he just got out of the way the whole time. Instead he acted and is acting guilty. 

https://smile.amazon.com/Cyberwar-Russian-Hackers-Trolls-President-ebook/dp/B07GJM18PL

 

[David Dennison 18655]

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It may get asked.  It won't get answered. And that interaction won't get any coverage by the press.

He'll answer it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

In my opinion it is because impeachment is a political process and I think he felt it was beyond his role to make such a recommendation. All he could do was lay out the facts that would support impeachment, which he did very well. 

This...and...

Mueller explains that he could not openly accuse the president of a crime because the president would not have the opportunity to defend himself like a normal citizen in a court of law. (Because he couldn’t indict a sitting president against DOJ policy). 

Mueller is basically saying “Even if I have Trump dead to rights on crimes and I know beyond a reasonable doubt he’s guilty as fuck, I am not going to tell you.”

Edited May 10, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[wildcat09 29237]

26 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I could not find any reference to that view point in the report. If that were the case, why not just specifically say in the report that there is enough evidence for congress to consider impeachment? Instead, I believe the report was non-committal and simply left it to the AG. Why? He didn’t leave the first charge to the AG. Why the second?

Seriously?

Did you try reading it?

[Dahobbs 17444]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

Except that he should have anticipated an AG potentially leaning towards the administration in their assessment, and he should have anticipated that such a wishy washy response in the report would lead to the exact situation we have today.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not even sure he didn't anticipate it. Legally, I think he did the right thing. He played it by the book. Personally, I wish he would have skirted the rules just a bit to ensure the right outcome happened. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Except that he should have anticipated an AG potentially leaning towards the administration in their assessment, and he should have anticipated that such a wishy washy response in the report would lead to the exact situation we have today.

Why should he have anticipated that?  Where is that in his mandate or policy guidelines?

“In the rare case you suspect your boss is a partner in criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, you should do...?”

[henrygandorf 29174]

4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Except that he should have anticipated an AG potentially leaning towards the administration in their assessment, and he should have anticipated that such a wishy washy response in the report would lead to the exact situation we have today.

the biggest problem with people who are smart, professional, and fair, is that they often times expect everyone around them to behave that way too.

he's obviously frustrated with the way the report was characterized, which in itself, tells me a lot.

[David Dennison 18655]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why should he have anticipated that?  Where is that in his mandate or policy guidelines?

“In the rare case you suspect your boss is a partner in criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, you should do...?”

His letters to William Barr seem to indicate that he didn't anticipate the AG acting like he did and that he was quite upset about his actions.

Edited May 10, 2019 by David Dennison

[Dbeasy 14966]

Why should he have anticipated that?  Where is that in his mandate or policy guidelines?
“In the rare case you suspect your boss is a partner in criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, you should do...?”

Common sense.

[texastough 1129]

13 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Except that he should have anticipated an AG potentially leaning towards the administration in their assessment, and he should have anticipated that such a wishy washy response in the report would lead to the exact situation we have today.

Others have sort of answered your questions, but this is how I would put it in simple terms:

1) While he found at least 10 instances of obstruction of justice, he did not bring any criminal charges against potus because, as a DOJ employee, he is bound by DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president [another edit -- Mueller explicitly stated in the report that he did not bring charges due to that policy]

2) As a prosecutor (part of the executive branch) he has nothing to do with impeachment -- a congressional determination -- which is why he did not make any recommendation about impeachment. [Edit: of course congress can use any and all evidence at its disposal, including the Mueller report, when making a determination to impeach]

Edited May 10, 2019 by texastough

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

Common sense.

Because accepting America is a Banana Republic should be common sense by now?

[David Dennison 18655]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

Common sense.

Common sense would lead a career DOJ guy like Mueller to conclude the Attorney General would not act as the president's lap dog. 

[TtomTerrific 200]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Congress did not appoint the special counsel.

correct...the Executive Branch did...an impossible proposition within our last administration, but never the less, they appointed him, they didn't "fire him" and they allowed this to be the ongoing news story for the first half (and now more than that) of his first term.  The media covered nothing else that the administration had going on and a long-awaited report was written and procured.

This is the Justice Department's report, and everything that happens with it is within the AG's purview as far as redactions, summaries, dates of release and the invocation of "Executive Privilege."

There is literally nothing that Mueller could testify to in front of a House Committee that isn't already in his own exhaustive report that Nadler might want him to say.  He can't "unredact" anything in that setting, in the hopes of the really killer info that is surely behind those redactions.

A Special Investigator can't testify derogatorily in front of Congress about Americans who are not under indictment.

These facts were reviewed by Nadler's staff and he realized the futility of this testimony and the probability of further backfire..... so now Mueller is no longer scheduled to testify.

Nadler and his attorneys are not permitted under the House Rules to just spend time in front of the committee lobbing sound bites for the Democrat Congressmen on the committee to utilize for their own political purposes.   They are dying to Kavanaugh this guy, but this isn't the same thing and they can't.  The fact that they have done nothing but try and do just that has only ensured active, above board investigations into the genesis of this investigation. 

Barr is pissed and y'all are only beginning to not like him very much. 

"The report is there in front of you Mr. Chairman....I really spent a lot of time on it and I don't have a whole hell of a lot more to add" could be his only allowed answers to almost everyting. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Common sense would lead a career DOJ guy like Mueller to conclude the Attorney General would not act as the president's lap dog. 

I also think it’s important to note between Mueller and Barr, only one of them still has any credibility. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

13 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Except that he should have anticipated an AG potentially leaning towards the administration in their assessment, and he should have anticipated that such a wishy washy response in the report would lead to the exact situation we have today.

this is where he was a bit naive. apparently, he and barr have been friends for some time. i suspect that he was giving barr a roadmap and congress and roadmap and did not expect his friend to hamstring him so shamelessly. which resulted in the letter and phone call.

edit: i should read the whole thread, yall mostly covered it, except for the friendship part.

Edited May 10, 2019 by hayden_horn

[Dbeasy 14966]

Common sense would lead a career DOJ guy like Mueller to conclude the Attorney General would not act as the president's lap dog. 

True, but while the Surly political cabal has concluded he’s a lap dog, not everyone is sure about that and Mueller’s testimony is critical to cement the proper characterization of Barr. So the real question is whether the guy who failed to make it clear the first time will make it clear in front of Congress.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[David Dennison 18655]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

True, but while the Surly political cabal has concluded he’s a lap dog, not everyone is sure about that and Mueller’s testimony is critical to cement the proper characterization of Barr. So the real question is whether the guy who failed to make it clear the first time will make it clear in front of Congress.

If you read the report, he makes it clear that he thinks the obstruction issue is up to Congress.

[Dbeasy 14966]

correct...the Executive Branch did...an impossible proposition within our last administration, but never the less, they appointed him, they didn't "fire him" and they allowed this to be the ongoing news story for the first half (and now more than that) of his first term.  The media covered nothing else that the administration had going on and a long-awaited report was written and procured.
This is the Justice Department's report, and everything that happens with it is within the AG's purview as far as redactions, summaries, dates of release and the invocation of "Executive Privilege."
There is literally nothing that Mueller could testify to in front of a House Committee that isn't already in his own exhaustive report that Nadler might want him to say.  He can't "unredact" anything in that setting, in the hopes of the really killer info that is surely behind those redactions.
A Special Investigator can't testify derogatorily in front of Congress about Americans who are not under indictment.
These facts were reviewed by Nadler's staff and he realized the futility of this testimony and the probability of further backfire..... so now Mueller is no longer scheduled to testify.
Nadler and his attorneys are not permitted under the House Rules to just spend time in front of the committee lobbing sound bites for the Democrat Congressmen on the committee to utilize for their own political purposes.   They are dying to Kavanaugh this guy, but this isn't the same thing and they can't.  The fact that they have done nothing but try and do just that has only ensured active, above board investigations into the genesis of this investigation. 
Barr is pissed and y'all are only beginning to not like him very much. 
"The report is there in front of you Mr. Chairman....I really spent a lot of time on it and I don't have a whole hell of a lot more to add" could be his only allowed answers to almost everyting. 
 

I’m not so sure about that. Many Americans right now only understand the headline. That headline is that Mueller did not make recommendations on obstruction. It is important to hear him answer himself why he didn’t. There are the words in the report, and then there is context, which could completely swing the interpretation of the report a different direction.

[henrygandorf 29174]

4 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

correct...the Executive Branch did...an impossible proposition within our last administration, but never the less, they appointed him, they didn't "fire him" and they allowed this to be the ongoing news story for the first half (and now more than that) of his first term.  The media covered nothing else that the administration had going on and a long-awaited report was written and procured.

what else should the media have been covering?  what great feats was trump achieving in private and uncovered media silence?  he had the house and the senate, did he get his wall funded and built?  did he fix healthcare after trashing obamacare every other minute?  did he pass new legislation keeping foreign interference away from our democratic process that fell short on obama's watch?

if he was completely innocent, he shouldn't have had to waste a minute of time or energy even thinking about the mueller report.

if my wife thinks i'm cheating on her and carrying on with various women via texts and emails, and asks to see my phone, i can tell her no, and that i'm not cheating.  or i can smash it into a thousand pieces and throw it into the river while yelling and screaming at her and then have a camera crew follow me as i drive to some chick's house.  i may come off less innocent in the second version.

[David Dennison 18655]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m not so sure about that. Many Americans right now only understand the headline. That headline is that Mueller did not make recommendations on obstruction. It is important to hear him answer himself why he didn’t. There are the words in the report, and then there is context, which could completely swing the interpretation of the report a different direction.

He'll definitely get asked. He'll answer one way or another.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If you read the report, he makes it clear that he thinks the obstruction issue is up to Congress.

Exactly, Mueller covered his bases and tells you he’s covering his bases when he says things like “we are preserving all this evidence for a time when a federal prosecutor can consider bringing criminal charges.”

 Mueller has no control over Barr lying and misleading the public. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I’m not so sure about that. Many Americans right now only understand the headline. That headline is that Mueller did not make recommendations on obstruction. It is important to hear him answer himself why he didn’t. There are the words in the report, and then there is context, which could completely swing the interpretation of the report a different direction.

it's not like the special investigation report template has a part that says "if you think he obstructed, please check this box."

i agree that the headlines can be misleading, but there's so much gray area that includes turning all the evidence into a clear recommendation.  he may not think he obstructed.  or maybe he's regretting the shit out of not being clearer.  this is why people want him to testify.

[Biff Tannen 45492]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

if my wife thinks i'm cheating on her and carrying on with various women via texts and emails, and asks to see my phone, i can tell her no, and that i'm not cheating.  or i can smash it into a thousand pieces and throw it into the river while yelling and screaming at her and then have a camera crew follow me as i drive to some chick's house.  i may come off less innocent in the second version.

Or you could hand her your phone and say, sure, have at it.  Nothing to see.  If you're innocent of course.  Very legal and very cool.

[henrygandorf 29174]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Or you could hand her your phone and say, sure, have at it.  Nothing to see.  If you're innocent of course.  Very legal and very cool.

of course.  i was just pointing out (in my clunky metaphor) that there are more calm and convincing ways to act when accused, but still not completely comply if the requests are outrageous.

she knows better.

[DDD Dad 14251]

you posted that yesterday

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

32 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

correct...the Executive Branch did...an impossible proposition within our last administration, but never the less, they appointed him, they didn't "fire him" and they allowed this to be the ongoing news story for the first half (and now more than that) of his first term.  The media covered nothing else that the administration had going on and a long-awaited report was written and procured.

This is the Justice Department's report, and everything that happens with it is within the AG's purview as far as redactions, summaries, dates of release and the invocation of "Executive Privilege."

There is literally nothing that Mueller could testify to in front of a House Committee that isn't already in his own exhaustive report that Nadler might want him to say.  He can't "unredact" anything in that setting, in the hopes of the really killer info that is surely behind those redactions.

A Special Investigator can't testify derogatorily in front of Congress about Americans who are not under indictment.

These facts were reviewed by Nadler's staff and he realized the futility of this testimony and the probability of further backfire..... so now Mueller is no longer scheduled to testify.

Nadler and his attorneys are not permitted under the House Rules to just spend time in front of the committee lobbing sound bites for the Democrat Congressmen on the committee to utilize for their own political purposes.   They are dying to Kavanaugh this guy, but this isn't the same thing and they can't.  The fact that they have done nothing but try and do just that has only ensured active, above board investigations into the genesis of this investigation. 

Barr is pissed and y'all are only beginning to not like him very much. 

"The report is there in front of you Mr. Chairman....I really spent a lot of time on it and I don't have a whole hell of a lot more to add" could be his only allowed answers to almost everyting. 

 

He would also probably have to answer questions about the outside agencies he hired to “investigate” and if one of them was Fusion GPS or C Steele

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

you posted that yesterday

did i?  my bad.  it's been a hectic week, and i had the argument in person with someone last weekend.

[DDD Dad 14251]

did i?  my bad.  it's been a hectic week, and i had the argument in person with someone last weekend.

Someone did. Not sure if it was you or someone else.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

4 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

He would also probably have to answer questions about the outside agencies he hired to “investigate” and if one of them was Fusion GPS or C Steele

Well since there was no collusion in the report, why would that matter?  It doesn’t have any bearing on obstruction.  But you knew that.  You’re just parroting what the talky box tells you.  

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Someone did. Not sure if it was you or someone else.

certainly could've been me.

last weekend i was around some people who just wanted to argue, and definitely had the "if he's so guilty than why is he still president" attitude that we see around here.  i tried to inject some logic and reason and saying it wasn't necessarily "hard evidence" but behavior is something that should always be considered.  jurors check that shit out all the time.  how people react to accusations or bombshell revelations from witnesses.

it's not just impeachment or the court of law, but the court of public opinion, which in this case, is the election.  the american people know what an innocent person looks like.

a couple weeks ago i asked why the president wasn't doing a national address and screaming bloody murder pounding his fist when a report came out saying a hostile foreign entity attacked our elections.  the answer was, "why would he, he was in on it."  if you want people to think you're innocent, at least try to be a good actor for christ's sake. 

maybe i've been in hollywood too long.