Mueller to speak today!
- Thread starter Lone Clone
- Start date
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,289
- 191,202
- 113
I never underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate, so of course I believe a second term is possible.And out comes the hedge
So basically, what you're saying is that it's too likely he wins re-election for you to place a wager on the comment you made, as originally stated. I thought you might stand a little more firmly by your convictions. I mean, he won't be impeached. At least not before the 2020 election. That's a political loser and too many people at the top of the democratic ticket know this full well. If he is, you can count on his re-election and decisive GOP majorities in both the House and the Senate.
To be fair, I would of course hedge that it must be for conspiracy to commit election fraud prior to his election, aka "Russian collusion" (which some on the left still insist is in play) or obstruction of justice, committed while in office, as it relates to the Mueller investigation.
It was misleading, and Mueller wrote a letter concerned about the misleading elements. It took another month+ for the full summaries he'd wanted released immediately to be made public.
I'll go with the number of "Harm to Ongoing Matters" redactions that are listed in the report, FWIW.
Don't confuse him with ACTUAL facts. He'll pee on your leg and tell you its raining.
Will you stop acting like you've read it? That claim has been debunked multiple times.
Meanwhile....
Mon March 25, 2019:
This is now from ~2 months ago.
And, yes, all of the associated documents are "under seal", which is likewise true of the other 10-11 ongoing spin-off investigations.
So, no "new" sealed indictments; those that were under seal with Mueller released his report may still well be "in the hopper".
Mon March 25, 2019:
An unnamed foreign government-owned corporation will have to turn over information that was related to the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation to federal prosecutors or continue to accrue escalating fines after the Supreme Court denied the company's request to hear its appeal on Monday.
The Supreme Court's order marks the last stop for the company that has been fighting the subpoena under the shroud of secrecy. It was issued without comment or any noted dissents.
Although Mueller has turned in his report to Attorney General William Barr, the US attorney's office in Washington will continue to pursue the case, the special counsel's office said Monday.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/supreme-court-mueller-grand-jury-documents/index.htmlThe Supreme Court's order marks the last stop for the company that has been fighting the subpoena under the shroud of secrecy. It was issued without comment or any noted dissents.
Although Mueller has turned in his report to Attorney General William Barr, the US attorney's office in Washington will continue to pursue the case, the special counsel's office said Monday.
This is now from ~2 months ago.
And, yes, all of the associated documents are "under seal", which is likewise true of the other 10-11 ongoing spin-off investigations.
So, no "new" sealed indictments; those that were under seal with Mueller released his report may still well be "in the hopper".
Need to hear your logic not to charge Jr and Kushner. Even if charged and pardoned it should kill the Trump re-election, that's the whole purpose.
You and I might disagree on which half, but it's impossible to deny that half of this country's electorate are a bunch of idiots.
Nope. Joe actually linked news regarding an ongoing case, under seal, in post #289.
Mueller stated that if he could determine that no crime was committed he would say so. He could also say that charges weren't sufficiently supported to indict...this is what he did on the conspiracy evidence. There was evidence but nothing that - in his mind - could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. No indictment.
So we're left with the obstruction case. He specifically stated that he couldn't exonerate. He also didn't say - as he did with the conspiracy charges - that the evidence wasn't sufficient to indict. So...not exonerated...and the evidence is such that he can't say he wouldn't indict.
What exactly does that leave us with?
I'm embarrassed for the trump supporters celebrating this.
It leaves us exactly where it was always going to be, with The House being put in a position to impeach or not. The silver lining is that the Dems took the House, leaving the door open to the possibility of real oversight. It would all be put to rest of the GOP had retained the House.
Can congress subpoena Trump to testify under oath? I assume not or they would have, but shouldn’t they?
It leaves us wondering whether the evidence concealed through the obstruction might have tipped the balance on the conspiracy issue. We might never know the answer to that question.
On an unrelated point, I read a few of Mueller's comments as strong push-back against the recent effort by Trump to criminalize the decision to pursue the investigation over Russian interference. Mueller made abundantly clear that the evidence proved Russia did interfere--despite Trump's repeated and baseless denials that it occurred--and that these efforts "needed to be investigated and understood" and "deserve[] the attention of every American."
A few weeks ago lib icon Noam Chomsky said the Dems need to move on or risk four more years of Trump.
Got this wrong - the standard to indict is "probable cause." Insufficient evidence to indict means no probable cause. Unless, of course, Mueller told you otherwise.
Got this wrong - the standard to indict is "probable cause." Insufficient evidence to indict means no probable cause. Unless, of course, Mueller told you otherwise.
It's interesting how wrong you are. Completely. From today:
"If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
His first statement is a direct refutation of your first claim. He stated IN THE REPORT that if they could determine that no crime was committed he would say so.
And he didn't say what you claim in your second comment. Also from today:
"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."
Again, IN THE REPORT, he stated clearly that he could neither issue an indictment nor could he say the president should be indicted. This has been pointed out too many times to count. His reasoning was that if he said the president committed an indictable crime it would be the same as him issuing the indictment. He's right. So he laid out compelling evidence for multiple counts of obstruction of justice sufficient to convince over 1,000 former federal prosecutors from administrations going back to Eisenhower to say they would absolutely issue an indictment based on that evidence. Mueller could neither indict nor say the evidence was sufficient to indict but he could lay out the case and turn it over to Congress. Which is what he did. The next time you make the claim you made here:
He was tasked with determining if criminal conduct did occur,... and he was unable to do this.
You'll either be lying or demonstrating a breathtaking lack of intelligence.
And can you please enlighten us how the Orange Turd has made DC less swampy. He has filled his cabinet with unqualified, unethical, grifting morons. What is it now, 6 of his senior aides are in or have been sentenced to prison. His administration looks like a summer camp will all the unfilled positions. He is a pathetic, loser that may not survive 'til 2020 due to his incompetence.
He did. You too...read the report:
The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any
individual affiliated with the Trump Campaign acted as an agent of a foreign principal within the
meaning of FARA or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the government
of Russia, or any official thereof. In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos,
and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government or at its direction, control, or
request during the relevant time period.
You could also read the relevant statute:
9-27.220 - Grounds for Commencing or Declining Prosecution
The attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.
"To obtain and sustain a conviction" requires more than probable cause.
More directly it leaves us with the very clear indication that Mueller believes an indictment would have been issued for anyone not named POTUS.
Sounds like Mueller wants to be left alone and it is up to congress to do its job and start impeachment hearings, if they don't they have nothing to bitch about.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,289
- 191,202
- 113
It would be funny if the house impeached DT and enough never trumper Rs in the Senate decided, hey here's our chance, lets get rid of this guy... and had enough votes to impeach as well. I lean right and voted for Trump in '16 but this wouldnt break my heart... other than it would surely mean a Dem in the WH in '20.... and the risk of a Bernie/Warren/Beto winning the nomination is concerning. Tough scenario for the Senate Rs.
Nixon resigned rather than face the charges for obstruction. Of course, Nixon was intelligent and there were some GOP senators with integrity. Not the case with this president and this group of chicken shit GOP senators.
The Orange Turd should be impeached, convicted, removed from office, and a lesson learned. No body is above the law, and we have to build safeguards into our election process to prevent individuals like the Orange Turd from achieving this office.
Nancy Pelosi may be more concerned about dealing with an actually politically competent President Pence, than Trump, for the time being...
Also, if you're Pelosi, do you want your Dem nominee running against Trump in 2020? Or Pence?
Or, do you wait to impeach the day after they hand Trump the GOP nomination, and watch the ensuing fun?
Also, if you're Pelosi, do you want your Dem nominee running against Trump in 2020? Or Pence?
Or, do you wait to impeach the day after they hand Trump the GOP nomination, and watch the ensuing fun?
Who are you to call so many Americans idiots? That is one of the most idiotic hateful things someone can say and shows just a huge lack of intelligence and mental weakness from you. Do you purposely try to make people mad or feel less about themselves? That's by definition a mental illness and just sick behavior. Pretty small and weak dude. Maybe your just a kid though.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,289
- 191,202
- 113
"Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." -- H.L. Mencken
Not bad company to be in.
First of all that is not a statute you are quoting. Second, the standard is probable cause even under your quoted DOJ policy language - "probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction."
Finally, here's a typical federal grand jury instruction:
(5) The Evidence Needed Before a "'True Bill" May Be Voted
It is the responsibility of the grand jury to weigh the evidence presented to it in order to determine whether this evidence, usually without any explanation being offered by the accused, persuades it that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused was the person who committed it. Remember that the grand jury is not responsible for determining whether the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but only whether there is sufficient evidence of probable cause to justify bringing the accused to trial. Only the evidence presented to the grand jury in the grand jury room may be considered in determining whether to vote an indictment.
HANDBOOK FOR FEDERAL GRAND JURORS
http://www.ndd.uscourts.gov/jury/jury_handbook_grand_jurors.pdf
It is the responsibility of the grand jury to weigh the evidence presented to it in order to determine whether this evidence, usually without any explanation being offered by the accused, persuades it that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused was the person who committed it. Remember that the grand jury is not responsible for determining whether the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but only whether there is sufficient evidence of probable cause to justify bringing the accused to trial. Only the evidence presented to the grand jury in the grand jury room may be considered in determining whether to vote an indictment.
HANDBOOK FOR FEDERAL GRAND JURORS
http://www.ndd.uscourts.gov/jury/jury_handbook_grand_jurors.pdf
Very likely, but I'm not holding my breath that he'll say so. Mueller strikes me as a Ned Stark type of guy...unless he finds himself under oath and no longer part of the DOJ.
