Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger

Mueller was not authorized to investigate obstruction of justice activities. You are misreading 600.4, a common error.

 

JakeStarkey said: ↑
The facts odf your opinion are wrong. The victim's interpretation does not guide the law and is not grounds for appeal.

The perp has been sentenced. Thank you for your input.

 

Your common error is not understanding the letter of authorization to Mueller clearly confirmed to follow wherever the investigation led.

 

OK...let's look at it. "The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with the intent to influence work the Special Counsel is investigating; such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted." Tell me why you don't believe that allowed Mueller to investigate "obstruction of justice" on the part of the President?

 

So? Stone gets 40 Months and he won't ever do a day behind bars.

1) The sentence will not take effect until Jackson rules on a pending motion for a new trial. Stone's attorneys made the request last week after Trump accused one of the jurors of "significant bias."

2) If it goes bad for Stone, Trump will just pardon him

 

And it will be appealed and likely that charge overturned

 

How do you know what was redacted?

I quoted the relevant part about the comey firing. He was cleared by mueller and exonerated by the house when they found nothing to impeach him on in regards to this issue.

 

The appeal will fail, because the trial was righteous.

I do expect Trump to pardon Stone after the election.

 

I thought you were arguing that a victim does not have to feel threatened in order for there to be an illegal threat. And/or the threat can be prosecuted even if there was no wherewithal or intent to carry out the threat.

 

I didn’t watch the entire week long trial...did you?

just from what I know there are at least two issues for appeal based on reports. Jury misconduct and sufficient of the evidence

 

Comey and McCabe should have been indicted and convicted long ago, or they should still busy testifying against other Deep State felons.

 

40 months....seems the Mueller team of lawyers were drastically off with their recommendation. Trump was right to call them out

 

The "relevant part" was my quote of the sentence in the "conclusion." Mueller chose not to determine either guilt or innocence in Volume II. He left it up to Barr, in part due to the failure to find evidence rising to the level of beyond reasonable doubt and, in part, due to the DoJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. What he did do was present evidence gathered at the time of the report's completion so that further investigation could be done by a future DoJ and/or Congress. The House determined to pursue an immediate impeachment based on the Ukrainian charges, insomuch as one charge related to the 2020 election (the Biden/Burisma charge) and was more urgent. Failure to convict him on the Ukrainian bill of impeachment would not immunize him from other charges...including obstruction of justice regarding the Russian investigation.

Regarding my guess at the subject of the redacted portion at the top of page 77, the footnote directs the reader back to Volume I, Section III.D.1, much of which is also redacted. Part of that reference is the Cohen testimony, noted on page 53. I believe Cohen testified to Congress (as well apparently as to the FBI) that he was in Trump's office, when Stone called him and discussed the Wikileaks releases. But, the Stone trial was an "ongoing matter" at the time of the Mueller report release and consequently redacted.

 

Yes, the sentence validates Trump's criticism of the prosecution team.

 

Well yeah, to the entire investigation...you were speaking about the Comey firing orginally, and I was just highlighting Mueller's conclusion to that specific event. It's true, in the end of the entire report he didn't conclude a crime was committed as well.

yes, the House too found nothing to impeach him on in regards to the Mueller Report...fully exonerating him of anything.

 

I will state again: the letter of authorization does not have the power to change ot ignore the law. The law clearly states:

(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere. ​

Therefore Mueller could not expand his investigation beyond the "links and/or coordination" thing without the explicit authorization from the Attorney General (and in this situation not Rosenstein the Assistant AG). He could on his own investigate obstruction but only if the suspected obstruction directly interfered with his assigned investigation. As Trump and the administration should unparalleled cooperation there was none of that.

 

As long as the targets were GOP related.

 

Because any obstruction had to directly interfere with Mueller's assigned investigation. He had no legal authority to investigate any other obstruction (or anything else for that matter) he happened upon without the explicit authorization from the AG (and in this situation not the Asst. AG).

 

Don't think so...the "Conclusion" I quote applied only to Volume II and the obstruction of justice. There is no real comparable "conclusion" drawn in Volume I. Perhaps, the closest lies in the closing pages 180-199. On page 183, there is the statement: "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 [ed note: The Foreign Agents Registration Act] or, in terms of Section 951 [ed note: Title 18 U.S.C. paragraph 952], 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."
IMO, that's a statement that they did not find evidence rising to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a conspiracy existed between any member of the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. But, similar to the Conclusion reached in Volume II, neither is it complete exoneration and the investigation could be reopened upon the presentation of new evidence.

 

I know no one suggested that. The source case that the SCOTUS was using this as a reference too is immaterial to the discussion at hand, so please don't get caught up in the weeds. They used the 9th circuits decision to bolster their own decision.

When I say 'evidenced based', I don't mean the overarching system of justice where all items are considered evidence. 'Evidenced Based Prosecution' is a specific situation where the 'victim' is unwilling to be apart of the investigation and trial. It, as a concept, was created in the 90s for Domestic Violence situations where the partner would be unwilling to press charges or testify. So the police simply arrest the partner and use the evidence at hand to prosecute.

As for Trump, he will pardon him. There was no appearance of unfairness until Barr interfered.

You would be correct. That is what I am arguing. The victim does not have to be a willing participant in the arrest or prosecution of the defendant for that defendant to be arrested, tried and convicted.

 

The AG (Sessions) had recused himself. Rod Rosenstein was the acting AG in this particular case and wrote the memo appointing Mueller and setting the parameters of the investigation, which included obstruction of justice. Subsequently, Sessions was fired and Barr replaced him. Barr chose NOT to rewrite or limit Rosenstein's original brief...and, if memory serves correctly, committed not to interfere in the Mueller investigation during his confirmation hearing. So, I really don't know what point you are trying to make?
P.S. I just checked Barr's confirmation testimony and yes, he commits to the Mueller investigation and allowing Mueller to complete his work...under oath. To me, that means he commits to not retracting Mueller's jurisdiction as defined by Rosenstein.

 

I meant to Vol 2...yes, we know Vol 1 concluded Trump or his campaign didn't conspire with Russia, Mueller knocked that false narrative down.

Obviously, any investigation can open with new evidence...but at this point based on Report, and the review by Congress, he reamins fully exonerated. You don't have to go all the way to page 183, the 2nd page starts this clearly ", the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

 

Well the case you cited has nothing to do with the law that was being prosecuted here.

It's possible to try a case without a victim...sure...and possible to win.....but it makes things much harder when you have the alleged victim, saying they weren't a victim.

Not sure on the pardon...not sure what you mean Barr interfered...he's the AG, his office is prosecuting the case....the unfairness arose when Barr highlighted the Mueller team lawyers made a recommendation that was opposite of what they told him they were going to do, and the jury misconduct came to light...but Barr didn't expose that...the juror was silly enough to go on social media outing it herself.

 

LOL Yes Cubed you did. And still are

Wrong again. The testimony of the witness saying they weren't is the evidence.

No Cubed you absolutely defended them because you claimed you could understand their frustration with being overridden which requires you to accept their conclusions.

This hopeless backpeddling of yours is tiresome my friend.

Absolutely
it is

And its been proven by the witness testifying he was not threatened. Try actually reading the testimony because its painfully clear you haven't.

LOL Declaring victory with no evidence. Classic Cubed response. Not only did I prove you can be fined I provided examples of the same Ontario human rights law that this pronoun law was attached to openly administering fines for other areas this draconian law covers.

But of course you can never admit your mistake.can you?

If that were true the judge would have signed off on 7-9. She didn't. Wrong again

So once again you provide zero evidence the evidence existed to back that law.

And the fact this judge didn't agree with you is all the proof I need you were dead wrong along with the lawyers you are defending

I do. Its how I continue to own you on the pronoun point because you didn't cheak to see the penalties for violating the Ontario human rights law they were attached to

LOL So you are going to fabricate what your own link says Cubed? Where does it say at the time of his arrest he was worth 5 million? Quote it Cubed. They give no date for their figure.

My God you are once again owned by your lack of detailed analysis. That wasn't even fun to prove you wrong. It was just sad.

You cited the law NOT the evidence to support it was met. And the judge obviously didn't agree with you or your lawyer friends

LOL Same answer: You cited the law NOT the evidence to support it was met. And the judge obviously didn't agree with you or your lawyer friends

And obviously the eivdence which you keep failing to produce for the enhancement wasn't there because the judge ignored the enhancement. Try again Cubed

Always amusing how your "nuh uh" argument is blown away with the ruling today isn't it?

Psst I've got news for you Cubed. The 9th circuit court's opinion means nothing in the DC court but you would know that if you understood the law as this judge did today

Yes because unlike you I need to see the evidence that fits the law which you laughably never provided and this judge agreed with my interpretation not yours or your layer buddies you keep defending.

And come back when you actually read the consequences for breaking the human rights law of Ontario that your pronoun law was attached to before you embarrass yourself again.

Thanks for playing