Mueller report: It doesn't tell us how it knows some things.

Discussion in 'United States' started by chris155au, Apr 25, 2019.

  1. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If this damned Democratic party Vendetta ever saw the light of a court of law, the court could consume many months of testimony to later make a decision. We have no idea what the decision of the court would be.
     
  2. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then how could it be a "vendetta"?

    This is aside from the fact that the Mueller investigation wasn't started by "democrats", and that it's silly to suggest that the FBI was at the beck and call of the Democrats.
     
  3. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Early in the Mueller prank, i was, along with other republicans trying to learn why Mueller hired so many Democrats for his investigation force. And he ended up having to fire some of them.

    Democrats are incredibly unhappy with Mueller and want to drag him to a hearing to justify his report. It is not conceivable for Trump to take office and have only republicans working in the FBI. We now see the hate democrats have for Trump and the Mueller report could have put more lipstick on that pig.

    Terms like unindicted co conspirator.Either one conspired or did not. And no good prosecutor talks that way.

    We republicans are far happier with the Mueller report than Democrat are.They want to do the entire thing all over again hoping for them to win. Mueller gutted their hopes that Trump had done wrong. And they and the media are pissed off.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  4. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read the report. Bonespurs did a great deal of wrong, some of which hundreds of former prosecutors are calling crimes.

    The rest of your post is straight from Bonespurs. It's utter nonsense.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  5. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One time to you. I have no clue who this Bonespurs is. In light of draft law, it makes no sense.


    But you evaded the simple fact that Democrats are furious. Were it what you allege, it would be over with no further hearings.They want to haul Mueller in to interrogate the man.Why? He issued the report.

    Were it what you say, they would commence to impeach.

    Why are democrats so stupid in congress that they still do not comprehend the Mueller report?
     
  6. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, they're "furious", which means what?

    The Mueller Report opens the door to a number of questions, and having those questions answered is something all Americans should want answered.

    It looks like the Democrats do understand what the Mueller Report means; a lot of trumpers here, in sharp contrast, don't have a clue, or seemingly lack perspective.

    Mueller wrote:

    “With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,”

    Here’s what Mueller’s report says about what Congress can do:

    “Under [the Office of Legal Counsel’s] analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions.”

    “The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional mission.”

    “Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

    Mueller also says Congress has power when it comes to weighing in if the president decides to grant any presidential pardons, even though Trump has broad authority to pardon whoever he wants:

    “For example, although the President’s power to grant pardons is exclusive and not subject to congressional regulation, Congress has the authority to prohibit the corrupt use of ‘anything of value’ to influence the testimony of another person in a judicial, congressional, or agency proceeding, which would include the offer or promise of a pardon to induce a person to testify falsely or not to testify at all. The offer of a pardon would precede the act of pardoning and thus be within Congress’s power to regulate even if the pardon itself is not.”
     
  7. Robert

    Robert Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    49,472
    Likes Received:
    10,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I repeat, if the Democrats understood the Mueller report, they have no need for more hearings, yanking in Mueller. It looks like he is putting up a fight to me. They could have called in Mueller in March, all of April and even in May.

    You are calling questions made by the Mueller team (still most were Democrats) that appear to be composed by the Democrats on his team, as some sort of crime.

    And he says to Congress, you could make up laws to make it crimes.
     
  8. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no idea what you're talking about. If you'd actually read the Mueller Report, you'd understand that it raises a number of questions.

    You do understand that true career professionals don't make their professional decisions based upon party affiliation, don't you? It's beyond nonsensical to believe that everyone with a job makes all of their professional decisions based upon a party affiliation. Is your suggestion to have extremist RW'ers "investigate" Bonespurs?
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  9. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,027
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the Democrats came to believe their own hoax. It has been investigated, but not confirmed. Democrats ought to acknowledge they were duped, instead they insist this hasn't been investigated thoroughly enough, and that things that some may not consider collusive or obstructionist, actually are. And of course, anyone who doesn't see the need for further investigating and that the evidence shows clearly Trump colluded and obstructed, is just another deplorable Trump supporter.
     
  10. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    14,279
    Likes Received:
    1,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which contradicts what you said previously, that, "Mueller could have said those exact words and still not be contradicting what he said in the report." By "exact words" aren't you referring to Barr's words in testimony? Which again were: "Mueller said that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction."

    That's right.

    His job description is to identify if he can indict. And on this he had FULL CANDOR in his summary letter! What would've been "full candor" in your mind?

    Oh right, because CNN didn't report on this?

    How may he have succeeded to obstruct justice?

    "Past crimes", as in outside of what the Special Counsel was investigating? Otherwise, the Special Counsel found that he didn't commit any crimes, so I don't know what crimes you think he might have been trying to prevent from being uncovered.

    I do, mostly for the chance to laugh at dems after Mueller's testimony when they don't get anything from it! However, it does look like an impeachment case could be made and perhaps the only thing that will save him is the numbers in the senate.

    Yes, but why are you confident that there was a "serious possibility?"

    In his summary letter or during testimony?
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  11. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    14,279
    Likes Received:
    1,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean the report which includes the few redacted lines from the redacted version? You know that certain dems have had access to it right?
     
  12. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,960
    Likes Received:
    3,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You apparently don't understand the term underlying evidence since you have ask questions that could be answered by releasing it.
    Go back and read your posts.
     
  13. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    81,253
    Likes Received:
    22,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they need to have full access to it and the data behind it

    as well as access to Mueller to question him publicly
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
    jack4freedom likes this.
  14. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,027
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Access to that "data" (you mean evidence) is only necessary if one disputes Mueller's conclusions. Is it believed that Mueller's Report doesn't accurately reflect what can be concluded from the investigation he undertook?

    One can't know if Mueller's Report on the investigation was for some reason inadequate without considering the evidence behind it, but the perceived need for that evidence behind the Report must be based on more than just disagreement with Mueller's conclusions. Is it thought he and his team didn't do a competent job, that his investigators were not thorough, lacked motivation, were biased and favored Trump, should have dug deeper, overlooked the importance of some evidence, didn't consider the evidence carefully enough, misinterpreted what they found, should have considered other evidence...?

    If all the evidence gathered in Mueller's investigation were made public and became the subject of discussion, isn't it likely this would consume years of disputations over the significance of thousands of details and relationships between different facts, parties and transactions? From what I gather, 40 or so agents and 19 attorneys worked full-time for nearly two years on this, truckloads of documents were seized in numerous raids, records from Trump's campaign, his inaugural committee and the transition team, hundreds of individuals, everything presented to support each indictment, warrant, subpoena, claim and charge, transcripts from hundreds of hours of interrogations, those of all those wire taped phone calls... that's a lot of evidence.

    The farther we get from a clear and convincing case, the less sensible the insistence on more evidence and investigating seems to me.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  15. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    81,253
    Likes Received:
    22,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    put it all out there, no reason to hide it from the pubic - let everyone speak before Congress
     
  16. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,686
    Likes Received:
    7,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately, it would seem there is great reason to hide this from the public and stop people from speaking to Congress...especially Mr. Mueller.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  17. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,027
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have complete confidence Mueller examined very carefully everything his investigators produced, and that, as the experienced (and somewhat malicious) prosecutor he has been shown to be, made an intelligent determination on what he could prove with that evidence; he came up with "no collusion" and wasn't sure he had enough to show "obstruction". You think you're better at this?

    I'm an attorney with nearly 3 decades of experience, every day I get BS from opposing counsel and I know when they're overlooking or not considering some basic facts. The case against Trump is full of very problematic conclusions, this isn't by any consideration a "slam dunk".
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  18. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    14,279
    Likes Received:
    1,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You know that certain dems DID have full access to it right?
     
  19. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    14,279
    Likes Received:
    1,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh I do understand, but doesn't it mean that the dems don't trust Mueller's judgement?
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2019
  20. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    14,279
    Likes Received:
    1,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  21. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,960
    Likes Received:
    3,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mueller didn't make a judgement on obstruction.
    You must think there is something to hide in the underlying evidence or you would be all for releasing it.
     
  22. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    14,279
    Likes Received:
    1,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My mistake. Doesn't it mean that the dems don't trust Mueller's findings in the report?
     
  23. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,960
    Likes Received:
    3,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. It doesn't.
     
  24. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    14,279
    Likes Received:
    1,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So then why isn't the report enough?
     
  25. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,960
    Likes Received:
    3,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because as a tax payer I paid for the whole investigation so I want to see all the information gathered.
     

Share This Page