Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by chris155au, Apr 25, 2019.
Yes! We need to see the underlying evidence Barr won't release yet.
Yes he did. Here's why he would not bring charges:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.
Here's what he said about Trump defending himself:
Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought , affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .
no you refuse to acknowledge what is in the report you claim to have read.
The answer may be indicated in an underappreciated pair of sentences on page 76 of Volume II of the Mueller report:
“As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had any unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal or political concerns.”
The FBI has ALL of the meuller evidence on russian involvement. Now Chris Wray is in your dear leaders sights. A third FBI director who doesn't seem to be playing ball on the whole "russia hoax" thing.
Not that its obvious to you and yours, but either Individual 1 is getting fatter or the walls are getting closer together.
State Department Kavalec notes imply that Steele used Former Russian Deputy Prime Minister Vladislav Surkov as a “source” for the dossier If that’s true Steele and the FBI have a problem because... ...Surkov is on the sanctions list
So naturally an implication is more than enough to launch an investigation. I wonder if trump's continued "implied" obstruction of justice meets your criteria?
Depends. If it turns out to be true, unlike the investigation into Trump, then yes, it should be investigated.
turns out the investigation into trump revealed he did commit a criminal campaign finance offense, he and his campaign officials had reason to believe further investigation would reveal possible crimes or highly politically damaging information, and did commit obstruction of justice on several occasions.
But don't let the facts get in the way of what, asyour dear leader claims, is now "essentially exoneration" as opposed to "complete".
Blah, blah, blah. What happened to Trump was Putin's puppet? Oh yeah, the Mueller report that would put Trump in jail.
Meanwhile we have a million job openings that we cannot fill because of the booming economy yet the TDS sufferers still want to destroy that. Go figure.
My reply consists of the following subjects:
1. Barr's summary letter
2. Destruction of evidence
3. Clinton and her collusion with a foreign agent.
What does this reply have to do with the report. Take a look again at what you haven't been capable of responding to: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mueller-report-it-doesnt-tell-us-how-it-knows-some-things.554756/page-7#post-1070552494
The answer to what?
I'm not sure what your point is. The text that you have quoted above is from the first page of the Introduction to Volume II. Clearly, Mueller is explaining what legal considerations he came to and accepted from the OUTSET of the investigation. This does NOT mean that he brought these considerations into play some time after he was of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to indict Trump for Obstruction of Justice. You are trying to say that Muller DID have sufficient evidence, but was only prevented from indicting because of the OLC opinion. You are wrong. Mueller told Barr that the OLC opinion didn't prevent him from indicting. Here is what Barr said under oath in the hearings:
"Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, that but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction."
No, they were domestic enemies of the US Constitution. It was a false flag, meant to manipulate the public perception, to convince the common and uninformed man that it was Islamic terrorists. It was meant to deceive, as all false flags have done through history.
This is why the DOJ must and is continuing the investigation after Mueller submitted his report, and investigation into the primal origin of this whole thing.
My point is that even if Mueller had sufficient evidence for an indictment, he was not going to make the call because of the OLC opinion. Full stop. Moving on...Mueller notes,
"a President does not have immunity after he leaves office....Given those considerations, the facts known to us,...we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available....if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
I believe this make it clear that, although he was refraining from making a judgment (for what amount to technical reasons), he was preserving the evidence that a future judgment would require. That future judgment could be made by the justice department, after Trump leaves office, or while in office through impeachment. Regarding impeachment, Mueller notes:
"And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. (with this footnote: 2 See U.S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President)."
You seem to be interpreting Barr's statement as an exoneration of Trump, something Mueller explicitly said he was not doing. Contrary to some Dems, I do not believe Barr perjured himself - but he did mislead in a lawyerly way. The statement is technically correct, but misleading. If Mueller had told Barr, "If but for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction", Mueller would have been doing the exact opposite of what he said he was doing: making a judgment as to whether to indict. Mueller was simply being consistent in his recusal from making a judgment. We can verify this when Mueller testifies. Regardless, Mueller "preserved" the evidence for future judgment, and Congress has authority to make a judgment on the evidence (they have this authority regardless of any judgment Mueller, Barr, or Rosenstein make). If the House votes to impeach, their judgment will be consistent with the 802 former federal prosecutors who publicly stated the evidence is more than adequate to indict (impeachment is an indictment).
Whether or not the House impeaches, each of us can judge the evidence ourselves. I'm no lawyer, but the behavior of Trump that Mueller documented appears to me to cross the legal line. I find it interesting that Republicans in Congress are refraining from even making that call, one way or another. Instead we see deflection ("all that matters is the Russia thing, and he's exonerated", "what about Hillary?", "the investigation never should have happened"). Those deflections do not excuse Trump's behavior. I ask you, and all Republicans, to confront what Trump actually did. Whether or not he's ever impeached or indicted, is this behavior consistent with taking care "that the Laws be faithfully executed." Does this sound like, preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution? You are free to vote for the guy regardless of this, but don't alter your principles just because you prefer his policies.
I bet you loved playing twister as a child.
What happens if it is judicially determined that dossier was tainted, and that warrants secured thereby were not adequately substantiated? What if a court determined the explicit bias of some investigators prejudiced the accused? Would evidence of efforts to entrap Trump campaign participants call into question the validity of evidence against them? I think that evidence derived therefrom is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and inadmissible to prove any crime.
Page was never charged. So even if it was, which it wasn't, no one but him was affected.
I bet you would love playing a game that involved dodging people! You are very good at dodging!
However, you are not good at all at standing up to basic scrutiny! You STILL can't say what my reply has to do with the report?
I agree. In my last reply, I accused you of, "trying to say that Muller DID have sufficient evidence, but was
only prevented from indicting because of the OLC opinion." However, you didn't dispute this in your reply. So do you dispute this?
Incorrect. Trump has not been exonerated. He has only avoided being indicted by Mueller and Barr. He does however face the possibility of future legal action, no question about that.
Good to see that you have a brain that functions properly! And I think that you meant to say; contrary to the VAST MAJORITY of Dems!
By doing what?
How do you know what Mueller told Barr?
Why can't it mean that if it wasn't for the OLC opinion, he STILL wouldn't have come to a conclusion?
Is it possible that half of these 802 people are Trump haters and the others half are people with a different
interpretation of Obstruction of Justice laws? Can Barr REALLY be the only lawyer in the land with his interpretation?
Also, other people have tried to use these 802 former federal prosecutors to say that if it wasn't for the OLC opinion, Mueller would've indicted Trump. You're not saying this garbage are you?
No, but do you think that the other stuff should be investigated?
No. However, I ask you, do you or a friend or family member own a business?
Among others, the Saudis who are affiliated with the Carlyle Group who was meeting in those days. In case you don't know, Bush & Co are also major players in Carlyle. I think they jokingly called one of the bin Laden family members "Bandahar Bush". Quite a sense of humor they have.
Nope. If the dossier was generated by the authorities themselves you'd have a case. OTOH, since it was a piece of evidence submitted to the authorities, are you suggesting they should have had miracle powers to ascertain the accuracy of everything that was in it, without investigating its claims? IOW, they are suspected of doing their jobs.
Your warrants were not adequately substantiated, it seems you haven't read the FISA application. Nor know much about the process.
And no the validity of the evidence against them is not in question. But it is a classic tactic using the ol' "fruit of the poison tree" defense. A lame conspiracy theory based on the theory that partisan politics trump's rule of law within the justice system. I get how Trump supporters believe the justice system serves the president and not the other way around - a primary indicator that the stench of fascism is still with us.
Wrong, the FISA warrant enables tapping Carter Page's phone, so they get the names of everyone he calls (and what they talked about), plus "one hop" (all the people who were called by anyone Page called). I'd figure, given Mr. Page's position in Trump's campaign, it would be sensible to figure that by means of the unlawfully premised FISA warrant and its fraudulent subsequent renewals, Mueller was able to review transcripts of every call by Trump and each of his campaign team for about a year. Whatever leads were developed thereby, would be "fruit of the poisonous tree, if it is shown that the dossier premised the FISA warrant and that this warrant was not lawfully renewed.
The FBI did not tell the FISA Court Steele had met Kavalec at DoS about his dossier without their authorization, should we conclude then that the FBI authorized this meeting? Alternately, should we conclude the FBI failed to note the unreliability of their informant (Steele) since we do know they then knew Steele was peddling his dossier to the DoS without their permission? Either way this is messed up.
That "admonishment training" was likely perfunctory for a senior high-ranking friendly foreign intelligence source like Mr. Steele, what caught my eye was the date, February 2, 2016 is a full 5 months before the FBI has acknowledged they began investigating Trump's ties to Russia, why was the FBI dealing with Steele five months before they had concern over Russians and Trump?
Sid Blumenthal, back in the news!
Granted its from the Daily Caller and features Trey Gowdy, nonetheless, if Gowdy is honestly describing something he saw which noted the dossier's contents had been verified by Sid Blumenthal, that really is a problem.
That's kind of what FISA warrants are for isn't it?
For all we know the follow on warrants may have been for more "hops."
Separate names with a comma.