(03-27-2019 12:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 11:03 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 06:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yup

What did he say?

Perfectly summarizes the left. Not well-covered on Don Lemon or Rachael Maddow. Surprise.

TL;DR for you: Lindsey is currently one guy in government willing to do his job correctly. God Bless America (with no apologies to Rev. Wright.)

Lol, great summary!

Still have no idea what Graham said that y'all are referencing (and I doubt it's because CNN or MSNBC didn't cover it - the only news I've listened to or read the last few days is Morning Edition on the way to work, which hasn't had a ton of Trump related news).

A quick Google says that Graham has talked about the DOJ releasing the report without Trump's review and inviting Barr to talk to the Senate. Both are great things.

he also talked about investigating the DOJ and FBI to learn how this witch hunt (my words) got started, in particular the use of the dossier. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I don't care if Trump reviews it or not. it's not like he is going to revise it and Mueller reamin quiet.

My guess is that Mueller lays a lot of that out in his report, as a way to provide context for the investigation given that he (per Barr's summary) makes it clear that the Russian government was actively meddling.

If that information is not included in Mueller's report, I do think it would be beneficial to have complete transparency about how and why the investigation started, given that all we have now are news stories floating about.

(03-27-2019 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:12 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 03:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:24 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  The Barr Report, not the Mueller Report, concludes that the President did not obstruct justice. This conclusion should not surprise us: in his application for the job of Attorney General, way back in June 2018, Sir Barr told us he would reach this conclusion. He's doing what he was hired to do. Hooray!

That’s not an accurate characterization of Barr’s 2018 memo. The memo is a long argument that the obstruction statute should not be construed to cover Presidential conduct that is lawful on its face, such as dismissing an agency head. The memo does not argue that other acts by the President — e.g witness tampering, evidence destruction — would not violate the obstruction statute. Thus, it is not true that the memo indicates an intent to exonerate the President under all circumstances.

Regarding the Barr letter to Congress and obstruction of justice, a most interesting phrase:
"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
Seems within the scope of his mandate to have done so.

No doubt. This was, in fact, what he was 'hired' to do.
He made several 'non-traditional' prosecutorial judgments leading up the final act, mind you.
I read it as implying that Mueller really wishes to have brought charges, but both factual issues (i.e. no underlying corrupt intent) and Constitutional issues (whether a President can be dinged for exercising a discretionary and lawful power) leave him in the weakest position possible to consider that.
Which, when you note the zealousness that he extended indictments to others, and the liberal extent to the definition of some of those charges (i.e. the 'sandbag' of Flynn, the elevation of a 'he didnt sign a piece of paper, and the submission of the paper with a 3k fine is the punishment'-level offense to various felony indictments ('conspiracy against the United States', numerous money laundering, and a bevy of process crimes), indictments of corporations that werent even in existence at the alleged time), and the liberal manner in the prosecution of some of those matters (the refusal to move forward when a corporation had the temerity to actually answer and request expedited proceedings, refusal to accept the counsel of record as being able to respond in court), then yes, I am both surprised at the punt, yet at the same time not surprised at it.

I don't know whether Mueller truly "wishes have brought charges," but it is pretty clear that he found neither factual nor statuary basis for so doing. As you note, given his willingness to go full bore on prosecuting things unrelated to the nominal scope of his investigation, one can scarcely believe he would have punted anything within that scope.

And Boston Owl's gross mischaracterization of Barr's 2018 has set a forum record for disingenuity. .

Not sure you can suggest that Mueller's willingness for turning over potential crimes unrelated to his scope to other prosecutors is indicative of why he chose to sit on the fence regarding OOJ. Perhaps he found enough evidence for OOJ if Trump hadn't been POTUS (and, as Barr outlined, able to make hiring and firing decisions without threat of OOJ charges), but not enough, or no evidence, that Trump had conducted "bad acts" (as I think Barr put it).

My guess is he explains clearly why he sat on the fence in his report - so I'm looking forward to reading that.

On a side note, what should Mueller have done about potentially other crimes uncovered during the investigation? Should Mueller have not gone "full bore" on prosecuting other crimes uncovered during the investigation?

(03-27-2019 12:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 11:03 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 06:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 12:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yup

What did he say?

Perfectly summarizes the left. Not well-covered on Don Lemon or Rachael Maddow. Surprise.

TL;DR for you: Lindsey is currently one guy in government willing to do his job correctly. God Bless America (with no apologies to Rev. Wright.)

Lol, great summary!

Still have no idea what Graham said that y'all are referencing (and I doubt it's because CNN or MSNBC didn't cover it - the only news I've listened to or read the last few days is Morning Edition on the way to work, which hasn't had a ton of Trump related news).

A quick Google says that Graham has talked about the DOJ releasing the report without Trump's review and inviting Barr to talk to the Senate. Both are great things.

he also talked about investigating the DOJ and FBI to learn how this witch hunt (my words) got started, in particular the use of the dossier. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I don't care if Trump reviews it or not. it's not like he is going to revise it and Mueller reamin quiet.

Yup. Lindsey has the Sunlight now. Let's enjoy watching the Dem roaches scatter the next two years.

(03-27-2019 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:12 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 03:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  That’s not an accurate characterization of Barr’s 2018 memo. The memo is a long argument that the obstruction statute should not be construed to cover Presidential conduct that is lawful on its face, such as dismissing an agency head. The memo does not argue that other acts by the President — e.g witness tampering, evidence destruction — would not violate the obstruction statute. Thus, it is not true that the memo indicates an intent to exonerate the President under all circumstances.

Regarding the Barr letter to Congress and obstruction of justice, a most interesting phrase:
"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
Seems within the scope of his mandate to have done so.

No doubt. This was, in fact, what he was 'hired' to do.
He made several 'non-traditional' prosecutorial judgments leading up the final act, mind you.
I read it as implying that Mueller really wishes to have brought charges, but both factual issues (i.e. no underlying corrupt intent) and Constitutional issues (whether a President can be dinged for exercising a discretionary and lawful power) leave him in the weakest position possible to consider that.
Which, when you note the zealousness that he extended indictments to others, and the liberal extent to the definition of some of those charges (i.e. the 'sandbag' of Flynn, the elevation of a 'he didnt sign a piece of paper, and the submission of the paper with a 3k fine is the punishment'-level offense to various felony indictments ('conspiracy against the United States', numerous money laundering, and a bevy of process crimes), indictments of corporations that werent even in existence at the alleged time), and the liberal manner in the prosecution of some of those matters (the refusal to move forward when a corporation had the temerity to actually answer and request expedited proceedings, refusal to accept the counsel of record as being able to respond in court), then yes, I am both surprised at the punt, yet at the same time not surprised at it.

I don't know whether Mueller truly "wishes have brought charges," but it is pretty clear that he found neither factual nor statuary basis for so doing. As you note, given his willingness to go full bore on prosecuting things unrelated to the nominal scope of his investigation, one can scarcely believe he would have punted anything within that scope.
And Boston Owl's gross mischaracterization of Barr's 2018 has set a forum record for disingenuity. .

Not sure you can suggest that Mueller's willingness for turning over potential crimes unrelated to his scope to other prosecutors is indicative of why he chose to sit on the fence regarding OOJ. Perhaps he found enough evidence for OOJ if Trump hadn't been POTUS (and, as Barr outlined, able to make hiring and firing decisions without threat of OOJ charges), but not enough, or no evidence, that Trump had conducted "bad acts" (as I think Barr put it).
My guess is he explains clearly why he sat on the fence in his report - so I'm looking forward to reading that.
On a side note, what should Mueller have done about potentially other crimes uncovered during the investigation? Should Mueller have not gone "full bore" on prosecuting other crimes uncovered during the investigation?

First point is that any exemption from prosecution which might be available to the president is available only to him. Assuming that any effort to obstruct justice was almost certainly aided and abetted by others, Mueller could clearly have charged any such others. He did not.

And yes, if Trump had not been president it would have been OOJ for him to have fired certain people, because only the president has the power to fire them. I think OOJ has been widely mischaracterized and misunderstood. You should probably go read the statute.

It would seem that a president could be guilty of OOJ by executing constitutionally authorized powers if and only if those powers had been executed in a manner and for the purpose of covering up a crime. That was how they got Nixon for OOJ, because he was covering up an underlying crime. Of course in Nixon's case we never got to the potential constitutional issues that would have been involved in determining whether his acts were in fact OOJ. In this case, we don't have the underlying crime. If it could be proved that Trump fired Comey to terminate the investigation of an actual crime, and if that crime was subsequently determined to have happened, then you might be able to get OOJ against Trump. But neither of those conditions appears to exist at this point.

I am not saying that Mueller should not have prosecuted other crimes that came to light. What I am saying (and I think Tanqtonic too) is that vigorous prosecution of a number of crimes unrelated to the nominal scope of the investigation, coupled with no prosecution of any American for any crimes associated with the nominal scope or the investigation, suggests pretty strongly that no evidence of the latter category of crimes was found.

I do have one question on behalf of Tanq and myself: Do you think we should be able to claim the time spent reading your posts as continuing legal education required for the annual renewal of our law licenses?

(03-27-2019 01:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 01:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:12 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Regarding the Barr letter to Congress and obstruction of justice, a most interesting phrase:
"the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
Seems within the scope of his mandate to have done so.

No doubt. This was, in fact, what he was 'hired' to do.
He made several 'non-traditional' prosecutorial judgments leading up the final act, mind you.
I read it as implying that Mueller really wishes to have brought charges, but both factual issues (i.e. no underlying corrupt intent) and Constitutional issues (whether a President can be dinged for exercising a discretionary and lawful power) leave him in the weakest position possible to consider that.
Which, when you note the zealousness that he extended indictments to others, and the liberal extent to the definition of some of those charges (i.e. the 'sandbag' of Flynn, the elevation of a 'he didnt sign a piece of paper, and the submission of the paper with a 3k fine is the punishment'-level offense to various felony indictments ('conspiracy against the United States', numerous money laundering, and a bevy of process crimes), indictments of corporations that werent even in existence at the alleged time), and the liberal manner in the prosecution of some of those matters (the refusal to move forward when a corporation had the temerity to actually answer and request expedited proceedings, refusal to accept the counsel of record as being able to respond in court), then yes, I am both surprised at the punt, yet at the same time not surprised at it.

I don't know whether Mueller truly "wishes have brought charges," but it is pretty clear that he found neither factual nor statuary basis for so doing. As you note, given his willingness to go full bore on prosecuting things unrelated to the nominal scope of his investigation, one can scarcely believe he would have punted anything within that scope.
And Boston Owl's gross mischaracterization of Barr's 2018 has set a forum record for disingenuity. .

Not sure you can suggest that Mueller's willingness for turning over potential crimes unrelated to his scope to other prosecutors is indicative of why he chose to sit on the fence regarding OOJ. Perhaps he found enough evidence for OOJ if Trump hadn't been POTUS (and, as Barr outlined, able to make hiring and firing decisions without threat of OOJ charges), but not enough, or no evidence, that Trump had conducted "bad acts" (as I think Barr put it).
My guess is he explains clearly why he sat on the fence in his report - so I'm looking forward to reading that.
On a side note, what should Mueller have done about potentially other crimes uncovered during the investigation? Should Mueller have not gone "full bore" on prosecuting other crimes uncovered during the investigation?

First point is that any exemption from prosecution which might be available to the president is available only to him. Assuming that any effort to obstruct justice was almost certainly aided and abetted by others, Mueller could clearly have charged any such others. He did not.

And yes, if Trump had not been president it would have been OOJ for him to have fired certain people, because only the president has the power to fire them. I think OOJ has been widely mischaracterized and misunderstood. You should probably go read the statute.

It would seem that a president could be guilty of OOJ by executing constitutionally authorized powers if and only if those powers had been executed in a manner and for the purpose of covering up a crime. That was how they got Nixon for OOJ, because he was covering up an underlying crime. Of course in Nixon's case we never got to the potential constitutional issues that would have been involved in determining whether his acts were in fact OOJ. In this case, we don't have the underlying crime. If it could be proved that Trump fired Comey to terminate the investigation of an actual crime, and if that crime was subsequently determined to have happened, then you might be able to get OOJ against Trump. But neither of those conditions appears to exist at this point.

I am not saying that Mueller should not have prosecuted other crimes that came to light. What I am saying (and I think Tanqtonic too) is that vigorous prosecution of a number of those crimes, coupled with no prosecution for the alleged reasons for the investigation, suggests pretty strongly that those alleged reasons did not produce any evidence of crimes. I do have one question on behalf of Tanq and myself: Do you think we should be able to claim the time spent reading your posts as continuing legal education for the annual renewal of our law licenses?

Doesn't hurt to try. I'm certainly not going to stop contributing, commenting, and asking questions.

Maybe I should start asking some engineering questions so I can get some PDHs...

Really interesting idea I just saw, and potentially an argument for keeping the Mueller report under wraps

Quote: Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

(03-27-2019 02:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Really interesting idea I just saw, and potentially an argument for keeping the Mueller report under wraps

Quote:
Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

I believe Ken Starr recently stated, and I understand this to be correct, that the procedures in effect at that time were different, so such an event could and would not have occurred.

I also believe that in that event Starr would have had both the right and the constitutional duty to have set the record straight, and I fully believe that he would have done so in very short order. I believe that right and constitutional duty would also extend to Bobby Three Sticks, and so far he had remained silent.

I want to see the full report. I understand some minor parts my have to be redacted because of statutory limitations, but from the context I do not believe that they will be material, in either scope or extent.

At lunch, my compadres and myself were asking why did Mueller punt? In theory, there are at least four possibilities. 1) he didn’t think it was job to state a firm conclusion. 2) he concluded that there is no sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 3) he concluded that there is a sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 4) he couldn’t make up his mind.

I think we can ixnay #1 and #4 without much thought. 1) is pretty much impossible. The very point of having a special counsel is the view that judgments as to whether the president committed a crime should be made by someone independent of the president

4) doesnt have a ground in Mueller's actions. Nothing I have heard or seen about Mueller suggests that he’s indecisive and cannot make important calls even in cases he considers close. The prosecutions that he has undertaken even in this role lend no credence to 4).

As for 3), if that occurred, should it would come out, Mueller would be disgraced in the eyes of the media and the left. Further, the reputation that Mueller has would be pretty much irretrievably lost.

(03-27-2019 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At lunch, my compadres and myself were asking why did Mueller punt? In theory, there are at least four possibilities. 1) he didn’t think it was job to state a firm conclusion. 2) he concluded that there is no sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 3) he concluded that there is a sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 4) he couldn’t make up his mind.
I think we can ixnay #1 and #4 without much thought. 1) is pretty much impossible. The very point of having a special counsel is the view that judgments as to whether the president committed a crime should be made by someone independent of the president
4) doesnt have a ground in Mueller's actions. Nothing I have heard or seen about Mueller suggests that he’s indecisive and cannot make important calls even in cases he considers close. The prosecutions that he has undertaken even in this role lend no credence to 4).
As for 3), if that occurred, should it would come out, Mueller would be disgraced in the eyes of the media and the left. Further, the reputation that Mueller has would be pretty much irretrievably lost.

That pretty much leaves 2).

What will happen if the full report is released, or as much as it is legally permissible to release, and there is nothing? That is the result I expect at this point. It is almost the only possible result.

I agree with Graham --- the fact that this happened, was promulgated to the extent that it was, *and* with a full exoneration of Trump (and Trump minions for that matter) as to 'collusion, I think a very sharp eye needs to be turned to why the **** a National Enquirer level dossier was allowed to be the genesis of this crap. And why people like Clapper and Brennan have the stink all over them, to the extent of the even 'seeding' the dossier with outside media in order to bolster the FISA warrants.

In short, people like Clapper and Brennan effectively weaponized the law enforcement and intelligence services for the benefit of an Administration and their 'successor' against the nominee of the opposing party. I dont think anyone can really disagree with this at this point. Utterly reprehensible. And now, Brennan has the gall to say 'well golly gee willikers, I guess I had bad information."

The fact that it reached here two years+ later (almost three considering the investigations were ongoing in July 2016) is proof positive of, at the least, absolute fing negligence in the process. At the worst, it rings of malfeasance --- of the level that so many said there was 'plenty of smoke' with when opining about 'collusion' issues.

But, I am sure there isnt enough 'smoke' for that for some, even with the characterization of the full exoneration of Trump re: 'collusion' here.

What an absolute and utterly malignant gift Hillary and the Obama administration left for the US.

(03-27-2019 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I agree with Graham --- the fact that this happened, was promulgated to the extent that it was, *and* with a full exoneration of Trump (and Trump minions for that matter) as to 'collusion, I think a very sharp eye needs to be turned to why the **** a National Enquirer level dossier was allowed to be the genesis of this crap. And why people like Clapper and Brennan have the stink all over them, to the extent of the even 'seeding' the dossier with outside media in order to bolster the FISA warrants.
In short, people like Clapper and Brennan effectively weaponized the law enforcement and intelligence services for the benefit of an Administration and their 'successor' against the nominee of the opposing party. I dont think anyone can really disagree with this at this point. Utterly reprehensible. And now, Brennan has the gall to say 'well golly gee willikers, I guess I had bad information."
The fact that it reached here two years+ later (almost three considering the investigations were ongoing in July 2016) is proof positive of, at the least, absolute fing negligence in the process. At the worst, it rings of malfeasance --- of the level that so many said there was 'plenty of smoke' with when opining about 'collusion' issues.
But, I am sure there isnt enough 'smoke' for that for some, even with the characterization of the full exoneration of Trump re: 'collusion' here.
What an absolute and utterly malignant gift Hillary and the Obama administration left for the US.

Spot on. System want let me give rep points right now. I'd like to copy this and your immediate previous post (also deserving of rep points that I can't give now) to the Spin Room.

(03-27-2019 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At lunch, my compadres and myself were asking why did Mueller punt? In theory, there are at least four possibilities. 1) he didn’t think it was job to state a firm conclusion. 2) he concluded that there is no sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 3) he concluded that there is a sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 4) he couldn’t make up his mind.
I think we can ixnay #1 and #4 without much thought. 1) is pretty much impossible. The very point of having a special counsel is the view that judgments as to whether the president committed a crime should be made by someone independent of the president
4) doesnt have a ground in Mueller's actions. Nothing I have heard or seen about Mueller suggests that he’s indecisive and cannot make important calls even in cases he considers close. The prosecutions that he has undertaken even in this role lend no credence to 4).
As for 3), if that occurred, should it would come out, Mueller would be disgraced in the eyes of the media and the left. Further, the reputation that Mueller has would be pretty much irretrievably lost.

That pretty much leaves 2).

What will happen if the full report is released, or as much as it is legally permissible to release, and there is nothing? That is the result I expect at this point. It is almost the only possible result.

The way Barr put it, Mueller provided information for "the examined conduct" related to OOJ and "set out evidence on both sides of the question" and left the OOJ issue unresolved "as difficult issues of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction."

I read that as #4 - that due to the "difficult issues" of law and fact. For example, what if the intent of Trump to fire Comey was to end the Russia investigation, but not because he was worried that ties with Russia would come out, but because information about other, potential criminal actions, did? That seems to fall into a gray area that Barr's earlier memo didn't really cover (unless I missed it, I did not comb through it thoroughly).

I could also see that being #2, where he felt that there was evidence of OOJ, but not sufficient to charge with a crime and have a solid basis.

Again, it will be interesting to see what the report says.

(03-27-2019 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I agree with Graham --- the fact that this happened, was promulgated to the extent that it was, *and* with a full exoneration of Trump (and Trump minions for that matter) as to 'collusion, I think a very sharp eye needs to be turned to why the **** a National Enquirer level dossier was allowed to be the genesis of this crap. And why people like Clapper and Brennan have the stink all over them, to the extent of the even 'seeding' the dossier with outside media in order to bolster the FISA warrants.

In short, people like Clapper and Brennan effectively weaponized the law enforcement and intelligence services for the benefit of an Administration and their 'successor' against the nominee of the opposing party. I dont think anyone can really disagree with this at this point. Utterly reprehensible. And now, Brennan has the gall to say 'well golly gee willikers, I guess I had bad information."

The fact that it reached here two years+ later (almost three considering the investigations were ongoing in July 2016) is proof positive of, at the least, absolute fing negligence in the process. At the worst, it rings of malfeasance --- of the level that so many said there was 'plenty of smoke' with when opining about 'collusion' issues.

But, I am sure there isnt enough 'smoke' for that for some, even with the characterization of the full exoneration of Trump re: 'collusion' here.

What an absolute and utterly malignant gift Hillary and the Obama administration left for the US.

Based on what we know the Mueller report found, you can't draw any of these conclusions, and yes, people can reasonably disagree with your points here. For starters, the outcome of an investigation or trial being that someone is not guilty or did not do what they were accused of, is not, in and of itself, proof that the investigation shouldn't have been conducted or that the investigation itself was negligent nor malfeasant.

What was reprehensible was McConnell telling the Obama admin to shove it when they wanted to make it public that Russia was attempting to interfere with the election, prior to the election. Or how about Trump Jr gladly inviting in a Russian asset to share stolen data with them? Or how about Stone coordinating with Wikileaks to release stolen data?

I also like that in the same sentence you side with Graham and then crap on the dossier, which Lindsay Graham said should be submitted to the FBI when McCain disclosed it to him. Graham himself felt that the dossier was valid enough to turn into the FBI, and why would he do that, if not because he wanted them to investigate the dossier's claims???

If the Mueller report (or subsequent investigations) indicate that the FBI and Obama admin made up information, lied, etc. in order to keep tabs on Trump and the Trump campaign, I'll join you in condemning them.

(03-27-2019 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I agree with Graham --- the fact that this happened, was promulgated to the extent that it was, *and* with a full exoneration of Trump (and Trump minions for that matter) as to 'collusion, I think a very sharp eye needs to be turned to why the **** a National Enquirer level dossier was allowed to be the genesis of this crap. And why people like Clapper and Brennan have the stink all over them, to the extent of the even 'seeding' the dossier with outside media in order to bolster the FISA warrants.
In short, people like Clapper and Brennan effectively weaponized the law enforcement and intelligence services for the benefit of an Administration and their 'successor' against the nominee of the opposing party. I dont think anyone can really disagree with this at this point. Utterly reprehensible. And now, Brennan has the gall to say 'well golly gee willikers, I guess I had bad information."
The fact that it reached here two years+ later (almost three considering the investigations were ongoing in July 2016) is proof positive of, at the least, absolute fing negligence in the process. At the worst, it rings of malfeasance --- of the level that so many said there was 'plenty of smoke' with when opining about 'collusion' issues.
But, I am sure there isnt enough 'smoke' for that for some, even with the characterization of the full exoneration of Trump re: 'collusion' here.
What an absolute and utterly malignant gift Hillary and the Obama administration left for the US.

Based on what we know the Mueller report found, you can't draw any of these conclusions, and yes, people can reasonably disagree with your points here. For starters, the outcome of an investigation or trial being that someone is not guilty or did not do what they were accused of, is not, in and of itself, proof that the investigation shouldn't have been conducted or that the investigation itself was negligent nor malfeasant.

Taken in a vacuum, no, it is not. But we don't take it in a vacuum. The knowledge that the investigation was begun based at least in part on what was known to be unverified data from questionable sources, and that persons close to the investigation in its early stages talked of things like an, "insurance policy," clearly raise the possibility that the investigation itself was either negligent or, more likely, malfeasant. If the original story was worth investigating further, now that has turned into what appears to be a dry hole, certainly the questionable source and nature of the investigation itself deserves a full and complete investigation.

Quote:What was reprehensible was McConnell telling the Obama admin to shove it when they wanted to make it public that Russia was attempting to interfere with the election, prior to the election. Or how about Trump Jr gladly inviting in a Russian asset to share stolen data with them? Or how about Stone coordinating with Wikileaks to release stolen data?

So McConnell was in on the apparently non-existent "collusion" too? I'm no fan of McConnell, because I think he has been way too much of a pantywaist in dealing with democrats. But I'm not aware that the senate majority leader has any power to prevent the executive from disclosing information.

And I think, "gladly inviting in a Russian asset to share data with them," is a gross overstatement of what actually happened. As is, "Stone coordinating with Wikileaks to release stolen data."

Quote:I also like that in the same sentence you side with Graham and then crap on the dossier, which Lindsay Graham said should be submitted to the FBI when McCain disclosed it to him. Graham himself felt that the dossier was valid enough to turn into the FBI, and why would he do that, if not because he wanted them to investigate the dossier's claims???

Graham is another that is not high on my admire list. But what did Graham know about the authenticity of the dossier when he made that recommendation? And turning it over to the FBI is not exactly the same thing as the FBI then taking it and using it to obtain warrants in violation of the FISA court rules.

Quote:If the Mueller report (or subsequent investigations) indicate that the FBI and Obama admin made up information, lied, etc. in order to keep tabs on Trump and the Trump campaign, I'll join you in condemning them.

I don't think you'll see that in the Mueller report, because that was outside the scope of his charge. But I do think we need to have a subsequent investigation to determine whether those things happened. And you say that if those allegations turn out to be true, you will join in condemning them. Question--Will you condemn them with equal vigor to your condemnation of Trump, based on nothing more than apparently unverified and untrue allegations?

(03-27-2019 05:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At lunch, my compadres and myself were asking why did Mueller punt? In theory, there are at least four possibilities. 1) he didn’t think it was job to state a firm conclusion. 2) he concluded that there is no sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 3) he concluded that there is a sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 4) he couldn’t make up his mind.
I think we can ixnay #1 and #4 without much thought. 1) is pretty much impossible. The very point of having a special counsel is the view that judgments as to whether the president committed a crime should be made by someone independent of the president
4) doesnt have a ground in Mueller's actions. Nothing I have heard or seen about Mueller suggests that he’s indecisive and cannot make important calls even in cases he considers close. The prosecutions that he has undertaken even in this role lend no credence to 4).
As for 3), if that occurred, should it would come out, Mueller would be disgraced in the eyes of the media and the left. Further, the reputation that Mueller has would be pretty much irretrievably lost.

That pretty much leaves 2).

What will happen if the full report is released, or as much as it is legally permissible to release, and there is nothing? That is the result I expect at this point. It is almost the only possible result.

The way Barr put it, Mueller provided information for "the examined conduct" related to OOJ and "set out evidence on both sides of the question" and left the OOJ issue unresolved "as difficult issues of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction."

I read that as #4 - that due to the "difficult issues" of law and fact. For example, what if the intent of Trump to fire Comey was to end the Russia investigation, but not because he was worried that ties with Russia would come out, but because information about other, potential criminal actions, did? That seems to fall into a gray area that Barr's earlier memo didn't really cover (unless I missed it, I did not comb through it thoroughly).

Why dont you ask what would be the outcome if Trump did this at he behest of Green bug-eyed monsters? Good god, how many dips into the 'lets just make **** up and toss it out there' are you going to take?

If the issue was what you toss out their on a completly random basis, Mueller has a mandate to bring that out --- remember the giant fing fishing license he was granted. Not just a mandate, but an obligation to do so.

In the alternative, with the oath he took for the DOJ, at the very least he has the obligation to refer that situation to the proper US Attorney to move forward.

Please stop making stuff up that doesnt fit the facts.

The simple fact is that if Trump performed an act 'to impede' the investigation with a 'corrupt intent' (any corrupt intent mind you) that is no 'grey area', that is actually crystal fing clear.

The utter lack of any indictment and any referral kind of blows your supposition abut 900 feet out of the water.

And if you believe hat it is so, that runs absolutely contrary to every other 'weird ass bend and stretch' of the law Mueller had *already* taken.

(03-27-2019 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I agree with Graham --- the fact that this happened, was promulgated to the extent that it was, *and* with a full exoneration of Trump (and Trump minions for that matter) as to 'collusion, I think a very sharp eye needs to be turned to why the **** a National Enquirer level dossier was allowed to be the genesis of this crap. And why people like Clapper and Brennan have the stink all over them, to the extent of the even 'seeding' the dossier with outside media in order to bolster the FISA warrants.

In short, people like Clapper and Brennan effectively weaponized the law enforcement and intelligence services for the benefit of an Administration and their 'successor' against the nominee of the opposing party. I dont think anyone can really disagree with this at this point. Utterly reprehensible. And now, Brennan has the gall to say 'well golly gee willikers, I guess I had bad information."

The fact that it reached here two years+ later (almost three considering the investigations were ongoing in July 2016) is proof positive of, at the least, absolute fing negligence in the process. At the worst, it rings of malfeasance --- of the level that so many said there was 'plenty of smoke' with when opining about 'collusion' issues.

But, I am sure there isnt enough 'smoke' for that for some, even with the characterization of the full exoneration of Trump re: 'collusion' here.

What an absolute and utterly malignant gift Hillary and the Obama administration left for the US.

Based on what we know the Mueller report found, you can't draw any of these conclusions,

Actually I can. I can certainly rely on the portion that says that Trump was 'exonerated' of collusion or cooperation. And, given that 'exoneration' is *not* the goal or the action that Mueller (or any other prosecutor, for that matter), I can also infer that there was probably an amazing lack of evidence, or perhaps, maybe even evidence that directly contradicts collusion or cooperation.

Given what we know about the Steele memo, it is even more obvious now what an utter piece of **** rubbish pile it is.

So yes, the predilection to move forward, and the actions that we know that Clapper *and* Brennan performed, coupled with the absolute shitpile that we know the Steele memo to be, coupled with the active seeding of the memo to move it forward evidence-wise, coupled with the ongoing and continued comments from Brennan and Clapper, I think are pretty fing good points about the investigation being at the very least negligent, and perhaps even active malfeasance.

I cant see anything less than gross incompetence at this stage -- in the very nicest light.

(03-27-2019 02:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Really interesting idea I just saw, and potentially an argument for keeping the Mueller report under wraps

Quote: Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

When Mueller's investigation was mischaracterized, he publicly set the record straight. I would assume he would do the same with any mischaracterization of the results in his report.

But we see that it is always assumed that Republican appointees will bend and break the rules out of gratitude for their jobs, while
democratic appointees cannot be swayed from the pristine performance of their duties.

Hopefully it is released in its entirety so Mad Cow Maddow can move on with her life!

(03-27-2019 05:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  . Graham himself felt that the dossier was valid enough to turn into the FBI, and why would he do that, if not because he wanted them to investigate the dossier's claims???

Graham explained that on CNN, and it was not as you assume, that he believed the dossier had validity. But listen to [url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/lindsey-graham-john-mccain-dossier-fbi/index.htmlhim[/url]

John McCain showed me the dossier. And I told him the only thing I knew to do with it, it could be a bunch of garbage, it could be true, who knows? Turn it over to somebody who's job it is to find these things out and John McCain acted appropriately."

(03-27-2019 05:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At lunch, my compadres and myself were asking why did Mueller punt? In theory, there are at least four possibilities. 1) he didn’t think it was job to state a firm conclusion. 2) he concluded that there is no sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 3) he concluded that there is a sound basis for prosecuting Trump, but didn’t want to say so. 4) he couldn’t make up his mind.
I think we can ixnay #1 and #4 without much thought. 1) is pretty much impossible. The very point of having a special counsel is the view that judgments as to whether the president committed a crime should be made by someone independent of the president
4) doesnt have a ground in Mueller's actions. Nothing I have heard or seen about Mueller suggests that he’s indecisive and cannot make important calls even in cases he considers close. The prosecutions that he has undertaken even in this role lend no credence to 4).
As for 3), if that occurred, should it would come out, Mueller would be disgraced in the eyes of the media and the left. Further, the reputation that Mueller has would be pretty much irretrievably lost.

That pretty much leaves 2).
What will happen if the full report is released, or as much as it is legally permissible to release, and there is nothing? That is the result I expect at this point. It is almost the only possible result.

The way Barr put it, Mueller provided information for "the examined conduct" related to OOJ and "set out evidence on both sides of the question" and left the OOJ issue unresolved "as difficult issues of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction."
I read that as #4 - that due to the "difficult issues" of law and fact. For example, what if the intent of Trump to fire Comey was to end the Russia investigation, but not because he was worried that ties with Russia would come out, but because information about other, potential criminal actions, did? That seems to fall into a gray area that Barr's earlier memo didn't really cover (unless I missed it, I did not comb through it thoroughly).
I could also see that being #2, where he felt that there was evidence of OOJ, but not sufficient to charge with a crime and have a solid basis.
Again, it will be interesting to see what the report says.

After giving it some thought, I'll add a 5). Mueller and Comey are known to be very close friends. Trump fired Comey. Was that an act of obstruction? Facts would tend to say no, chief among them that a) there were multiple and shrill calls for Comey to go coming from democrats, and b) there is no succession of acts indicating intent to obstruct the investigation, in fact anything but (no, "thought about firing Mueller/Rosenstein/anybody" does not qualify as an act), and c) the investigation was allowed to proceed to appoint conclusion, and d) that conclusion apparently is that there was no crime for which to obstruct investigation. But because of his friendship with Comey, Mueller did not want to be the one making that call. So he passed everything to Barr and Barr made what Barr believes to be the correct call. Whether there is anything there to provide a basis for a different call is unknown, but I am quite certain that democrats will try to find and elevate something that they can portray as obstruction, no matter how insignificant, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth. But it's going to take a lot more than exercise of a constitutionally-authorized power in the absence of any underlying crime. And that looks to me like the most they could have at this point.