ARCC
Member
Dang what a waste of money. Haha.
-
Welcome to TalkWeather! We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion. CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread
- Thread starter Bama Ravens
- Start date
- Status
Dang what a waste of money. Haha.
gangstonc
Member
Except the investigation turned a net profit.
ARCC
Member
Where?
gangstonc
Member
From the seizures of Manafort's property and money to the tune of $46 million
ARCC
Member
Well that's nice to know atleast. Something the government done atleast paid for itself.
gangstonc
Member
Not yet!
Evan
Member
No, this is not at all accurate. I've read all but about 20-25 pages of the report. It does not try to appease both sides or attempt to appeal to political factions. It is a very well-written and descriptive report that is exceedingly fair to Trump, his campaign, and others who were subjects of the investigation.
Mueller is quite clear about what he has evidence of and what it proves, as well as what he lacks sufficient evidence for and what that means.
The report states the investigation's conclusions about coordination and conspiracy, with regards to Russia and the Trump campaign, are based on the evidence that they were able to obtain, and that the destruction of evidence, lies to the FBI/SCO, inaccessibility of evidence (overseas, lost, unavailable, etc), use of encrypted messaging apps, attorney-client privilege, invocation of 5th amendment rights, etc had a substantial impact on their ability to make charging decisions and investigatory conclusions. Ultimately, they conclude they did not have *sufficient* evidence to charge Trump campaign members with crimes due to coordination with Russia's attempts to influence the election. The SCO states that the Russians and Trump campaign interacted and took advantage of each other's desires as they pertained to the election, but that the SCO did not have sufficient evidence to show the Trump campaign members knew they were interacting with foreign bad actors.
As far as obstruction is concerned, it's actually pretty cut and dry. Mueller looks at around 10 different "events" or times when Trump might have obstructed. He gives Trump the benefit of the doubt as per DOJ policy on several such attempts but on 6-7 others the SCO concludes Trump committed an obstructive act, knew it was improper/illegal, and there was a nexus to an official proceeding (something official was actually obstructed).
The SCO goes on to say that DOJ regs due to the OLC memo that a President cannot be indicted meant that he could not bring federal charges versus Trump. Additionally, were he to attempt to do so, because Trump cannot be indicted, it would be unfair to Trump because he wouldn't have the opportunity of a trial to clear his name. Mueller considered a sealed indictment, that would be served on Trump once he leaves office, but said that if it were to leak it would be catastrophic. For all those reasons, including not wanting to "preempt Congress' authority to address Presidential misconduct" (meaning impeachment), Mueller declined to make a traditional prosecutorial decision.
The report is exceedingly fair and goes out of its way to give Trump and his campaign the benefit of the doubt. Even with that, the obstruction section is absolutely damning and unquestionably supports impeachment proceedings against Trump. It won't happen, though, unless the GOP suddenly decides to care about the rule of law again.
Mueller didn't punt. He did what he was tasked to do within the confines of the SCO regulations, DOJ policy, and the authority of his appointment. Trump clearly committed criminal acts of obstruction. It will be incumbent upon Congress to handle that with the gravity and seriousness it deserves.
As far as conspiracy/coordination is concerned, the outcome is more or less what I've always stated. Mueller didn't find sufficient evidence to implicate Trump and/or his campaign even though numerous campaign officials lied repeatedly about contacts with Russia. My own thought is that most of the Trump campaign was likely too incompetent to enter into any type of real conspiracy with Russian bad actors although Pappadoupolus certainly tried to, and Bannon and Prince's missing communications are quite concerning. I think some in the campaign took advantage of the Russian efforts - - they simply either didn't coordinate with the Russians or were too dumb to know how to do so. Even still, as Mueller lays out, the amount of missing, inaccessible, of hard to recover evidence means that conclusion could one day change in the future (although I think that's unlikely).
I don't understand your implication about money or guts. As I see it, Mueller issued exactly the type of fair, thoughtful, detailed, and conclusory report that anyone who has paid attention should have expected. Mueller can't change DOJ policy, and it's obvious that Barr doesn't agree with Mueller that a President can obstruct justice or commit a crime. It's obvious that's why Trump appointed him, and Barr's behavior in all of this is outrageous and beyond the pale. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, his "summary" letter was very misleading, and today's report shows that in indisputable terms. Barr is the kind of attack dog personal attorney that Trump always wanted as Attorney General. He's a stain on the entire DOJ. I disagreed with Jeff Sessions about a LOT as it pertains to policy, but at least he acted honorably and with integrity during the SCO investigation. Barr deserves scorn, ridicule, and impeachment. I don't say that in jest, or without realizing the very serious and incredible gravity of saying the Attorney General should be impeached, I fully realize that and I am that disgusted by Barr's behavior.
Arcadia
Member
I disagree with your thorough analysis on Barr's behavior and his findings, Evan, in regards to obstruction. I don't believe Barr is behaving as Trump's wing man at all in this. I have studied this too, and what I see is Trump being belligerent and yelling at the walls, tweeting stupid crap, and yes, even walking right up to the line of obstruction and touching it. But what was his intent for doing it? Because my understanding is intent is everything in a provable obstruction case. Was he afraid of getting found out for colluding with the Russians and he wanted to shut it down? Doesn't seem likely knowing the outcome now. One could certainly make that argument. Or was he just pissed off that he was being accused of being a traitor and he was saying and doing stupid crap because Trump is a man-child and that's the sort of thing we've learned to expect from this President? Intent matters and that was Barr's argument. Trump's feelings were specifically mentioned in Mueller's report because it goes toward intent and Barr was speaking to that. Look, I'm not a fan of Trump. You know this. But I'm seeing this from a totally different angle from you. As far as collusion goes, I never felt he colluded with Russia, but I more or less agree with your assessment here than in your past posts. The fact there isn't "sufficient" evidence after two years isn't surprising to me.
gangstonc
Member
The report paints a completely different picture. It should be required reading.
Evan
Member
The SCO's report addresses intent individually for each of the ten seperate "events" of obstruction in the report's section on obstruction. It's worth a comprehensive reading. Each section on intent lays out a detailed overview and discussion of Trump's motives and intent based off of witness testimony, public statements, documents, etc.
But before Mueller even gets to discuss the intent for each of the ten different acts of potential obstruction, he spends several paragraphs going over federal case law as it pertains to intent, and less broadly intent as it relates to obstruction of justice. In addition, he also covers DOJ policy and practice in this area, and spends a significant amount of time discussing potential issues with intent, how the SCO views potential rebuttals related to Trump's "corrupt" intent, and then ties it all together in very strong argument that the SCO's treatment of Trump vis-a-vis obstruction is based on sound legal theory and argument, in line with prior practice and procedure, and fully-supported by the applicable case law and DOJ practice.
Furthermore, and this really strikes to the heart of why Barr's intent argument is poorly thought out, Mueller CLEARS Trump on several of the acts of obstruction because he find he lacked the requisite corrupt intent, there was a plausible alternative explanation for his behavior, or his action was a legally valid exercise of his Constitutional authority as President.
Finally, Trump acted similarly about aspects of the SCO's investigation that did NOT pertain to Russian coordination and conspiracy, and also did so when the only potential impact he faced was not a LEGAL one, but rather, personal embarrassment, financial repercussions, etc.
His obstructive acts toward Cohen, in particular, almost exclusively relate to the fact that Cohen told the truth about the illegal campaign payments Trump made to conceal evidence of his affairs. Has nothing to do with Russia, had nothing to do with being called a traitor, and Trump himself unquestionably *KNEW* that aspect of the investigation was not a witch-hunt, was absolutely a valid angle to be pursued, and that he would face intense personal embarrassment, possible repercussions in his marriage, and potential criminal charges after his Presidency.
That's a clear-cut case of attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with a federal witness, and also an attempt to suborn perjury by some of the statements he made on Twitter and had his legal counsel make to Cohen or Cohen's counsel.
That's one of the biggest and most under-discussed parts of all of this. Trump's legal counsel was clearly helping him obstruct justice by dangling pardons, pressuring witnesses not to implicate Trump, and discouraging witnesses from cooperating or testifying.
Evan
Member
Let me say one last thing. I didn't read a SINGLE tweet, news article, or look at anything for guidance once the report was released. I didn't even watch Barr's press conference, and I disabled on alerts on my phone. I shut everything out and didn't want anyone else's perspective or bias to influence me. I downloaded the report and read it (minus some duplicative appendices and summaries) all before coming here to make my original post.
I am looking at this from no one's narrative. I had (and largely still haven't looked at too many other perspectives on the report) no idea what anyone else's reaction was to the report. I read the report, watched Barr's presser, sent a tweet or two and looked at a few comments about the report, and then came here to post. But, as I said, I first read the report and watched Barr's press conference in a total news and information vacuum because I didn't want to be influenced.
I think it is bright line clear that Trump obstructed justice, and Barr is serving as the President's personal attorney and PR guy which is how Trump has always perceived his Attorney General should act. Notice his laudatory comments about Barr and contrast it with how he treated Sessions. It's obvious that Barr is doing exactly what Trump has always wanted.
Barr's summary letter from a couple of weeks ago was indisputably misleading as I had argued. He omitted relevant context and selectively quoted from Mueller's report. Then, he went on to make ridiculous and absurd claims about spying on Trump and his Campaign, that are completely indefensible, and totally at odds with reality.
I am looking at this from no one's narrative. I had (and largely still haven't looked at too many other perspectives on the report) no idea what anyone else's reaction was to the report. I read the report, watched Barr's presser, sent a tweet or two and looked at a few comments about the report, and then came here to post. But, as I said, I first read the report and watched Barr's press conference in a total news and information vacuum because I didn't want to be influenced.
I think it is bright line clear that Trump obstructed justice, and Barr is serving as the President's personal attorney and PR guy which is how Trump has always perceived his Attorney General should act. Notice his laudatory comments about Barr and contrast it with how he treated Sessions. It's obvious that Barr is doing exactly what Trump has always wanted.
Barr's summary letter from a couple of weeks ago was indisputably misleading as I had argued. He omitted relevant context and selectively quoted from Mueller's report. Then, he went on to make ridiculous and absurd claims about spying on Trump and his Campaign, that are completely indefensible, and totally at odds with reality.
Arcadia
Member
I read the report too. And after two years of "Russia Collusion" the thing everyone is talking about now is Obstruction and whether or not he did or didn't. While the report is certainly not flattering to Trump, (no one assumed it would be) the report should have, at least, resolved the issue of did he or didn't he. And if Mueller couldn't decide then he should have said he wasn't recommending charges. Because he isn't, is he? He's not recommending charges. Instead, he's gone this long way around of saying just that thing without saying it. And he's left it up to someone else to say it. And let them take the hit for it. Meanwhile, nothing but more agitation and pointing fingers and all the rest of it continues on. They are already calling for Mueller to testify. Barr has stated he has no problem with Mueller testifying. I suppose this thing will go on til the end of freaking time. And that sort of feels like the goal at this point. Let's just keep dragging this thing out indefinitely. Keep that pall over this President's head. And you know what, I'm just done.
(If I sound aggravated it's not at you, Evan. I'm just aggravated.)
(If I sound aggravated it's not at you, Evan. I'm just aggravated.)
gangstonc
Member
The president is the one that wants to drag this out.
Mueller was never going to charge the president. It’s against policy. He explained this. It’s up to Congress.
Arcadia
Member
The President wants to drag this out? Just stop. People like you who actually make me defend Donald Trump is what really pisses me off.
- Moderator
- #4,876
Obstruction was the reason the special council was established to investigate collusion instead of the FBI. And for two years the discussion hasn't just been on collision, there's been a lot of obstruction talk too.
Mueller does say he isn't recommending chargers because
gangstonc
Member
Why did the negotiation for his answering questions take over a year? Then when he did “answer” questions in a written format, he said he couldn’t remember over 30 times, and he didn’t even answer some of the questions. That’s ridiculous. If he wanted the investigation done, he would have submitted to an interview quickly.
The idea is to delay and distract as long as they can. Read Hoyer’s quote from yesterday and try to tell me Trump’s plan didn’t work.
I am dead right here. The strategy to delay was very smart. Impeachment and removal from office was at stake. The best course is to delay the proceedings until your term is up.
Last edited:
Evan
Member
Obstruction was the reason the special council was established to investigate collusion instead of the FBI. And for two years the discussion hasn't just been on collision, there's been a lot of obstruction talk too.
View attachment 1557
Mueller does say he isn't recommending chargers because
View attachment 1558
That last quote is being misunderstood by a lot of media outlets. They think Mueller is referring to impeachment there but he actually isn't. He's referring to whether or not Congress' law-making on obstruction applies to the President, and his conclusion is that it does. Mueller addresses Congress' ability to impeach elsewhere in the report (I've posted one such quote), and discussion of impeachment occurs in several different places of the report.
Arcadia
Member
Was it you who thought he should sit down to an interview? The idea that anyone thought his lawyers should have allowed that is confounding and it says more about liberal talking points than it does about the understanding of law and consequences thereof. If I was Trump's lawyer I would have forbidden him from opening his fat mouth. Under no circumstances would I have allowed him to speak one on one to Robert Mueller given his propensity to inflate, exaggerate, and lie. Because an attorney's job is to protect their client. Even an unlikable one. As for his witten statements, I can't speak to them. I'm sure they took their time with them. Rightfully so. So no, sitting down to an interview quickly doesn't prove what you think it proves. Two things can be true at the same time. Donald Trump can be a dishonable cretin and a corrupt morally bankrupt human being and not be guilty of collusion if he doesn't do what you think he should do.
Agree totally. I think Mueller wrote the report using the language he did for a reason. To keep the MSM and left foaming at the mouth for another two years. Also, I think it may be an attempt to delegitimize the oncoming investigation of how this whole thing got started and the subsequent abuse of power and offices by many of the previous administration.
- Status
