Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[JayF]

Again, you need to read the report. Mueller laid out lots of evidence for obstruction.

Section II page 2:
"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

So the is not report for or against obstruction. And the Mueller Report is not evidence of obstruction, but rather a report on what the Special Council found during its investigation.

Getting bored with this conversation as those who are intent with impeaching the sitting president are going to feel that way no matter the evidence or lack there of.

"Yawn"

 

[JayF]

Slippery slope continues to get slippier and steeper.

Oh why can't we just read the simple writing of the constitution. The Bill of Rights not Bills of Suggestions in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. It doesn't say Government, It doesn't say Militia, It does not say police, or any other agency in this part of the statement. The Right of the People. Those who live, work, breathe, and for any other purpose reside in this country it is the Right of those people to keep and bear arms, and The Constitution of the United States says that this right, shall not be infringed no matter what your opinion is or what your feeling is.


The Only way that any body, Government Agency, City, County, State or Federal can change that is to repeal the Second Amendment. I just wish the Supreme Court had the Back Bone to rule on this correctly instead of the political pressures they bow down to.

 

[Evan]

Am I? I don't believe I am.

In reference to leaks from Hillary's emails:
According to security researchers at Secureworks the email leak was caused by Threat Group-4127 (TG-4127), a unit that targets governments, military, and international non-governmental organizations. The researchers report moderate confidence that the unit gathers intelligence on behalf of the Russian government.[98]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Hacking_attempts

And your data about the Trump Campaign trying to locate Hillary's email server is wholly incorrect. That server by Summer of 2015 was destroyed and the FBI already knew that. So did everyone else including the media.

(meant to put summer of 2015 not 2016)

Yes, you're conflating separate unrelated events as being related to the email server Clinton used while SoS. The "e-mail leak" referenced in the Wiki article you linked is referring to the spearfishing attacks that Russia used to try to pilfer Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc login credentials from people associated with Clinton's campaign and the DNC. It has absolutely nothing to do with the email server Clinton used while SoS. It was part of Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, and included the successful spearfishing attack on Podesta.

First off, I didn't say the Trump campaign was trying to locate Hillary's server. I said they were trying to locate the data from her server. More specifically, her emails from her time as SoS. This is documented extensively in Mueller's report on pages 62-65.

There is no evidence that Clinton's email server was ever hacked or that the data was ever compromised. The original Guccifer (who spearfished Sidney Blumenthal) admitted that he lied and never was able to access the email server Hillary Clinton used while SoS.

 

[JayF]

Yes, you're conflating separate unrelated events as being related to the email server Clinton used while SoS. The "e-mail leak" referenced in the Wiki article you linked is referring to the spearfishing attacks that Russia used to try to pilfer Gmail, AOL, Hotmail, etc login credentials from people associated with Clinton's campaign and the DNC. It has absolutely nothing to do with the email server Clinton used while SoS. It was part of Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, and included the successful spearfishing attack on Podesta.

First off, I didn't say the Trump campaign was trying to locate Hillary's server. I said they were trying to locate the data from her server. More specifically, her emails from her time as SoS. This is documented extensively in Mueller's report on pages 62-65.

There is no evidence that Clinton's email server was ever hacked or that the data was ever compromised. The original Guccifer (who spearfished Sidney Blumenthal) admitted that he lied and never was able to access the email server Hillary Clinton used while SoS.

Oh if only I could attach an image of Captain Picard lowering his head into his hands. I just wish you all would do some research instead of spouting your opinion. Just do some I mean even a simple google search. I mean it doesn't even have to come from Wikipedia, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Choose whatever news organization and do some real research. You all make me sad.

 

[gangstonc]

Section II page 2:
"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

So the is not report for or against obstruction. And the Mueller Report is not evidence of obstruction, but rather a report on what the Special Council found during its investigation.

Getting bored with this conversation as those who are intent with impeaching the sitting president are going to feel that way no matter the evidence or lack there of.

"Yawn"

I'm glad you read one sentence of the report and were able to support your answer. The reason why he wasn't charged with a crime is because he was president. The Special Counsel (Council as you put it) detailed evidence of obstruction in the report.

 

[JayF]

I'm glad you read one sentence of the report and were able to support your answer. The reason why he wasn't charged with a crime is because he was president. The Special Counsel (Council as you put it) detailed evidence of obstruction in the report.

Ganstonc you are not keeping up with the events at hand. Please please read not just one post but go back and read what has been posted.

 

[Kory]

Good move by Donald Trump to rescind the Arms trade treaty Obama signed, but was never ratified. We do not need the useless UN regulating what we, as a sovereign country, can do with a constitutionally protected right.

 

[Matt]

No. Please tell me how Obama obstructed justice.

Why was Eric Holder found in contempt for Congress?

 

[Evan]

Section II page 2:
"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

So the is not report for or against obstruction. And the Mueller Report is not evidence of obstruction, but rather a report on what the Special Council found during its investigation.

Getting bored with this conversation as those who are intent with impeaching the sitting president are going to feel that way no matter the evidence or lack there of.

"Yawn"

As has been previously stated, Mueller could not make a conclusion that Trump committed a crime because he lacked the legal authority under DOJ policy and the controlling OLC memo (on indicting a sitting President) to indict Trump and because of that he did not feel it would be fair to accuse Trump of a crime as he would not be subject to a criminal trial to determine his guilt or innocence.

Additionally, Mueller believed that accusing Trump of a crime could preempt "constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct." I.E. impeachment.

Quoting directly from Mueller's report:

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." 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. 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

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
"constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). 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.

Mueller COULD have cleared Trump if he believed the evidence showed that Trump did NOT obstruct justice. On the other hand, Mueller could NOT have charged Trump no matter how damning the evidence because he was legally bound by DOJ policy and the OLC memo. Similarly, he also could NOT conclude that Trump committed a crime, no matter how damning the evidence, because he did not believe it would be fair to make a criminal accusation when Trump would not be subject to a trial (the adversarial opportunity Mueller is referring to).

Mueller goes on to state:

"Consistent with our jurisdiction to investigate federal obstruction crimes, we gathered evidence that is relevant to the elements of those crimes and analyzed them within an elements framework-while refraining from reaching ultimate conclusions about whether crimes were committed, for the reasons explained above."

The bottom line is that Mueller could've chosen to exonerate Trump if he believed the evidence established that Trump did not obstruct justice. However, he could not indict or charge Trump, nor accuse him of a crime, no matter how damning the evidence was as proof of obstruction.

Ask yourself, why did Mueller not exonerate Trump even though he unquestionably bent over backwards to be fair to him? And why did Mueller mention Constitutional remedies to Trump's behavior on several occasions - - specifically after pointing out he couldn't legally or ethically charge, indict, or accuse Trump of a crime? Why did Mueller go to great lengths in his report to rebut all the various legal and Constitutional arguments that Trump's legal team made that Trump's conduct was legal and proper? As I pointed out yesterday, the Founders never even intended for impeachment to require an actual criminal accusation - - behavior that taints the office of the Presidency, undermines the pursuit of justice, and intentionally misleading the public are all actions that more than qualify for impeachment.

This shouldn't be a partisan affair but sadly it has absolutely been one. And the Democrats' handling of the impeachment question via poll-testing and politics is almost as much of a dereliction of duty as the GOP's actions during Trump's rise and Presidency. Both parties are disgusting and a black mark on the history of our great nation.

 

[JayF]

He made that decision on his own and probably with other lawyers present. Because by statute Mueller was given the authority to prosecute federal crimes.

Section I Page 11
On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein -t hen serving as Acting
Attorney General for the Russia investigation following the recusal of former Attorney General
Jeff Sessions on March 2, 2016-appointed the Special Counsel "to investigate Russian
interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters." Office of the Deputy Att'y
Gen., Order No. 3915-2017, Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference
with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters, May 17, 2017) ("Appointment Order") .
Relying on "the authority vested" in the Acting Attorney General, "including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509,
510, and 515," the Acting Attorney General ordered the appointment of a Special Counsel "in
order to discharge [the Acting Attorney General 's] responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice , and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election." Appointment Order
(introduction). "The Special Counsel," the Order stated, "is authorized to conduct the investigation
confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017," including: '

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

Appointment Order ,r (b). Section 600.4 affords the Special Counsel "the authority to investigate
and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the
Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury , obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence,
and intimidation of witnesses ." 28 C.F.R . § 600.4(a). The authority to investigate "any matters
that arose . .. directly from the investigation ," Appointment Order ,r (b)(ii), covers similar crimes
that may have occurred during the course of the FBI's confirmed investigation before the Special
Counsel's appointment. "If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, " the
Order further provided, "the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from
the investigation of these matters." Id. ,r ( c ). Finally, the Acting Attorney General made applicable
"Sections 600.4 throu gh 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations." Id. ,r (d).

 

[gangstonc]

By policy Mueller wasn’t allowed to indict the president. He explained this in the report.

 

[JayF]

By policy Mueller wasn’t allowed to indict the president. He explained this in the report.

Did you read the Mueller report or are you making this stuff up as you go along? Read both Evan's post and then mine and come back again. Have a great day.

 

[gangstonc]

Did you read the Mueller report or are you making this stuff up as you go along? Read both Evan's post and then mine and come back again. Have a great day.

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"

From Evan's post and the report. Mueller wasn't going to indict the president, no matter what.

Bottom line is Mueller wasn't going to indict the president for obstruction. He outlined the potential obstructive actions trump took. there were 10.

I have read every sentence of the report that has been made available.

 

[JayF]

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"

From Evan's post and the report. Mueller wasn't going to indict the president, no matter what.

You can say that all you want, I understand that it is in the report. And the OLC issued an opinion. Do you forget what the word "Opinion" means?

Now go back up read my post or go read Section I page 11.

 

[gangstonc]

Why was Eric Holder found in contempt for Congress?

Because he would not supply documents that disagreed with testimony he had given. He could have been tried for obstructing justice. He's not Obama.

 

[Matt]

Because he would not supply documents that disagreed with testimony he had given. He could have been tried for obstructing justice. He's not Obama.

Who claimed executive privilege that emboldened him to do so ? Don't try that crap. Obama was behind it.

 

[gangstonc]

You can say that all you want, I understand that it is in the report. And the OLC issued an opinion. Do you forget what the word "Opinion" means?

Now go back up read my post or go read Section I page 11.

The opinion of the OLC is the policy. Mueller followed it. Section I page 11 doesn't tell the entire story. You have to read the document as a whole.

 

[JayF]

The opinion of the OLC is the policy. Mueller followed it. Section I page 11 doesn't tell the entire story. You have to read the document as a whole.

Did you just seriously say that Opinion is Policy? Is anyone else reading this or did I just go into the Twilight Zone?

 

[gangstonc]

Did you just seriously say that Opinion is Policy? Is anyone else reading this or did I just go into the Twilight Zone?

The policy matches the opinion.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

Are you seriously unaware of the DOJ’s policy of not indicting a president?

 

[gangstonc]