US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

[mal3volent]

Wait, so is Mueller reliable now? I thought Trump said he was conducting a witch hunt or something like that? But now we can trust him right

 

[alasdairm]

^ not used to it yet?

polls are lies unless they go your way. all news is fake unless it agrees with you. mueller is a traitor and a waste of time until yesterday. etc.

alasdair

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Wait, so is Mueller reliable now? I thought Trump said he was conducting a witch hunt or something like that? But now we can trust him right

You realize there is no connection in your statement, right? A person being reliable or not is wholly disconnected from them being asked to chase something that doesn't exist. Someone who is ordered to do so, if reliable and honest, will do so to the best of their ability. I've not seen where Mueller, the man, is being questioned for reliability....it's the investigation that was a farce. He was just the tool used. Those who feel he can't be trusted would be those who believe there is still collusion and Mueller was too unreliable to find it. Though, he was selected (I presume) to be someone who COULD find such evidence if it existed, and in fact BOTH sides have been counting on his reliability to find any facts that exist. Are you now saying he is NOT reliable? Again, the investigation is the farce that should never have been perpetrated. That was set in motion long before Mueller was ever selected.

 

[Penf0ld]

Wait, so is Mueller reliable now? I thought Trump said he was conducting a witch hunt or something like that? But now we can trust him right

Given he was the guy given the job then trust him or not the answer is yes.

 

[mal3volent]

You realize there is no connection in your statement, right? A person being reliable or not is wholly disconnected from them being asked to chase something that doesn't exist. Someone who is ordered to do so, if reliable and honest, will do so to the best of their ability. I've not seen where Mueller, the man, is being questioned for reliability....it's the investigation that was a farce. He was just the tool used. Those who feel he can't be trusted would be those who believe there is still collusion and Mueller was too unreliable to find it. Though, he was selected (I presume) to be someone who COULD find such evidence if it existed, and in fact BOTH sides have been counting on his reliability to find any facts that exist. Are you now saying he is NOT reliable? Again, the investigation is the farce that should never have been perpetrated. That was set in motion long before Mueller was ever selected.

"Disgraced and discredited Bob Mueller and his whole group of Angry Democrat Thugs spent over 30 hours with the White House Councel, only with my approval, for purposes of transparency," Trump tweeted, referring to White House lawyer Don McGahn's testimony with Mueller and misspelling "counsel."

so...he (a disgraced and discredited investigator) and his team of thugs conducted a witch hunt. But now a letter vaguely describing his report should be taken as fact?

Maybe we should wait until we actually see the real report to draw our conclusions? Personally, I think the entire thing should be made available to Congress and the general public. So that the taxpayers who paid for it can see the evidence for themselves. I mean, the whole things a "farce" right, so who cares?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

"Disgraced and discredited Bob Mueller and his whole group of Angry Democrat Thugs spent over 30 hours with the White House Councel, only with my approval, for purposes of transparency," Trump tweeted, referring to White House lawyer Don McGahn's testimony with Mueller and misspelling "counsel."

so...he (a disgraced and discredited investigator) and his team of thugs conducted a witch hunt. But now a letter vaguely describing his report should be taken as fact?

Maybe we should wait until we actually see the real report to draw our conclusions? Personally, I think the entire thing should be made available to Congress and the general public. So that the taxpayers who paid for it can see the evidence for themselves. I mean, the whole things a "farce" right, so who cares?

So now you're taking Trump's words as meaningful? Lol...you're logic works against you.

 

[mal3volent]

So now you're taking Trump's words as meaningful? Lol...you're logic works against you.

I think maybe you are projecting your own insecurities on to me in this particular conversation. I provided evidence that OUR PRESIDENT labeled this man as discredited. Discredited doesn't mean only if the conclusion is bad for you. It means the conclusion itself cannot be trusted because the person who came up with it is fundamentally not trustworthy.

So maybe the best thing to do would be to just let all the evidence come out. Let the SDNY and the Congress finish their own separate investigations before we put the issues to rest. That way, we can finally have some credible analysis of what actually happened.

 

[Xorkoth]

To clarify: mal3volent is not trying to say Mueller is untrustworthy. He's trying to illustrate that Trump fans have been frothing at the mouth about what an untrustworthy guy Mueller is and how he's super biased and so forth, until now when his conclusion (read: the conclusion the media jumped to and one guy appointed by Trump* assures us the report says) fits what they wanted it to fit. Now Mueller's not so untrustworthy anymore or such a bad guy, suddenly. mal's initial reply was facetious. I think, like you, he wants full disclosure, before making up his mind about what to believe. And I concur.

*Yes I know you reminded me that of course Trump picked him, it's his job to. However that doesn't mean he isn't a Trump lapdog. It makes no sense to say "only Trump can appoint these positions, therefore all of those people appointed we can trust to be impartial". Yeah I know Congress has to approve appointments, however what choice do they have but to eventually approve someone Trump appointed? The positions have to be filled. No one will ever be appointed that Trump didn't choose, because only Trump can choose.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I think maybe you are projecting your own insecurities on to me in this particular conversation. I provided evidence that OUR PRESIDENT labeled this man as discredited. Discredited doesn't mean only if the conclusion is bad for you. It means the conclusion itself cannot be trusted because the person who came up with it is fundamentally not trustworthy.

Fair point. Thank you.

So maybe the best thing to do would be to just let all the evidence come out. Let the SDNY and the Congress finish their own separate investigations before we put the issues to rest. That way, we can finally have some credible analysis of what actually happened.

O'tay.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

To clarify: mal3volent is not trying to say Mueller is untrustworthy. He's trying to illustrate that Trump fans have been frothing at the mouth about what an untrustworthy guy Mueller is and how he's super biased and so forth, until now when his conclusion (read: the conclusion the media jumped to and one guy appointed by Trump* assures us the report says) fits what they wanted it to fit. Now Mueller's not so untrustworthy anymore or such a bad guy, suddenly. mal's initial reply was facetious. I think, like you, he wants full disclosure, before making up his mind about what to believe. And I concur.

Yeah, I'm thinking I misread mal's tone across the webs.

*Yes I know you reminded me that of course Trump picked him, it's his job to. However that doesn't mean he isn't a Trump lapdog. It makes no sense to say "only Trump can appoint these positions, therefore all of those people appointed we can trust to be impartial". Yeah I know Congress has to approve appointments, however what choice do they have but to eventually approve someone Trump appointed? The positions have to be filled. No one will ever be appointed that Trump didn't choose, because only Trump can choose.

Actually, positions have been left open for years. Look at judge's positions left vacant as congress won't approve a President's nominees. Just because the President, whomever is in office at the time, appoints someone does not mean the Senate will approve them. Ultimately, this check and balance is to ensure someone is put in place who will NOT be the President's lapdog unless the President and the Senate are aligned that way. iirc, the Senate is slightly Dem, but overall even enough Trump shouldn't have too much trouble...then again, that same Senate gave hell for Kavanaugh.

 

[mal3volent]

This whole thing would have been much more beneficial for Trump if it happened like 5 or 6 months from now when the democratic primary really starts to heat up.

I think Dems will have time to pivot, but I never underestimate their ability to fuck up campaigns.

notice like this whole time Bernie has been pretty silent on this Russia thing, just out there sticking to the issues.

 

[cduggles]

The Battle Over Releasing the Mueller Report

Even if the special counsel?s report is released to Congress, the public might not see much of it.

Congressional Democrats are ramping up their efforts to convince Attorney General William Barr to release special counsel Robert Mueller's full report. ButAlex Brandon / AP

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr, the biggest questions are: Is the public ever going to see it? And, if so, how much? But at this point, it?s not even clear whether Congress will get to review the entire original document.

The findings from Mueller?s 22-month investigation, which came to an end last Friday, were revealed in bits and pieces through 215 criminal charges and 34 indictments. Mueller was tasked with investigating Russia?s interference in the 2016 election, as well as any coordination or links between President Donald Trump?s campaign and the Russian government. According to a four-page summary of Mueller?s conclusions that Barr released on Sunday, the investigation ?did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.? Barr also said that Mueller had not made a decision on obstruction of justice, but both he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined that Trump had not committed obstruction. Trump and his allies have declared themselves vindicated.

But the final findings, which reportedly run to at least 300 pages excluding exhibits, could offer important insights into Mueller?s legal reasoning and explain whether the evidence he collected in the obstruction and conspiracy cases was either substantial but not enough to rise to the level of a criminal offense, or flimsy and not even close to criminal. (The special-counsel regulations require that the office?s final report at the very least explain its prosecution and declination decisions, even if it doesn?t present all of the underlying evidence the team amassed.)

For that reason, Democratic lawmakers are demanding to see Mueller?s findings in his own words?rather than summarized in the memo Barr wrote to Congress last weekend. There is nothing in the special-counsel regulations that prevents the report from being made public, let alone anything that would prevent it from being provided to Congress, according to Neal Katyal, the former acting solicitor general who helped draft the regulations in 1999. ?The regulations set a floor, not a ceiling, on the amount of transparency,? he wrote in The Washington Post last week...

(Article continued at link).

This article is a bit long, but it makes good legal, procedural, and political points about the Mueller Report.

 

[JessFR]

Maybe I'm unusual but I just want the truth, whatever it is.

I hate trump, but if the mueller report exonerates him I'd consider that money well spent to get that answer just as much as if it didn't. It still resulted in several prosecutions of people who otherwise might have gotten away with their crimes.

But whatever it says, it should be released publically. I can't see any legitimate reason not too.

 

[Xorkoth]

Me either, any attempt to prevent it from being released to the public just screams of someone with something to hide.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

But it didn't. Instead, you have indictments against Russian troll farm hackers, who won't ever be identified or held to the charges. You have a few of Trump's associates arrested for bad business practices in the past, which the Gov't already knew about and had decided prior to not pursue, and you have people tripped up for lying during an investigation that shouldn't have happened in the first place. I fail to see anything gained from this, other than the clarity of what was discovered...if it becomes public. I know CD linked above where it may get to congress but not the public...I sincerely doubt congress will keep it from getting leaked. One side, or both, will see to it if they get full disclosure in congress that the facts are made public either by leaks or approved declassification, I believe.

 

[cduggles]

Mueller’s Obstruction Conundrum: The Choice Not To Prosecute Trump

What could be lurking within the Mueller report that 'does not exonerate' the president?

It’s never taken me 400 pages to say nothing happened. I imagine something happened, and that something, particularly with respect to obstruction, was quite serious. I can imagine Mueller not making a recommendation, because a recommendation to prosecute someone you can’t prosecute is equally burdensome and equally stigmatizing. I don’t believe for a minute, if Mueller had facts that exonerated the president on obstruction, he would have hesitated to say so. I imagine the facts … [may] weigh heavily in favor of a prosecution — but for the fact that you can’t charge a sitting president.

— Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, who served as chief of staff to FBI Director James Comey from 2013 to 2015 and acting head of the DEA until September 2017, offering his thoughts on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia probe during an episode of MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House.” If you recall, according to Attorney General William Barr’s summary, Mueller set out “evidence on both sides of the question” and stated that “while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

 

[cduggles]

The Forgotten Reason Congress Needs to See the Mueller Report

Alex Wong/Getty Images

News that Attorney General William Barr might have mischaracterized special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on obstruction of justice by the president has increased calls for Barr to release the report to Congress. If Barr refuses to do so and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler issues a subpoena, we may be in for a separation of powers showdown—and a central question will be the legal basis upon which Congress is entitled to see the fruits of Mueller’s investigation.

The argument for Congress obtaining Mueller’s full report on obstruction is typically based on its constitutional power to impeach: Since Congress alone has the power to take action against the president, if he has broken the law or abused his power—which is true if the Justice Department adheres to its policy of not indicting a sitting president, even if it is not settled law—Congress would by necessity need to see the evidence Mueller has gathered to determine if impeachment is warranted. If lawmakers weren’t able to see the report, then the president would effectively be immunized from accountability for wrongdoing while he is in office, putting him above the law.

This is a powerful argument in the battle that could ensue in the coming weeks. But it overlooks an additional constitutional basis that Congress has for reviewing the president’s conduct: Congress has a responsibility, rooted firmly in the Constitution, to safeguard the integrity of the justice system, including to prevent obstruction of justice. Therefore, Mueller’s findings are as much about whether President Donald Trump has stepped on Congress’ toes as it is about whether he broke the law.

In contesting a subpoena from Congress, the White House likely will make its favorite defense, which is that the president, legally speaking, can’t obstruct justice. This “unitary executive” theory rests on Article II of the Constitution, which gives the chief executive the power to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” According to this view, this language means the president alone is in charge of which cases to pursue in the justice system: If he decides to stop an investigation, that is his prerogative, and his reasons for doing so are beyond the purview of investigators, Congress and the courts. A year before being confirmed as attorney general, Barr laid out an ancillary proposition in a long and rambling memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, arguing the president can’t be investigated for obstruction based on something that is, on its face, a valid exercise of his power — like firing the FBI director. According to Barr, questioning the motives behind such an action would have disastrous consequences and open a Pandora’s box of potential inquisitions into “all exercises of prosecutorial discretion.”

The problem with this defense is that it conflates enforcement of the laws—a power that resides in the executive branch—with the administration of justice, which is constitutional responsibility that is shared by all three branches, including Congress. When it comes to the administration of justice—and those who would thwart the integrity of that process—Congress has a big role to play.

The idea of obstruction of justice has its origins in an 1819 Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland (a case you might be familiar with if you’re a Hamilton fan), that challenged Congress’ power to create a national bank. The court found that Congress’ authority to create a bank—even though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution—stemmed from its power to create laws “necessary and proper” for executing its explicit powers, like collecting taxes, borrowing money and regulating commerce. Importantly, the court noted that under the same reasoning, Congress could similarly pass laws which are “necessary and proper” to execute the powers of the other branches, as well. As an example of the latter, the Supreme Court pointed out that Congress could pass laws to ensure the effective functioning of the courts, noting that crimes like “falsifying … a process of the court,” or perjury, were “conducive to the due administration of justice.” In other words, the court made clear that Congress has the constitutional authority to ensure that the justice system can function without malevolent interference: This is exactly what obstruction of justice is about.

As courts have observed in more recent cases, it makes sense that Congress would be entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process. After all, Congress itself is responsible for creating all federal courts apart from the Supreme Court. Protecting the procedure through which cases are investigated, tried and adjudicated is what allows the judicial branch to function as a coequal branch—if defendants could derail cases, mislead investigators or lie to the court with impunity, courts would cease to have the ability to administer justice at all. This is why “process crimes”—the family of crimes that includes not only obstruction of justice, but false statements, perjury, witness tampering and contempt of court (a mechanism by which the judiciary can assert its own interest in fair administration of the laws)—are indispensable to the rule of law: They ensure that the integrity of the justice system is maintained from start to finish. If it’s Congress’ job to create rules that protect the courts’ ability to do their job, then it’s also Congress’ duty to get to the bottom of whether the president has tried to thwart those efforts.

In short, while the president can decide what cases to pursue, it’s Congress’ job to protect how they move through our judicial system. In fact, understanding obstruction of justice as an expression of Congress’ constitutional power to safeguard the judicial process means that contrary to Barr’s assertions, the motive behind the obstruction matters—particularly when it comes to the president. Precisely because the test for obstruction of justice is whether someone acted with a “corrupt” motive, the crime gets to the heart of whether Trump has upheld his oath to ensure “faithful” execution of the laws—and gives the “take care clause” meaning and accountability. If there is evidence, for example, that Trump tried to stop the Russia investigation to shield his own private conduct because it is illegal, politically damaging, or even merely embarrassing to him personally, then he has not only violated the U.S. legal code, but also his own constitutional duty to enforce the laws in good faith.

It’s because the president holds such immense power that the obstruction of justice law not only applies to him, but applies especially to him: When he abuses that authority, he is not only potentially breaking the law, he is encroaching on Congress’ constitutional interest in the administration of justice—which means Congress has a lens, independent of its impeachment power, through which to review his actions. The full details of Mueller’s report will reveal if Trump used his power to undermine the efforts of the coequal branches to uphold the rule of law—and Congress has every right to find out.

Essentially there are two arguments for Congress getting the Mueller report:

1. Whether the standard for impeachment proceedings in the vein of high crimes and misdemeanors has been met.

This decision entails determining if the prosecutorial standard is higher than the Constitutional standard. Or if perhaps Mueller refused to rule on obstruction of justice because of the question of whether a sitting president can be indicted and that's the limit of his purview.

2. Deciding if the president is the arbiter of law enforcement, or a subject of justice as meted out by Congress, in this case, as the legislative body that safeguards the integrity of the judiciary.

This article is about the second argument; the first argument is the one you'll hear some form of in most situations.

The article presents a unique and thoughtful argument.

 

[mal3volent]

Today is the big day.

 

[Lucy20]

The left has a hard time letting go. There has been no charges or arrest in how many years so let it go. It seems more about people bashing Trump them justice.
Forget Hillary and Benghazi? She was actually caught destroying evidence, her husband was impeached but forget all that and lash out on pure hatred.
I see why your country is a mess, instead of working together for the good of the people your all to busy slinging shit at each other

 

[JessFR]

The left has a hard time letting go. There has been no charges or arrest in how many years so let it go. It seems more about people bashing Trump them justice.
Forget Hillary and Benghazi? She was actually caught destroying evidence, her husband was impeached but forget all that and lash out on pure hatred.
I see why your country is a mess, instead of working together for the good of the people your all to busy slinging shit at each other

As opposed to where? Certainly none of the English speaking countries I'm particularly familiar with are places I'd say are working together. Australian politics is a bad joke with constant backstabbing. And British politics is practicing outright self harm.

Also I reject the notion that you have to be left to dislike, hate, or bash trump.

Personally I don't much care for people identifying as right or left in general. It's been my impression that people who identify by broad labels like left or right rather than just letting their political opinions speak for themselves are part of the problem with politics. More interested in conforming to a group or ideology than searching for the truth.

I hate trump. I'd be very happy to see him impeached and removed from office, and I won't stop ranting until he's out of office. But I wouldn't call myself left. Not when I find so much of the left so frustrating and that they keep calling me a right wing fascist because I think communist and socialist systems are obvious failures.