• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

He basically said that they wanted to charge him with obstruction, but he felt they couldn't because of the DOJ guidelines. That now it's up to Congress to do something with the info he provided them. And that if he is subpoenaed by Congress, he will stick to what's in his report.
 
From some of the transcripts:

Now I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.
Click to expand...

So, HE isn't intending to speak in front of Congress, by his own decision, stating everything he has to say is in the report.

And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider.

The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing. And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially -- it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.
Click to expand...

It's also another nothing burger in that he didn't say the President is free and clear, nor did he say the President committed crimes. He stated that by law, he couldn't charge the sitting President with federal crimes. But he points out the investigation is allowed in case others could be charged with the obstruction. Where are those charges? It's obvious Trump can't do things for himself, and asks others to do them for him, so if there was obstruction....where are the charges on those who could be charged?

That last bit, about requiring something other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president, how it would be unfair to accuse when there can be no court resolution of the charge....wtf? Accepting that the president cannot be charged, and it falls to an impeachment by the Senate (I presume?), would his investigation NOT be building the information to support that charge rather than a criminal justice court? Without losing sight of the confirmed 'no collusion', and instead focusing on the 'possible obstruction' wouldn't the report then provide the required information to support such an impeachment hearing...or not? His words talk about what the process would be, but not if there is or isn't material to support the use of the impeachment (or other) process. Non-statement on his part.


The ONLY thing I'm getting from this which we didn't already have is that he won't talk to congress. Which leaves me wondering why, what is the motivation for this?
 
There was no collusion - that's been established.

Now there continues the debate about obstruction.

People were looking for Mueller to tell us yes or no, did Trump break the law. People wanted some sort of decision, a judgement if you will, based on his findings. That's not the job of an investigator. The investigator finds facts, it is up to others to determine what the facts mean.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
From some of the transcripts:



So, HE isn't intending to speak in front of Congress, by his own decision, stating everything he has to say is in the report.



It's also another nothing burger in that he didn't say the President is free and clear, nor did he say the President committed crimes. He stated that by law, he couldn't charge the sitting President with federal crimes. But he points out the investigation is allowed in case others could be charged with the obstruction. Where are those charges? It's obvious Trump can't do things for himself, and asks others to do them for him, so if there was obstruction....where are the charges on those who could be charged?

That last bit, about requiring something other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president, how it would be unfair to accuse when there can be no court resolution of the charge....wtf? Accepting that the president cannot be charged, and it falls to an impeachment by the Senate (I presume?), would his investigation NOT be building the information to support that charge rather than a criminal justice court? Without losing sight of the confirmed 'no collusion', and instead focusing on the 'possible obstruction' wouldn't the report then provide the required information to support such an impeachment hearing...or not? His words talk about what the process would be, but not if there is or isn't material to support the use of the impeachment (or other) process. Non-statement on his part.


The ONLY thing I'm getting from this which we didn't already have is that he won't talk to congress. Which leaves me wondering why, what is the motivation for this?
Click to expand...

What mueller likely means by fairness concerns, is that constitutionally under American legal framework, those accused of a crime by the government have a right to a trial in which they can face their accusers and respond to the accusation.

It is current DOJ policy and office of legal council opinion that a sitting president can't be charged. If they break the law that's what impeachment is for. But because of that, mueller found he could not accuse trump of a crime. Since you can't be accused if you can't be taken to court.

The big thing you gotta take from this though, and this was in the original report too, is it absolutely was possible for the mueller report to state that the president was innocent. It could say he's innocent, it could say nothing, but it couldn't ever directly accuse him.

And now mueller has stated clearly what already could have been inferred from the report. That by saying nothing, they are saying they might well have charged him were it possible.

I would interpret this all to say that mueller is saying trump probably did break the law. But that he absolutely is not allowed to say that.

I mean, if you can't find someone guilty, but you can say nothing and you can find them innocent, and you say nothing and say "if I'd cleared him, I'd have said I'd have cleared him, and I didn't". Well read between the lines. It's saying "no he doesn't appear innocent".

I suspect he might well be innocent of the original suspicions of collusion. But it's plain to see he has abused his office to obstruct justice.
 
Last edited:
JessFR said:
The big thing you gotta take from this though, and this was in the original report too, is it absolutely was possible for the mueller report to state that the president was innocent. It could say he's innocent, it could say nothing, but it couldn't ever directly accuse him.
Click to expand...

You are partly right, in that he did clearly state there was no collusion, which was the premise for the investigation. He was not so clear on the topic of obstruction.


JessFR said:
And now mueller has stated clearly what already could have been inferred from the report. That by saying nothing, they are saying they might well have charged him were it possible.
Click to expand...

He could also have said we found evidence but cannot charge and will instead leave it to Congress. He didn't even go far enough to recommend, or infer there is enough to support, an impeachment. Hence, all of us giving varying opinions on what was so clear from his non-statements.

That may be why he is refusing to testify to congress. Because he would be asked directly "If Trump was not the President, would you have charged him with _____?"
 
Last edited:
TheLoveBandit said:
He could also have said we found evidence but cannot charge and will instead leave it to Congress. He didn't even go far enough to recommend, or infer there is enough to support, an impeachment. Hence, all of us giving varying opinions on what was so clear from his non-statements.
Click to expand...

Well, all the evidence he found is there. Recommending they impeach would likely be getting into dangerous waters. Since impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. Judicially, legally, until there is a Supreme Court challanger to get a more direct answer, current interpretation is that the president can't be charged with a crime.

You have a right not to be accused of wrongdoing by the government with no way to answer those charges. And if trump can't be indicted, he can't respond to those charges, and so he can't be accused either.

It's a very safe position for mueller to just provide the evidence, state the facts, and leave it to congress. Because current legal thinking is that it's really up to them to decide if the evidence is enough or not.

If you want to see him charged, you gotta impeach and remove him from office.

Recommending an impeachment would be very risky. The way to say it, without saying it, is through the fact he could have cleared him, but didn't.
 
Last edited:
Amusingly trump has tweeted "There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you"

That's.. Not how this works at all. The case can't be closed because it hasn't been opened yet. He hasn't been charged with anything yet. Congress can impeach at its own leisure. After that he could be potentially charged, and the mueller report certainly does not exonerate him from any wrong doing. And there is no double jeopardy for this. Even if congress impeached and found him innocent. He could still be charged later.

However, it's likely that won't happen. Presidents have a nasty habit of pardoning other presidents.
 
JessFR said:
Amusingly trump has tweeted "There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you"
Click to expand...

LMAO....

That's.. Not how this works at all.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But not surprising from Trump to a) be ignorant, and b) shoot his mouth off to try and hide things.

CDqD1KV.jpg
 
Last edited:
You know, as horrifying as it is that Donald Trump is president, there's almost this nice quality of fairness about it.

Remember, if your kids a mean bully who keeps hitting the other kids and when told to stop just screams and goes "LALALLAA I CANT HEAR YOU!", don't worry, this is America, and in America even the most vindictive unqualified insufferable toddler manchild can be president.
 
Last edited:
TheLoveBandit said:
You are partly right, in that he did clearly state there was no collusion, which was the premise for the investigation. He was not so clear on the topic of obstruction.




He could also have said we found evidence but cannot charge and will instead leave it to Congress. He didn't even go far enough to recommend, or infer there is enough to support, an impeachment. Hence, all of us giving varying opinions on what was so clear from his non-statements.

That may be why he is refusing to testify to congress. Because he would be asked directly "If Trump was not the President, would you have charged him with _____?"
Click to expand...

I realize now I actually missed the very first part of your post. Yes I do tend to interpret the mueller report to largely vindicate trump on the question of collusion. However even if there was no collusion, attempting to obstruct the investigation is still completely unacceptable.

I suspect President Trump committed a real crime in his narcissistic egotistical behavior in refusing to accept the investigation and trying to kill it.

And no matter what his supporters want to believe. You aren't allowed to obstruct an investigation even if you're innocent. It's still completely unacceptable.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
And it begs the question, why obstruct an investigation if you indeed are innocent?
Click to expand...

Because trumps a narcissist. And narcissists absolutely can't stand feeling like anyone else has any sort of power or knowledge or authority or respect or admiration above their own. It drives them nuts to not be the best at everything all the time. So no narcissist is going to have much tolerance for an investigation they can't control. They're going to want to stop it.
 
JessFR said:
Because trumps a narcissist.
Click to expand...
You'd think he would want all the attention of a continuing investigation though... I don't know. I think he has something to hide, even if it's just his taxes/engineered billion loss. He's got something to hide, unlike Hillary who didn't panic when he kept saying WHAT'S IN HER EMAILS like 10 trillion times.
 
PREDICTIONS FOR THE TERRIBLE FUTURE

They'll wait until 2021 or 2025 when Trump is no longer president to arrest him. There will be a really solid photo op of Melania clutching Baron to her waist as Donald is dragged out in handcuffs with her stiff upper lip eastern bloc "What's my next move?" attitude.

War with Iran will be averted as designed because Trump's Art of the Deal is a real Pollock.

DPRK keeps missile designs.

Illegitimate gov't in Russia will continue to research and test nuclear missiles in the upper Arctic

Nuclear war with RUSSIA bring it on I will be dead

The rest of you, what remains, will be living in underwater shelters and no meaning of life will be preserved.
 
tathra said:
of fucking course, my life finally starts going good for once, so the world fucking ends ?
Click to expand...
No, you can be an underwater post-apocalyptic post-sun seaweed-eating Japanese-loving 'murrkan. That Japanese girl will have totally stabbed Un to death too and y'all can live underwater.

Holy shit so what do y'all think of the Mueller report on news? The whole world saw it; what do you think is coming to Trump after he leaves office? Any speculations?
 
Captain.Heroin said:
You'd think he would want all the attention of a continuing investigation though... I don't know. I think he has something to hide, even if it's just his taxes/engineered billion loss. He's got something to hide, unlike Hillary who didn't panic when he kept saying WHAT'S IN HER EMAILS like 10 trillion times.
Click to expand...

Nah, narcissists only want positive attention. And generally in the form of something that makes them feel strong and powerful. They can handle neutral attention pretty well, but totally lose it as soon as they sense that it's being suggested that they don't have absolute power, control, etc.

Narcissists aren't simply attention seekers. They need validating attention. They just can't stand the idea that they might not be the best.

Honestly, I strongly suspect that's one of the biggest reasons trump doesn't want his tax returns released. Not just because of obvious political issues, but because it could easily serve to show the world that trumps not as rich as he wants to believe.

Trump IS rich of course by most normal peoples criteria, but like I said, for narcissists, good isn't good enough. They need to be the best. So trump will be disinclined to see his wealth measured, he'd rather just continually give the impression that he's ultra rich.

Narcissists don't behave rationally in their own interests. And I'm absolutely certain trumps a narcissist. So I think it's a mistake to assume the kind of motives to him that we would most others from his behavior.

I think it's entirely plausible that, just like with the mueller investigation, we will continue to find as we learn more, that trump often absolutely loses trying to cover up shit that doesn't actually matter that much. Because we're falsely assuming logical political reasons driving his behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top