US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

[TheLoveBandit]

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.

Completely agree. Obstruction, even when no crime occurred, is still obstruction and still chargeable. Even if they can't charge a sitting President, I'd expect they could present findings to support impeachment proceedings, and those weren't provided. I would also expect they can charge co-conspirators with obstruction, and that hasn't occurred either.

And it begs the question, why obstruct an investigation if you indeed are innocent?

Jess answered it better, of course. But, when you are an ego driven self-focused person like Trump, personal offenses (real or imagined) are hard to tolerate.

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.

I think this is very true. Prior to his political campaign, I was often left wondering if his bluster and bravado was the act of intentional misdirection by a shrewd genius, or the fumbling upwards of a fortunate fool. My hope of misdirection has fallen significantly over the years.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

I'm coming back to this bit from Mueller:

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 point of an investigation is not to find innocence. It is to find if a crime was committed. The first bit of "if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime" is utter doubletalk and NOT what he was tasked with. I know we all agreed Mueller isn't the one to charge the President, that's clear. But as to leading the investigation, the point was to determine if crimes were committed, and let the proper processes (impeachment for President, criminal charges for others) take their course. Instead, he claims he could not prove the President didn't commit a crime - I may as well accuse Mueller of fucking chickens because he can't prove he didn't do it. And he instead claims he did not make a determination of if a crime was committed - which is the point of an investigation, and what he was charged with doing, and why Barr didn't understand why Mueller didn't fulfill his duty when the report was submitted. Why?

Look back at other similar investigations, on Bill Clinton the Special Counsel, Ken Starr, returned a report outlining nearly a dozen crimes that were committed and handed it in for Congress to evaluate and choose to pursue or not. For ANY investigation, the point is to find IF crimes were committed and let the proper parties take it from there. WHY did Mueller NOT even determine if crimes were committed? I just don't get this. Either the law was broken, or it wasn't - regardless of Mueller NOT being able to charge the President, why did he NOT determine if the law was broken in the first place? On anything?

 

[JessFR]

Mueller is taking a very safe position. Mueller has determined that, since he can't indict trump according to DOJ policy and OLC opinion, he also can't make accusations.

It's his determination that he can't legally make claims that crimes have been committed because if he did trump would have no ability to respond to the claim like you or I could. We could go to court, face our accusers, and potentially be exonerated. If trump can't be charged, he can't do that, so he's taken the position that he can't make those accusations legally. As it would be constitutionally unfair to be able to make such accusations of someone with no ability to respond to them.

Now, that's an opinion, it's a safe and fairly sensible one for someone in his shoes, but it's still a legal opinion. We'd have to take it to the Supreme Court to get a real determination.

But,, you don't have any constitutional problems you might fall foul of by claiming someone to be innocent. Nobody is going to challange an accusation of themselves that they're innocent.

So mueller has outlined that his interpretation of the law is that he can say trumps innocent, or say nothing and just provide the evidence for someone else to use later, but not make an accusation of guilt.

As he didn't find innocence, the implication is that his determination is that there is evidence of a crime of obstruction.

Is that doubletalk? Maybe. But it's judicial doubletalk more than it is political doubletalk. And it's an understandable position for him to take considering the relevent law.

Much as there is legal theory to say the president isn't above the law, the defacto political reality is that he is. But with the downside being that he can be impeached with less evidence of wrongdoing than in a real criminal trial, and that were that to happen, he could then be charged legally.

I'm not trying to defend mueller, but I do think his position is pretty sensible. His determination may or may not be correct, but it's a safe one to make.

In the end, the constitution provides impeachment for presidential wrongdoing. We keep trying to press the judicial system into doing something that they will keep determining they can't do.

Basically democrats in congress know they can't impeach him and succeed right now, so they're trying to get the judicial system to make it easier for them. But the judicial system keeps determining that the constitution says its congresses job, not theirs.

This isn't that different to previous investigation reports. It outlines all the evidence and provides the reasons congress might wish to impeach, but it's for them to decide.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Mueller's mandate was not to indict, it was to determine if the law was broken. Any other investigation, at any level, in any arena, is about 'did a crime occur'. The investigator is not the ruling body to judge innocence or guilt, but to find the facts and provide them for those who do play the roles of judge and jury. If criminal proceedings are appropriate, a prosecutor reviews the facts and determines if he can press charges. For a sitting President, Congress reviews the facts and determines if they should impeach. It was never Mueller's job to act on findings, his job was to bring the findings.

Don't get hung up on the idea Mueller can't make accusations that someone (Trump) can't defend themselves from. If there is no court hearing or congressional impeachment, THEN the person (Trump) has no recourse to defend themselves, but then there is nothing to defend themselves from as nothing was charged. The closest we could consider it would be slander, and I'm sure Trump would take it as such, but to deliver determination on IF a crime was committed and WHO did it, THAT is the job of the Special Counsel, which is where Mueller failed his mandate.

 

[JessFR]

His job was to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, as well as any links between the trump campaign and the Russians, and any matters that arose from the investigation.

Mueller prosecuted several people, but when it came to the president his interpretation is that the president can't be charged.

It seems like you're frustrated mueller didn't state in any direct way if trump commuted a crime. That you'd have preferred that if mueller found evidence of a crime by trump, that he'd have directly said so even if he wasn't able to charge him.

But that is the legal problem here that mueller is explaining. He can't make that accusation, because even if it's not a legal indictment, it would still be an accusation by the government towards an individual, that the individual has no recourse too.

Now you can disagree with that interpretation of the law, but the fact is we don't have a solid answer one way or the other if meullers reasoning is correct. It would be up to the Supreme Court.

What I am arguing is that it's a sensible decision for mueller to make. And I don't think it's one to hold against him. Since he can't prosecute trump, and it's for congress to decide to impeach, I'd say he's done an excellent job gathering evidence and prosecuting whom he could.

Perhaps a better way for me to approach this would be to ask, what would you have preferred mueller to do?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Perhaps a better way for me to approach this would be to ask, what would you have preferred mueller to do?

I would have preferred he do his job:

It seems like you're frustrated mueller didn't state in any direct way if trump commuted a crime. That you'd have preferred that if mueller found evidence of a crime by trump, that he'd have directly said so even if he wasn't able to charge him.

His job isn't to charge someone. His job was to say if a crime was committed or not, and by whom.

 

[JessFR]

He did his job. By virtue of his position he is an officer of the law sworn to uphold it. He was directed to conduct an investigation into this situation, collect evidence, prosecute where he was legally able to, and report his findings. He did all of that.

Making this determination that he can't say trump committed a crime is part of his job. Now you can disagree with his interpretation, but I think it's pretty sketchy to take the huge amount of work he's done, and claim he didn't do his job because of a legal conclusion he's come to that he was required by his office to determine.

What you're arguing to me sounds similar to someone angry at a judge for throwing out a case because of legal issues rather than letting the jury convict. Making such a determination is part of the job.

I can see about finding the exact parts of the report that cover this, but again, his determination was that the legal power of the government to accuse people of crimes is constitutionally balanced by due process protections. And that since current understanding of the law, which were not muellers determinations mind you, is that a sitting president can't be indicted, they can't be accused formally in a report like this either.

It wasn't mueller who found presidents can't be indicted, it's the office of legal council who determined it. He just took that to its conclusion. It would have been highly unethical if that were his legitimate opinion and he simply had decided to accuse trump anyway. That's his job, and he did it.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Barr: Mueller Could Have Made Decision About Obstruction of Justice

In a stunning rejection of special counsel Robert Mueller’s assertion that bringing criminal charges against President Donald Trump wasn’t an option, Attorney General William Barr on Thursday said Mueller could have decided if the president obstructed justice.

In an interview with CBS News — his first network interview since being sworn in — Barr insisted Mueller could have concluded Trump broke the law without actually charging him, or could have cleared him of wrongdoing.

"I personally felt he could've reached a decision," Barr told CBS News.

"The [Department of Justice] opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office, but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity," Barr added. "But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons."

Barr told CBS News when he found out Mueller wouldn’t make a determination in his obstruction of justice probe — which looked into 11 instances in which Trump tried to derail the Russia investigation — he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "felt it was necessary" to make a decision on the issue.

And in a letter to Congress after Mueller submitted his report, Barr and Rosenstein concluded the nearly two-year probe didn’t contain sufficient evidence to establish Trump obstructed justice.

But Mueller’s explanation Wednesday said bringing criminal charges against the president wasn’t an option since as special counsel, his office was part of the Justice Department and bound by its policies — including the one barring the indictment of a sitting president.

Mueller said the U.S. Constitution "requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing" – a remark widely interpreted as meaning Mueller was referring his probe to Congress, which can impeach and remove a president.

Barr said he didn’t know what Mueller was "suggesting" with that language.

"The Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress," he added.

The Department of Justice has tried to bridge any gap between remarks given by Barr and Mueller on the role the DOJ guidance played in Mueller's decision to not reach a conclusion on obstruction of justice, The Hill reported.


And in the past, Barr has suggested the regulation wasn’t a deciding factor in Mueller's decision to not say whether obstruction of justice definitively took place. Mueller indicated Wednesday just the opposite.

A DOJ statement issued late Wednesday asserted that there "is no conflict" between each of the official's statements.

Nowhere does Barr indicate Mueller is required to make a decision, only that based on the evidence gathered, he could have. This, I believe supports your view that Mueller felt he could not 'accuse'. But it leaves me with a few questions:

1) If Mueller felt he cannot accuse the President, why did we even have the investigation?

2) If Mueller felt he cannot accuse the President because he could not indict, why does he go on to write the letter to Barr and make the announcement that continues to insinuate it is up to Congress to act on what is provided? Is this not accusing without indicting, to put it to Congress to pursue?

3) If the DOJ cannot put such 'accusations' forth, why have they done so in the past with other investigations (perhaps the laws were changed, I don't know)? And why are Barr and Rosenstein left feeling the obligation of a decision, and the authoirty to make one? Why does Barr say Mueller could have?

 

[JessFR]

Muellers interpretation is not one that has been tested in the supreme court. Barr can have a different interpretation, but that doesn't mean mueller is wrong to act on his own interpretation. It was his job to make that decision, and what would have been wrong would only have been if the action he took was inconsistent with his actual opinion of the law. So long as his opinion was honest, that's doing his job.

Ok so to your questions...

1) If Mueller felt he cannot accuse the President, why did we even have the investigation?

Mueller would have come to this conclusion in the course of the investigation. But regardless, we had the investigation, first and foremost, to collect evidence for later use, and prosecute whom could be prosecuted now. The evidence can be used in congresses decision to impeach, that is its primary purpose, and it could also be used years later when he's out of office if he were to be criminally charged. And by having the investigation now, that evidence, including peoples depositions and such, will be much more accurate and complete than trying to uncover it potentially years down the road.

2) If Mueller felt he cannot accuse the President because he could not indict, why does he go on to write the letter to Barr and make the announcement that continues to insinuate it is up to Congress to act on what is provided? Is this not accusing without indicting, to put it to Congress to pursue?

There is a world of difference between clarifying your legal framework to make your intention, which is that you weren't able to clear the president and found such and such evidence, and making a direct charge of wrongdoing in the formal report. It is up to congress to decide to impeach or not, coming to that decision in itself would be acting on the report, in either case. Congress can look at the report, and decide not to impeach. That would also be acting on it.

Saying "This is what I found, I am not able to make accusations for such and such legal reasons, but I could clear the president, or not clear the president and provide what evidence I found, and I did the latter" is very different from saying "I think there's sufficient evidence to say trump would be charged if he weren't president".

3) If the DOJ cannot put such 'accusations' forth, why have they done so in the past with other investigations (perhaps the laws were changed, I don't know)? And why are Barr and Rosenstein left feeling the obligation of a decision, and the authoirty to make one? Why does Barr say Mueller could have?

I am not aware of any outright accusations (as in, outright saying the president broke the law) made previously in similar reports. But again, this is not a question with a certain answer. There have been several OLC memos that have found the president can't be indicted, that the constitution doesn't provide that as an option and only provides impeachment. And that the president enjoys qualified immunity. But that is just a policy of the DOJ and an interpretation by the OLC. It would have to go to the supreme court in order to get a solid answer.

Muellers job is to conduct the report according to the current law, and in line with the policies of the department of justice. From that he found he could not indict, and by extension could not accuse. That may not be what the supreme court would find if it came to that, or it might be exactly what they'd find. Mueller only has the OLC memos and the DOJ policy currently to say that the president can't be indicted. And has made a reasonable, but untested interpretation, one others like Barr might disagree with, that the framework of the constitution in conjunction with the inability to indict results in an inability to accuse.

Since there isn't a solid answer backed by supreme court precedent, it comes down to an interpretation of the law, and different people have different interpretations. But it was muellers job in conducting this report to come to conclusions like this one. Provided it was his honest interpretation, I'd say that's him doing his job.

Thing is though, we don't have a solid answer here. Muellers interpretation might ultimately be determined by the courts to be wrong, with or without also determining that the president in fact can be indicted. But even if that happens, I'd still say he did his job in the present, because it was for him to make this determination for the purposes of his report, and there isn't an absolute right answer to rely on right now.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Barr: Mueller Could Have Made Decision About Obstruction of Justice




Nowhere does Barr indicate Mueller is required to make a decision, only that based on the evidence gathered, he could have. This, I believe supports your view that Mueller felt he could not 'accuse'. But it leaves me with a few questions:

1) If Mueller felt he cannot accuse the President, why did we even have the investigation?

2) If Mueller felt he cannot accuse the President because he could not indict, why does he go on to write the letter to Barr and make the announcement that continues to insinuate it is up to Congress to act on what is provided? Is this not accusing without indicting, to put it to Congress to pursue?

3) If the DOJ cannot put such 'accusations' forth, why have they done so in the past with other investigations (perhaps the laws were changed, I don't know)? And why are Barr and Rosenstein left feeling the obligation of a decision, and the authoirty to make one? Why does Barr say Mueller could have?

1) Because the occupied government of Russia wanted to see our democracy weakened, and in shambles. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, COMRADE.
2) Because it is up to Congress, and if they want to keep not impeaching him, then there's probably a reason that Congress' approval rating is below 10% and has been for a long time. And probably because people whose entire lives are tied up in work at DOJ, probably believe in the concept of justice and want to see laws applied equally.
3) Barr is likely wrong. That's fine. No one has to have all the answers.

 

[novaveritas]

Captian Heroin has all the answers though, sadly not one of them is correct but never mind.

It's a bit weak in an adversarial legal system to say obstructing an investigation is a serious crime irrespective of whether any high crime was found or even existed. Successful obstruction is a prosecutor failing, it's not like the prosecutor doesn't have the backing of the full might of the State and huge powers of compulsion. The guy went out fishing and came back with bupkes, partly because he was briefed to look into Russian interference because that fitted the narrative.

Slick Willy Clinton obstructed the investigation into himself and his lovely wifes dealings by briefing and interfereing with witnesses, so what.

The purpose of the witch hunt Russia collusion was to restart the cold war and distract from just how both the Democrats and the Republicans had colluded with foreign powers for personal gain.

The rich and corrupt in the West managed to break the political system long ago, the only thing that changed is recently everybody got to see what goes on behind the curtain.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Clinton didn’t obstruct anything. That’s a stretch of the imagination if I’ve ever heard it.

“Someone else did it” isn’t a logically sound argument addressing why someone should get away with obstruction of justice as a sitting president.

 

[novaveritas]

Clinton didn’t obstruct anything. That’s a stretch of the imagination if I’ve ever heard it.

really!!!!

“Someone else did it” isn’t a logically sound argument addressing why someone should get away with obstruction of justice as a sitting president.

You miss the point, the point is that obstruction is not a serious crime in an adversarial system, which is why Slick Willy and his team briefed witnesses removed evidence lost documents and so on. Slick willy was a lawyer and he knew exactly what he was doing and also knew that it was of no consequence

 

[cduggles]

Clinton was also impeached.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

really!!!!


You miss the point, the point is that obstruction is not a serious crime in an adversarial system, which is why Slick Willy and his team briefed witnesses removed evidence lost documents and so on. Slick willy was a lawyer and he knew exactly what he was doing and also knew that it was of no consequence

Yes really.

I didn’t miss the point. I logically analyzed your argument and I didn’t jump to the same conclusion. Obstruction is a relatively big deal for a sitting president. I’m not convinced otherwise.

 

[novaveritas]

Clinton was also impeached.

Indeed over an ill judged weasel comment but the oddest thing is they didn't go for Clinton for obstruction in the Whitewater case where the case for obstruction especially after Vince Foster and the disappearance of legal documents was much stronger.
Clinton was tripped up by using slippery lawyer words, ultimately if he had said "yeah you got me, Monica and me had a thing, have you seen Hillary? yeah OK you see why" that would have been that.

Presidents lie, Presidents cheat and Presidents abuse their position. That is why the system was expressly designed not to give a president full control

 

[JessFR]

Just because someone gets away with obstruction doesn't make it not a serious crime.

It's kinda like suggesting dealing drugs isn't a serious crime because you've gotten away with it for years and nothings happened.

 

[novaveritas]

Yes really.

I didn’t miss the point. I logically analyzed your argument and I didn’t jump to the same conclusion. Obstruction is a relatively big deal for a sitting president. I’m not convinced otherwise.

The president should be afforded exaclty the same rights as anyone else. The president may defend himself in any way they choose. The concept of obstruction is a dubioius one, do you think that the Clinton Foundation engaged in subterfuge and clever manouvering to make it difficult to see what was going on? at what point does it become obstruction.
So obstruction is not a serious crime. being an abysmal investigator isn't either.

 

[novaveritas]

Just because someone gets away with obstruction doesn't make it not a serious crime.

It's kinda like suggesting dealing drugs isn't a serious crime because you've gotten away with it for years and nothings happened.

Adversarial is the key concept you're missing, alls fair in love and war. One the one side you have a investigator backed by the might of the state, who can make error after error without consequence and then you have a defendent who only has to make one error.
Obstruction as a serious crime is bullshit
I am not arguing this to defend Trump or Clinton or for any partisan reason they are as loathesome as each other, both have had to defend themselves against people using the machinery of State for party political reasons, some people wonder why there is lack of faith in the institutions, there is your answer.

 

[JessFR]

It becomes obstruction as soon as you attempt to stop the functioning of the investigation. Just because people get away with it doesn't make it not serious.

This isn't a matter of interpretation or debate, obstruction IS a serious crime. You can argue that it shouldn't be, but currently it is.

And I'd hardly say the president is the poor underdog vs the prosecutor with the full power of the state. The prosecutor is the underdog in this story.

Not that there even is a prosecutor here yet.

This seems pretty cut and dry to me, if the president is permitted to obstruct investigation into their wrongdoing without it also being an example of wrong doing, it undermines the very rule of law even more so than the current interpretation of qualified immunity already does.