The Desperation of U.S. Democrat Leaders

originally posted by: thedigirati
well, on the obstruction charge, we are still waiting for the IG report.

Ummm... no, we're not, Barr and Rosenstein already made that determination call, it is done.

The IG report is about what started this mess.

is it obstruction if the case against you is fraudulant?

This is why it is extremely difficult - but not impossible - to prove obstruction if there is no underlying crime.

the case against President Trump may be a fraud, if so, would you want to pursue obstruction and piss him off even more??

It obviously is, and the dems don't seem to care about pissing him off.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Mueller said that they chose not to make a "determination", because of the OLC rule, that a sitting president can't be indicted.

Which is gross negligence and an outright lie, since the OLC rule doesn't prevent him from making a determination (just like it did not prevent Starr from doing so wrt Clinton).

He was free to make the dtermination all day long - he just couldn't follow through with a formal indictment.

To quote someone earlier - this isn't rocket science.

But, he did say that President Trump could be indicted after he leaves office.

Sure - and you can be indicted right now, since you're not in office.

But indicted for what? He committed no crimes, and the report - combined with Barr/Rosensteins determination on the obstruction question - makes it clear he did not.

originally posted by: thedigirati
you DO know that correct? the OLC had no bearing on this report, at all

Not quite true...

Muellers story - if you listen - is that, because of the OLC rule, they decided in the beginning not to even make a determination, when it comes to Trump.

This is ridiculous on its face, since the OLC rule doesn't prevent him from making a determination, it simply forbids following through with a formal indictment. But he is free to outline all of the crimes (just like Starr did), and lay out the evidence in support - just like Starr did - and make a recommendation to his boss that the matter be referred to Congress for possible impeachment proceedings.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Deetermined

Asking Cory Lewandowsky tp send a message to Sessions, to fire Robert Mueller is illegal. Asking Don McGahn to alter official records and to lie, is illegal.

No, it isn't. Mueller himself even said that Trump had the Constitutional authority to fire him.

That doesn't mean that if he did, Congress wouldn't act - but the act itself would not be illegal.

a reply to: tanstaafl

No, it isn't.

Yes it was. Cory Lewandowsky was a private citizen. If Trump thought he had the authority to fire Mueller, he wouldn't have needed Sessions to do it, and he wouldn't have needed a private civilian to give Sessions a "message" like a mob boss.

It was also illegal to ask Don McGann to alter official records and to order him to lie.

That doesn't mean that if he did, Congress wouldn't act - but the act itself would not be illegal.

It's all about intent.

Interfering in an ongoing investigation, especially is that investigation is looking at you, is illegal. It's called obstruction of justice.

originally posted by: Deetermined
The whole reason Mueller said that was because "corrupt intent" was one of those "difficulties with laws and facts" that the Special Counsel said that they had a problem with, making it impossible for them to make a LEGAL decision. This is EXACTLY why Mueller wanted to pass it off to Congress.

Wrong. It raised the bar, but didn't by any stretch make it impossible.

If they couldn't reach that conclusion based on the facts and evidence, that leaves only one choice: declination (aka 'exoneration' for those feeble minded TDS suffering radical left-wing-nut whack jobs).

And it wasn't the SC's job to pass anything to Congress... his job was to prepare the confidential report for his boss, the AG, aka Bill Barr.

Congress doesn't even need to prove corrupt intent within the boundaries of the law. All they need to do is convince each other enough to vote for impeachment.

Do you get it now?!

Congress, by law, wasn't even supposed to see the report, at all, not one word.

Do you get it now?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Which is gross negligence and an outright lie, since the OLC rule doesn't prevent him from making a determination (just like it did not prevent Starr from doing so wrt Clinton).

He was free to make the dtermination all day long - he just couldn't follow through with a formal indictment.

Mueller explained, that doing so would be unconstitutional, since the accusation would be there, but there would be no way for Trump to be able to confront his accusers or defend himself in court. Due Process would be violated.

What part of Due Process don't you understand?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Thank you for requoting Mueller to reprove my point. They made no determination because of he rule.

Wrong.

The rule in no way prevents making a determination.

It forbids indictment.

Those are two very different and distinct things.

Read the Ken Starr report. That is what Muellers report would have looked like if they had found any evidence of actual crimes.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
He was forbidden to make a determination of intent, guilt or to recommend indictment, because of the rule.

This is a bald faced outright lie.

If you claim otherwise, please post, for everyone to see, the OLC rule that forbids a SC from making a determination.

a reply to: tanstaafl

If you claim otherwise, please post, for everyone to see, the OLC rule that forbids a SC from making a determination.

It's called the Constitution.

At the risk of repeating myself:

Mueller explained, that doing so would be unconstitutional, since the accusation would be there, but there would be no way for Trump to be able to confront his accusers or defend himself in court. Due Process would be violated.

What part of Due Process don't you understand?

Prosecutors don't determine guilt, they present a case with evidence and accusations of guilt, to be adjudicated by a court of law. That tool was not available to Mueller, according to his testimony.

a reply to: Deetermined

No information came to light from republicans during the hearings.
They just recited the company line about the Obama administration.
They chanted the dossier chant.
They rallied around trump in his delusion. His so far unproven delusion but then thats what a delusion is...
They tried to misdirect and mis-state the information and when they couldnt do that they decried the origins of the information as if that would or could change the fundamental message at all.
The corruption is rampant. From the head down to the fungus infected toes.
The hearings brought that out. It did not give trump what he needs or wants. So he just lies about the results and then those lies get echoed here.
The report and the hearing hurt him.
It revealed the truth.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
But, the objections that I remember were about whether or not Mueller had to the right to exonerate or not. Mueller didn't exonerate Trump for obstruction, but he exonerated everyone for conspiracy. Do you and your Republican friends have a problem with that too?

I certainly do. The SC can not exonerate anyone. No Prosecutor can ever exonerate anyone.

It is a foreign concept to our legal system.

Do you get it now?

originally posted by: FyreByrd
You might try "members of the Democratic Party"

You might try not picking nits wrt really stupid things like this.

I say democrat party all the time. There is nothing wrong with it.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Deetermined

Trump is going to be indicted when he leaves office for obstruction of justice.

As my daughter would say...

Awwwwwww! He's so cuuuuuute!

a reply to: tanstaafl

I certainly do. The SC can not exonerate anyone. No Prosecutor can ever exonerate anyone.

Technically, Mueller did claim to exonerate anyone. He stated that they didn't find enough evidence to conclude that any American was guilty of conspiracy. Trump claimed exoneration. Mueller stated that he didn't and couldn't exonerate Trump. No, no harm, no foul.

The Mueller report said some people did some things and although some things may have been done in an extremely careless manner,,, no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.


That's about all I got out of it.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No information came to light from republicans during the hearings.

Thanks for proving that you either didn't read the original post or, as suspected, you were unable to intellectually understand or comprehend it.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Congress, by law, wasn't even supposed to see the report, at all, not one word.

Do you get it now?

By law, the Attorney General doesn't have to show the report to Congress, but if he feels like it has so much public interest that it's in the best interest to share it, he can. (With the exception of grand jury information.)

Besides, your response doesn't have anything to do with my statement on why Mueller wanted Congress to continue his investigation. Mueller knows that Congress doesn't need to prove criminality in order for them to impeach Trump, which is why he created his list of 10 "possible" obstructions of justice with no final determination of his own. I think we both can agree on that.

Mueller knew he couldn't make a legal determination of a crime, but it's obvious that he wanted Congress to punish Trump regardless.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
"No, it isn't."

Yes it was.

No. It wasn't.

The regulations are clear that the AG (or in the case the acting AG) has the authority to fire the SC, and the President could order him to do as his boss. The AG could refuse, and Trump could then fire them and put someone in place to do it.and to order the AG (or acting AG) to fire himself.

But quite simply asking/telling or even ordering the (acting) AG - through one or more intermediaries or not - to fire him is not illegal.

Of course that doesn't mean there wouldn't be consequences - but it wouldn't be illegal.

Cory Lewandowsky was a private citizen.

So?

If Trump thought he had the authority to fire Mueller, he wouldn't have needed Sessions to do it,

Actually, the regulations state that only the AG has the authority to fire the SC - so, wrong again. He absolutely needed Sessions (or RR) to do it.

and he wouldn't have needed a private civilian to give Sessions a "message" like a mob boss.

Irrelevant.

It was also illegal to ask Don McGann to alter official records and to order him to lie.

No, it wasn't. It would have been illegal for McGann to do it, which he didn't...

I agree that one looks bad, but we also don't know for sure exactly what was said.

"That doesn't mean that if he did, Congress wouldn't act - but the act itself would not be illegal."

It's all about intent.

Interfering in an ongoing investigation, especially is that investigation is looking at you, is illegal. It's called obstruction of justice.

Does an unsuccessful attempt to interfere constitute interference? Mueller said he was not hindered in any way from doing his job.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Keep rattling on how Trump had the right to do anything he wants. "When the president does it, it's not illegal" Lord know, Trump thinks Article II gives him that right. In the meantime, Congress is attempting to exercise their Article I duties and responsibilities.

This is the crux of the obstruction of justice claim. It's up to Congress to decide now.

Nobody is above the law, not even the President of the United States.