Treason Season??

[Rajvik]

Chuckles Schumer has apparently stuck his foot in it by stating that the White House should not be allowed to decide what can and can't be released. The President called for ALL OF IT to be released. I would ask what the hell Schumer is thinking, but I have an idea.

Edit, it is in neither the White House nor the Congress who gets to decide what gets released, it is the Attorney General.

Edit 2:
According to an article on townhall,com the letter sent to various members of Congress.
"I am reviewing the report and anticipate that I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel's principal conclusions as soon as this weekend," Barr wrote. "Separately, I intend to consult with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller to determine what other information from the report can be release to Congress and the public consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department's long-standing practices and policies. I remain committed to as much transparency as possible, and will keep you informed as to the status of my review"

[Labster]

NO COLLUSION

Robert Swan Mueller III declares the evidence incollusive

[Dartz]

Inconclusive? That's pretty much the worst answer possible.


Because now everyone can make what they need to out of.

[hazard]

Not inconclusive, incollusive.

I'm uncertain as to the truthfulness of that report.

[robkelk]

Please read Mueller's report before drawing conclusions about it.

From the news reports I'm hearing, the report goes into two separate issues. Assuming the news is correct:
1) Collusion: While the Russians almost definitely interfered in the 2016 election, no evidence was found of GOP collusion with the Russians.
2) Obstruction of Justice: Muller was unable to find sufficient evidence to either clear or indict Trump.

Trump is noticeably ignoring that second point in his statements. As always, pay attention to what isn't being said.

[Dartz]

Even then we only have what Barr claims to be on it....


It took us fifty years to learn that Nixon intentionally scuppered peace talks to win the presidency. Pretty much everyone here will be dead by the time the truth of this really comesout.

[Labster]

Not inconclusive, incollusive.

Yeah, I gotta use all my bad puns before they go out of style, sorry Dartz.  I can't say I didn't expect the findings as of Friday: if he didn't indict Eric or Don Jr, there wasn't much chance that the President himself was involved.

I expect that we'll see a lot of stuff from Trump praising Mueller now that he didn't find anything, in contrast to what he's said before.  That's the thing with Trump's moral universe, it's always about him.  It doesn't really bother him that there are really a lot of felons who he knows or worked with.

But in the long term, the investigation did a lot of damage, as it opened many inquiries outside of the scope of the Special Counsel, at USDA for SDNY, to the NY AG, to even the Manhattan DA.

[Rajvik]

Please read Mueller's report before drawing conclusions about it.

From the news reports I'm hearing, the report goes into two separate issues. Assuming the news is correct:
1) Collusion: While the Russians almost definitely interfered in the 2016 election, no evidence was found of GOP collusion with the Russians.
2) Obstruction of Justice: Muller was unable to find sufficient evidence to either clear or indict Trump.

Trump is noticeably ignoring that second point in his statements. As always, pay attention to what isn't being said.

Blows the dust off the thread

Now that the reacted report is out, (No congressman Nader you don't get to see it unredacted, those are the rule YOU PASSED after the Starr report) we find out why the Obstruction decision was "inconclusive"

Short of it:
11 instances that could be argued stand as obstruction yet do not meet the burden of burden of proof for indictment individually. Mueller left it up to the AG,the deputy AG, and the DOJ office of legal council to decide whether or not to proceed. As per the letter, the three decided that no, they do not and closed this down.

Remember that the deputy AG is still Rod Rosenstein, the same person who appointed Mueller and is no friend of the administration. Add to that, if he disagreed, he has nothing to lose if he speaks up because he put his walking papers in months ago.

[robkelk]

Reuters: Mueller report details 'inadequate' Trump answers, attempts by president to end probe

DISCLAIMER: This is based on the news article. I have not yet read the 448-page report.

"It is clear there was no criminal wrongdoing. Nothing withheld; nothing concealed; nothing deleted; nothing destroyed; and nothing bleached," his lawyers Rudy Giuliani, Jay Sekulow, Jane Raskin and Martin Raskin said in a statement.

Let's take that apart.

"Nothing withheld":

The president never sat for an interview with Mueller during the nearly two-year investigation, despite indicating on several occasions his willingness to do so.

Mueller's 448-page report said Trump's written responses to submitted questions by the special counsel were "inadequate," though it was ultimately decided not to issue a subpoena to force Trump to give an interview to the special counsel because it would have created a "substantial delay" at a late stage in the investigation.

"nothing concealed":

The report indicated that Trump directed aides numerous times not to disclose emails about a controversial June 2016 meeting in New York with a Russian lawyer who had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton, which was attended by his son Donald Trump Jr. and his son-in-law and current White House adviser Jared Kushner.

Mueller said there was no documentary evidence that Trump knew his son, son-in-law and others were taking the Trump Tower meeting until after it occurred.

Elsewhere, Mueller wrote, "there is evidence that could support the inference the president intended to discourage [MIchael Cohen] from co-operating" with the investigation, referring to the president's former personal lawyer, who will begin a three-year prison sentence next month.

"nothing deleted":




"nothing destroyed":

This one appears to have held up. Assuming of course that any evidence for destruction has not been redacted as shown above.


"and nothing bleached":

Barr subsequently concluded that Trump had not committed obstruction of justice, but Mueller's report concluded it could not clear him of that charge, appearing to defer to the U.S. system of checks and balances in government to grapple with that question.

The legal team got one out of five right. And with all the redactions, there's no way to know whether there was or was not "criminal wrongdoing."

---

CBC News: Obstruction or not, Mueller report shows Trump's panic during Russia investigation

According to notes quoted in the report, when Trump first learned a special counsel had been appointed in 2017, the president slumped back in his chair and said: "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I' m f---ed."

[Rajvik]

Panic is normal because it is a distraction from doing the job. It is a hassle to be either borne as Trump has and Clinton did, or eluded as Nixon did. Regardless it derails ones agenda and for someone who is built around completing his work that is unacceptable

[robkelk]

One does not normally panic when one is distracted. Unless, of course, one has a guilty conscience.

---

The Register: We've read the Mueller report. Here's what you need to know: ██ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ██ █████ ████████ █████

[Matrix Dragon]

 Regardless it derails ones agenda and for someone who is built around completing his work that is unacceptable

I'm not kidding when I say this made me laugh so hard I nearly suffocated. Mister Ponzi Scheme ever completing his shit...

Thanks Rajvik, I needed the laugh.

[Black Aeronaut]

The behavior of Trump and his staff is not the behavior of someone that had done no wrong. It is the behavior of someone who is desperately trying to hide something.

Put it this way, if you were suddenly being investigated for money laundering, it would be inconvenient and maybe even upsetting, but you would otherwise cooperate fully with the authorities, if for no other reason than to prove a point. (The thing is that if you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that you had no connection and that there was no reason to suspect you, then you can have the people that investigated you brought up on charges of false accusation. Notice that this isn't the case for Trump.)

See, here's the thing. When you're being investigated for wrongdoing, and you're the goddamned POTUS, privacy concerns go flying out the window in flames. In any other case, Bill Clinton's infidelity would have been swept under the rug because that would have been something for him and his wife to work out between each other. Except he was the goddamned POTUS at the time. Why does Trump expect some kind of preferential treatment?

[hazard]

He's rich and has never really not had preferential treatment.

[Dartz]

but you would otherwise cooperate fully with the authorities, if for no other reason than to prove a point

That's a dangerous thought. Cooperation with the US authorities usually results in getting screwed. It's not like it is over here.

[Black Aeronaut]

.... I know the system isn't perfect, but it's not THAT bad. Besides, hiding evidence is not how you prove your innocence. Most screw-ups are on the part of the lawyers - usually when failing to notice an inconsistency that casts doubt on the burden of proof. That's the thing that some people forget about: that if there's room to say that someone didn't commit a crime once the investigation is over, then that person should not be convicted.

In most cases where an innocent person is punished for something they didn't do, it's mainly because they couldn't get a good lawyer and the public defender assigned to them is a bag of ass that couldn't care less about their case, while the plaintiff can afford a good lawyer or the DA is a fucking shark looking for an easy win. Keep in mind, the real shit-show depends on the lawyers and how they present the case to the judge and/or jury, not the investigative team.

[Dartz]

Nah. Coopoerating with the police never ends well. If you're in that room, you fold your arms and say nothing. Because that's the critical difference between our two legal systems. In the US, anything you can say will be used against you - but not necessarily in your favour. While here it's quite specific that you should talk to the police as the court can draw adverse inferences if you're being selective - but everything you say is evidence, in your favour potentially. You get the interrogation tape and you get to enter anything you say on it before the court- so the police can't be selective in their cherry picking.

Non cooperation, of course, is different from obstruction. It's one thing not to tell the cops there's evidence in the drawer while they're looking for it - and quite another to destroy the evidence sfter you've learned of the investigation.

[Rajvik]

BA I say this only with a mild bit of sarcasm, it is nice to see someone who still has faith in the legal system.

It is with sarcasm because I have been fucked by the legal system before, not to the degree that I took the blame and did nothing wrong, but I have watched the guilty walk because of the prosecutions laziness and arrogance and I have seen the innocent fucked over to varying degrees because people wanted someone convenient to blame. I won't cry and say the system is to favor the wealthy, everyone knows that unless you are as guilty as all fuck and can throw money at enough lawyers you can usually walk simply because they can spin enough brown gold to create reasonable doubt. But the system has morphed over the years from innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent, especially in the court of public opinion.

If I was charged with anything nowadays my response to any question is Lawyer, I don't care if they were just asking my name.

[robkelk]

CBC News: Charging Donald Trump with crime wasn't an option, Robert Mueller says

In his first public comments since being assigned in May 2017, Mueller said on Wednesday "it would be unfair" to potentially accuse someone of a crime when the person couldn't stand trial to defend himself.

Mueller's report did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice charges.

Mueller seemed to emphasize that point in his appearance on Wednesday.

"If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," he said.

That's an intriguing way to phrase it. It looks to me that Mueller could not prove Trump innocent beyond a reasonable doubt... which, IIRC, isn't how the criminal justice system is supposed to work.

This makes me want even more to see the unredacted report. Yes, I know that isn't going to happen.

[Rajvik]

Deleted because there is no damn point arguing

[hazard]

It's been pretty clear for a while now that the only reason the president didn't get indicted by the Mueller report is because the Special Counsel concluded that the proper venue for any trial involving the president is Congress, and only Congress can decide whether or not to bring someone in for trial in Congress.

[Matrix Dragon]

It's been pretty clear for a while now that the only reason the president didn't get indicted by the Mueller report is because the Special Counsel concluded that the proper venue for any trial involving the president is Congress, and only Congress can decide whether or not to bring someone in for trial in Congress.

And that would require McConnell and his fellow scumbags to show even the slightest bit of integrity and self-respect, and he proved years ago he has neither.

[robkelk]

That's an intriguing way to phrase it. It looks to me that Mueller could not prove Trump innocent beyond a reasonable doubt... which, IIRC, isn't how the criminal justice system is supposed to work.

Now that I've had a chance to actually hear what he said, I see that the criminal justice system is not what is supposed to work here. The Constitution says that there's a different process to be used.

Anyone who hasn't heard what he said, here you go. The statement is in the first nine-and-a-quarter minutes.

[hazard]

And that would require McConnell and his fellow scumbags to show even the slightest bit of integrity and self-respect, and he proved years ago he has neither.

Actually, it doesn't.

Rather, what is required is that the House of Representatives pass articles of impeachment against an official (the president in this case) with a simple majority, at which point a trial must and will be held in the Senate. At the conclusion of the trial the Senate must vote, for a conviction a 2/3rd supermajority is required.

Of course, the expectation is that the Republicans are going to do everything they can to sabotage the trial, which explains part of why the Democratic leaders are so reluctant to actually move to an impeachment of the current president.

[Labster]

Of course, the expectation is that the Republicans are going to do everything they can to sabotage the trial, which explains part of why the Democratic leaders are so reluctant to actually move to an impeachment of the current president.

You have effect and cause mixed up here.  Republicans attempting to sabotage the trial is not a part of Democratic decision-making on this issue.  The calculus is pretty simple: if Dems start the impeachment process and fail, then it hands the right an issue to ensure that their base turns out heavily in the next election.  If the trial has the wrong timing, it makes the "witch hunt" thing seem true to a large segment of voters.  Trump himself actually wants the impeachment fight, so he can keep arguing the Deep State thing into the next election.

The price of failure is awfully high.  It means a fully unchecked Trump Administration.  All of the the "adults in the room" have left the White House already, so the Democratic House is the only thing keeping his base desires in check.  And Trump's desires, well, they're bad for liberal democracy throughout the world.  Including in your country.

Winning probably means a Pence presidency, and a whole lot of chaos, and you've still energized the republican base from the impeachment into the next election.  You also probably energize an armed group or three who will cause violence in the wake of the "coup d'etat".  Trump is already laying the groundwork for this.

So the status quo looks like an attractive option -- a good chance of winning the presidency in 2020, and a check on the excesses of power in the meantime.   The main problem is that this means that impeachment of any U.S. President is probably off the table forever.  But maybe it was already.