Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[Virginiá]

People coming to hot takes before any details have been leaked?

[Virginiá]

Why is anybody saying this means nobody else will be indicted? Isn't that exactly what sealed indictments are for? If anything, it means Mueller doesn't expect to get anymore cooperating witnesses, which makes sense seeing as, you know, the report is apparently done.

Well one reason I'm hesitant is that many of the prosecutors on Mueller's team have already departed and moved on. It's clearly closing down.

That being said, SDNY's office could still do stuff and same for state prosecutors.

[Virginiá]

So no ones going to read this but:

Fact of the matter is, we wont be getting Barr's report tonight. Probably not tomorrow either. Go do something else and check back on Sunday.

Hopefully so, because I’m at a bluegrass festival in Nowhere FL with spotty WiFi.

This is so Atlas. You're at a musical festival and still checking for Mueller updates, presumably fully prepared to duck into a corner to read however many pages of whatever comes out

[Virginiá]

[Virginiá]

This is just like the Hillary email scandal. Disregard the reality and keep claiming crimes were committed and keep launching more investigations against Trump

Yea pretty much. Tried and true strategy perfected by the GOP.

[Virginiá]

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/mueller-doj-subpoena-trump/index.html

"In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the (Mueller) report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense," Barr wrote.

The special counsel's office and the Justice Department declined to comment on internal discussions of a subpoena.
In the end, the decision to not make a formal request for a subpoena was critical, because that demand, should it have been rejected, would have been communicated by the attorney general to Congress, as the special counsel regulations mandate. Instead, a formal request from Mueller wasn't made, allowing Barr to say in his letter to Congress on Friday "there were no such instances during the Special Counsel investigation" where Mueller was turned down.

[Virginiá]

Well, I am a little surprised by the result.  I have a few lingering questions about it, like why Mueller, if he thought the obstruction case was ambiguous and had at least some incriminating evidence, did not attempt to interview Trump to at least probe about intent, especially when he admitted at least once in a television interview that he dismissed Comey because of the ongoing Russia investigation.

It could be a constitutional question that made him hesitate. What we read was the result of Mueller punting the decision to Barr/Rosenstein, and the decision was predictable.

[Virginiá]

I'd just like to point out that the ahugecat precedent is still in effect. Threads in general but much more regarding community megathreads surrounding elections or major events are for community discussion and not just one user to monopolize the entire space to aggressively push their point of view. Emphasis on aggressively and monopolize.

[Virginiá]

Without commenting on the content yet, I have to say (as someone who reads and writes a lot of reports) that so far this is a superbly written document.  Clear, concise, and easily readable.

If only the investigation had a special counsel who realized that Congress as a body will never act because the president's enablers will never allow it to.

[Virginiá]

It's pretty depressing to see how little roughly 30 - 35% of the country cares about a president brazenly obstructing justice, and instead so concerned about defending their guy that they will embrace absurd constitutional theories that basically insulate any president from any obstruction claim involving staffing decisions of the executive branch, simply by virtue of them being president.

If only Trump was a Democrat, then they would see how dangerous that road is to go down.

[Virginiá]

4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”

You can keep saying he didn't obstruct justice, but that doesn't make it true. Trump walked because he is president and Mueller was not going to try and challenge the opinion of indicting a sitting president.

You're right about one thing though, the report does have something for everyone. Since Mueller didn't try to indict Trump, he clearly did not obstruct justice! Clearly!

Oh, except for these times I suppose:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

[Virginiá]

1.  No collusion with the Russians.  Point blank.  What was claimed to have been some type of grand conspiracy wasn't.

The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”

You can keep saying he didn't obstruct justice, but that doesn't make it true. Trump walked because he is president and Mueller was not going to try and challenge the opinion of indicting a sitting president.

You're right about one thing though, the report does have something for everyone. Since Mueller didn't try to indict Trump, he clearly did not obstruct justice! Clearly!

Oh, except for these times I suppose:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/

I didn't say that there was no obstruction.  I said that there was no collusion. 

The obstruction case is difficult, even with an arguably lower standard of being an impeachable offense.  Trump would not need to be indicted for it for it to be impeachable.  The problem is trying to sell the American public that there was an attempt at obstruction when no obstruction occurred, and when the investigator were not interfered with in any way. 

I only quoted the wrong text. You said exactly that:

4.  The administration did not act to interfere with the investigation.  Nobody actually obstructed justice.

And what you said was simply not true. Mueller said that because they declined to prosecute, they would not make a conclusion, and punted the matter to Congress but listed 10 ways Trump acted to impede the investigation.

AT THE VERY LEAST, you should have said as much. But somehow deciding that Trump & co didn't obstruct based purely on what Mueller said is wrong and misconstrues what the report actually said. You're just picking what you want from it.

[Virginiá]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mueller-report-latest-donald-trump-participants-treason-spying-turn-tables-a8878761.html?utm_source=reddit.com

Trump is calling participants in the investigation treasonous and vows to turn the tables on them.

This is scary and should outrage everyone, even his supporters.

The Democrats accused the President of committing treason without any concrete evidence.  That wasn't scary? You had a former CIA director call the President treasonous, but this wasn't scary?  Who are you trying to fool?  Everyone else or yourself?

Eh, the reason it's scarier is because as president he can actually do something to these people instead of just running his mouth. Even Congressional Democrats can only churn out subpoenas and hold hearings, which is far less power than the executive branch.

[Virginiá]

Checks and balances feels like such a foreign concept now. The Constitution's Framers f***ed up so bad. The American experiment was worth a try, but it is clearly a failure.

Not creating a separate process, free from meddling, for investigating the executive branch (including POTUS), is proving to be an incredibly dumb mistake that should have been obvious even back then.

What we're left with is basically a president that could, in theory, be totally immune from the law so long as they have enough allies in Congress and an Attorney General who won't appoint a special counsel. And even if one is appointed, just make sure the DoJ's policy on not prosecuting POTUS is still in effect. How simple!