Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[GeorgiaModerate]

I mean, you wrote "nobody actually obstructed justice" in #4.

Obstruction would have to be with the investigators or someone at Justice.  You would actually have to interfere with the investigation.  Trump's aides did not carry that order, and Trump did not push them.

Wrong.   Success doesn't matter, intention is what matters in court of law.

This would not be a court of law; this would be an impeachment.  It is a different standard. 

 Trump didn't talk to the investigators or anyone with oversight or that could have had oversight, neither directly nor indirectly.  That is the entire problem, even from trying to make a legal case. 

In a criminal case, this would be like asking you secretary to talk to the DA, a friend of hers, and your secretary saying "no."

That's not even remotely close. But you are one of the most stubbornly, obstinately, and habitually wrong posters on this forum. So I'm just going to sit back with some chips and watch you make a blithering fool out of yourself per usual.

That's about like watching the Knicks play basketball.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1119324901259661312

[GeorgiaModerate]

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?

I certainly believe that we need to dial this all back.  We do not need the massive investigation that Trump and others seem to want as to how this got started.

But the conduct of any number of the inquisitors is reprehensible.  Andrew McCabe?  James Comey?  Peter Strxok?  Lisa Page?  John Brennan? 

They tried to "kill the king".  Figuratively, but sure enough.  And they failed.  They failed because they, themselves, were not truthful, and they were acting out of motives that, for many of them, were unacceptably political for the positions of trust they held.  Trump will go up in my estimation if he actually can show some magnanimity here, but there are a number of individuals involved in all of this that deserve to experience an extreme episode of unmitigated defecation into their undergarments, followed by a proper passage of time until the sigh of relief.

This is delusional.  To take just one example, Strzok supported reopening the probe into Clinton's emails after they were found on the Weiner laptop, and in fact helped write the letter Comey sent to Congress about it.  If that didn't happen, Clinton would have been elected.  Or if Strzok had really wanted to prevent Trump's election, he could have done so with a single phone call to a media source in Fall 2016 and leaked that Trump was under investigation for ties with Russia.  This would have finished Trump.

Did Strzok dislike Trump?  No doubt.  But law enforcement officials are allowed to have personal and political feelings.  What they shouldn't do is let those feelings influence the conduct of their official duties.  As part of his duties, Strzok took actions that unquestionably harmed Clinton's chances of being elected, despite his dislike of Trump.  This was correct professional and ethical behavior.

[GeorgiaModerate]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate. 

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

Here's a towelette.  Wipe the egg off your face and get down to the hard work of convincing them why they should not vote for Trump in 2020, if seeing him out of office is that important to you.  I suspect that America is tiring of False Narratives that seem ever so real, only to implode under close inspection.

Lmao. We've already known this before, and the report has only made this eve more clear - the reasons for starting the investigation did not rely on the dossier.

It's not very kind to trouble Fuzzy with inconvenient facts. 

But it's the right thing to do.

[GeorgiaModerate]

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

No part of the Steele Dossier has ever been discredited or proven wrong at any time by anyone.   Every statement made in it remains 100% factual to date.

Don't get too hung up on the Dossier. (Although Trumpers would really like you to.) It was a raw intelligence summary (or series of such summaries), put together with limited resources, under a time limit. It's a hasty map of Trump's potential compromise and conspiracies, not a hi-rez image of the terrain.

Well put.

[GeorgiaModerate]

...There are certain folks on this website like Sanchez who are such died in the wall Trump supporters ...

I take back all the things I've ever said about your app.  This is brilliant!

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1123365718664327173

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1123585355490447361

[GeorgiaModerate]

The Mueller's highly damning report has BEEN out for 2 weeks now (and Mueller WILL testify).

Stil, the BIG STORY is somehow 4 pages memo (which by the way Mueller was given the opportunity to review, but has declined to do that)...
_{Former BIG STORIES were that the report would not be released at all, then that it would be damaged by redactions. And before that COLlUSION...}


Is the report really so damning that MSM&Resistance told ya (still saying) it would be?   

Well, it lays out clear evidence of obstruction of justice.  Enough evidence so that some experts in the field (former prosecutors and DoJ officials, for example) are on record saying that if Trump weren't the currently sitting president, he would have been indicted for it.  Yeah, I'd call that pretty damning.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1125057643968643073

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/442199-trump-says-mueller-shouldnt-testify

Trump says Mueller shouldn't testify.

Considered what he said when Mueller was appointed, he's most certainly terrified of what Mueller will say.

Gee, if Trump thinks Mueller's report exonerates him, why wouldn't he want Mueller to testify.

If I had one question to ask Mueller: "If Donald Trump was not the sitting President, would you have indicted him for obstruction of justice?"

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1125452715444899840

[GeorgiaModerate]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y) said Friday that special counsel Robert Mueller will not be testifying before his panel next week.

Nadler told reporters that the committee is still negotiating over his testimony with the Justice Department and Mueller but expects the special counsel to appear.

“It won’t be next week. We’re negotiating now,” Nadler said. “We’re talking with him and the Justice Department.”

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/443128-nadler-says-mueller-will-not-be-testifying-next-week

[GeorgiaModerate]

I would still like him to testify and answer one question: if Donald Trump was not the sitting President of the United States, would you have charged him with obstruction of justice?

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1135623501883293696
Among the witnesses: John Dean!  It's like a time machine.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The "investigations" run by Democrats should probably get a distinct thread? They lack the Muller's credibility and fairness...

IMO this thread is appropriate for hearings that are specifically about the Mueller report and its findings, since they are directly related.  The general oversight thread is probably better for hearings on other topics.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1143685822992015363

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1149683898340773888

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1149833117466800128

[GeorgiaModerate]

Robert Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee for three hours starting at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow (July 24).  After a 30-minute break, he will then testify before the House Intelligence Committee for two hours starting at 12:00 noon.  Most or all TV news outlets will be covering the hearings.  See their live streams for online coverage (for example, here is the CBS News live stream).

[GeorgiaModerate]

Get the popcorn ready.

[GeorgiaModerate]

For those (like me) who aren't in a position to watch the hearings, NYT has a live chat going: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/24/us/politics/robert-mueller-hearing-analysis.html

[GeorgiaModerate]

Judging by the look on Mueller's face, he really doesn't want to be there.

Mueller has a long history of not liking the limelight or being involved in political tussles.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/danieljwindham/status/1154022772852629504

[GeorgiaModerate]

Conclusion: these hearings will change few, if any minds.  Which is about what I expected.