General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNeal Katyal: "Must look at p2 of Report." He's discussing this now on MSNBC.
@neal_katyal
Must look at p2 of Report. Mueller says he applied a legal standard whereby he could NOT accuse Trump of crimes. So there isn't a way the Report exonerates. "we determined NOT to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes"
12:15 PM · Apr 18, 2019 · Twitter Web Client
Link to tweet
Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)uponit7771
(90,323 posts)Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/11-jaw-dropping-bombshells-mueller-report/
klook
(12,153 posts)if youre the presidents offspring.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)statute accurately here. You have to show the finance violation was done 'willfully' in violation of the law, apparently.
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)rockfordfile
(8,700 posts)uponit7771
(90,323 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)...the Bush Administration, telling Congress there were WMD is Iraq and cited Powell to do it, although it was widely circulated at the time that this was bogus.
He was following Repug orders.
Anyone with true integrity would have made damn sure WMD's existed and further, would have had conscience pangs over the fact that Iraq DID NOT invade us and was not behind 9/11 before he helped to send thousands into war to die and suffer for no damn reason except Halliburton.
Have never seen a Repug not run true to form.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)uponit7771
(90,323 posts)... to knowledge of the crime and not the act itself.
How in the hell ?!!?
I didn't know speeding was a crime doesn't pass for me even on a great day
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)Other statutes have "intent" written into them.
Don't apply inapplicable analogies.
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)uponit7771
(90,323 posts)... is NOT relevant then.
Mueller says it is
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)Same is true for all the children, the President, the Vice President, and every other soul in that administration that did not testify to the grand jury or be interviewed by the Special Counsel's office.
Jr.'s only testimony was a pack of lies delivered to Congress, a criminal offense that he's yet to pay the price for.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,160 posts)So he just laid it all out in non-criminal terms?
I'm just spitballing here.
FakeNoose
(32,613 posts)... and wait for the House to decide on impeachment proceedings.
Maybe?
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)For removal, you only have to convince Senators that there is a good case, not "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Of course, with Trump-Republicons, many of them complicit, you actually have a very high bar.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)You have to convince politicians that they will be booted out of office unless they vote to convict. And that includes a substantial number of Reptilian politicians.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)rockfordfile
(8,700 posts)TruckFump
(5,812 posts)That is what Mueller, IMO, was looking at because as a traditionalist, he felt that a sitting POTUS could not be indicted.
coti
(4,612 posts)at the Department. He was following the rules the best way he knew how, whether they were right or not.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)ScratchCat
(1,977 posts)is spiraling out of control quickly. The report clearly doesn't say what Barr claims it says, and even Fox News folks are shaking their heads asking "how are we going to spin and defend this, Barr lied!?!?!"
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Barr is so fucked.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)the investigation all along'.
See Rosenstein's comments from last month where he said DoJ policy is to not imply people are guilty of crimes ... unless we're prepared to indict for those crimes.
Let's see if this principle holds true when the DoJ puts out the report on Steele here in the next month or so ... and they DON'T indict him ... will they still adhere to this so-called 'policy' of their's ... for Steele?
rockfordfile
(8,700 posts)Mueller is a republican, trump is a republican and bushco is a republican.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)That is a view point that many dispute, but honest jurors have come down on both sides of that issue. Mueller preserved and presented the evidence that can be used to impeach, or to charge Trump once out of office. I think whitewash is too harsh. What Barr has attempted to do in regards to the report however is a whitewash.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)FakeNoose
(32,613 posts)This is relayed by Jody Hunt, former Chief of Staff for Jeff Sessions. He was in the room when Sessions told Chump he was recusing himself and an special investigator has been hired.
There is a lot of evidence in Part 2 of Chump obstruction, Mueller didn't whitewash anything. It's in the report but Mueller didn't know how/when to bring obstruction charges against a sitting president.
Mueller cannot impeach the President himself, he could only provide the evidence and stand back while the House does the impeachment.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)True Dough
(17,296 posts)Mueller was cautious not to overstep, but he left a nice trail of crumbs for legislators to follow.
wishstar
(5,268 posts)The fact that Trump and Co. lied and made up the adoption cover for the TT meeting is clearly an indication they knew soliciting and accepting Russian help was illegal. Don't know how Mueller team could decide ignorance of campaign finance laws when Manafort was there and is an attorney and a campaign expert and Kushner is a lawyer too. I don't see any other reasonable explanation for all of the lying and covering up about the contacts with Russians unless they knew that knowingly accepting Russian assistance by campaign was illegal. Also FBI had briefed the campaign about foreign contacts and need to report them.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)(MAGAts excepted of course)