Mueller makes statement about investigation, resigns from DOJ

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

1 minute ago, Whispering said:

Yes, but first Spiro Agnew, the Vice President elected on the 1972 Republican ticket along with Nixon resigned.

Section 2 of the 25th Amendment gave Nixon the power to name a new Vice President, if that office became vacant, with the permission of Congress.

Nixon nominated Ford, who was the House minority leader, to take Agnew's position on October 12, 1973.

 

If history repeats, lordy I’m gonna be so pissed.

[hankhatesyouall 2,731]

Embarrassing 🤣 

You are still trying to justify this blatant witch hunt 

Good riddance 

[Petrichor 4,640]

15 minutes ago, hankhatesyouall said:

Embarrassing 🤣 

You are still trying to justify this blatant witch hunt 

Good riddance 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

2 hours ago, Eighteen said:

i've only read about 1/4 of the mueller report, but from what i read in the news about part II of the report (which tackles obstruction of justice), donald trump might have attempted to obstruct justice several times, most notably by telling don mcgahn, the president's former lawyer, to fire robert mueller, which he refused carry out. i say might have because this is where the question of intent (i think) comes in, but in my view he obviously was trying to impede the investigation and make it go away (which is obstruction of justice), and maybe the evidence would heavily support that, i don't know, i haven't read the whole report yet (and then there is the underlying evidence behind the report). 

regarding the situation in the democratic house now, the speaker is dealing with a dilemma: that is, polls show that most americans do not support impeachment at the moment, and democrats are worried that impeaching the president in lieu of wide public support could hurt 2020 election prospects for liberals, which from my view is an argument that does hold water. what dems are in the process of doing now, i think, is to change the public opinion by holding hearings on the mueller report, but of course donald trump is blocking proceedings by defying subpoenas, which could work in the democrats' favor in the long run by having some ripple effect on public opinion, but that remains to be seen. then of course there is the counter argument where people are saying he should be impeached regardless, because he has committed impeachable offenses, which holds water too, but from a practical standpoint, i think it is better to try and win the public over, as it seems to be the safest and the most prudent thing to do if liberals want to maximize their chances at the white house. 

the fact of the matter is, the nature of the report--that is, a document that lays out the evidence and says nothing more--makes it seem plausible to some that donald trump was exonerated, or that he at least didn't do anything that is worth impeachment. this is definitely the media's fault as they have crafted this perception of the report for 2 years--that justice would unequivocally come down on donald with some kind of punishment in the report--and then when it came out, it fell with an anticlimactic thud.  this effect is bolstered by the fact that the attorney general, in his summary of the report, wrote that the obstruction evidence laid out in the report does not rise to a level beyond a reasonable doubt, which mueller then said was essentially correct and in no way misleading, though taken out of context (something that i do not understand, since, in my view, something taken out of context is misleading). 

Sorry, sis. Honest question: Have you been to law school? I too read the report, and from a bystander's perspective, I think it's unclear. However, 1,000+ former prosecutors who are formally trained in the law agree that there would be sufficient evidence to move forward and indict Trump if a sitting President could be charged under DOJ regs. I think your opinion on this, as well as my opinion on this, should have little (if any) weight. The experts have spoken... Also: the only reason the American people don't support impeachment right now is because Nancy Pelosi has crafted a narrative that suggests there's insufficient evidence, which is simply not true, according to prosecutors. There is no proof that a failed impeachment in the Senate would yield mal affects on Dems chances in 2020 - Look at what happened with the Clinton admin! Mueller's report never insinuated, even in the slightest, that the case against Trump for Obstruction doesn't rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He simply said that he could not exonerate nor charge the President, and laid out the evidence and handed it over to Congress. He made it abundantly clear that his decision not to charge Trump was due to DOJ regs and not a lack of evidence. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

Curious new memo from Mueller's office juxtaposing Barr's and Mueller's statements on reaching a decision on obstruction.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/curious-new-memo-from-mueller-s-office-juxtaposing-barr-mueller-s-statement-on-reaching-a-decision-on-obstruction-60510789536?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma

Someone from Mueller's office gave a handout to reporters about a question asked directly to AG Barr and the memo is a response as to how Mueller would have answered that question.

[sillynate 6,170]

Any updates? Has congress done the right thing? 

[sarahb 17,205]

He could be 100% innocent and he should still be impeached for being a dumb and vile piece of ****, how he has supporters at all still baffles me 

[Eighteen 5,430]

5 hours ago, TheQueenLG said:

Sorry, sis. Honest question: Have you been to law school? I too read the report, and from a bystander's perspective, I think it's unclear. However, 1,000+ former prosecutors who are formally trained in the law agree that there would be sufficient evidence to move forward and indict Trump if a sitting President could be charged under DOJ regs. I think your opinion on this, as well as my opinion on this, should have little (if any) weight. The experts have spoken... Also: the only reason the American people don't support impeachment right now is because Nancy Pelosi has crafted a narrative that suggests there's insufficient evidence, which is simply not true, according to prosecutors. There is no proof that a failed impeachment in the Senate would yield mal affects on Dems chances in 2020 - Look at what happened with the Clinton admin! Mueller's report never insinuated, even in the slightest, that the case against Trump for Obstruction doesn't rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He simply said that he could not exonerate nor charge the President, and laid out the evidence and handed it over to Congress. He made it abundantly clear that his decision not to charge Trump was due to DOJ regs and not a lack of evidence. 

you keep referencing the 1000+ former prosecutors, and i have personally chosen to ignore that because i am of the belief that there might be a ton of prosecutors out there who would argue otherwise when you're talking about the president of the united states and firing one of his subordinates. 

and if you ask where are they, for one thing the attorney general's prosecutorial judgment comes to mind. i don't think he's alone in that view, "sis."

and furthermore i didn't say that my opinion held any weight in the matter, i am simply giving a humble perspective on a LG forum. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

4 hours ago, Eighteen said:

you keep referencing the 1000+ former prosecutors, and i have personally chosen to ignore that because i am of the belief that there IS NOT  a ton of prosecutors out there who would argue otherwise when you're talking about the president of the united states and firing one of his subordinates. 

and if you ask where are they, for one thing the attorney general's prosecutorial judgment comes to mind. i don't think he's alone in that view, "sis."

and furthermore i didn't say that my opinion held any weight in the matter, i am simply giving a humble perspective on a LG forum. 

I agree that we must weigh the different legal opinions, sis . Unfortunately for the President and, tbh, your entire argument, this is considered settled law. AG Barr opinion is so entirely irrelevant. He was selected by Trump so people like you might consider his opinion on Presidential authority to be even slightly constitutional. He was selected to create doubt -- you're falling into the trap. He was selected because he was one of the only qualified people in the United States that holds such a broad view in regard to executive power. He really is all but alone in this view. That is why 1,000+ former prosecutors, who charge people for things akin to Trump's conduct on a daily basis, spoke up following the release of the Mueller report. They put their word in stone that the AG has a wacky interpretation of the law based on their experience of charging people on a daily basis for things VERY similar to what Trump has done. 

I keep referencing the 1,000+ prosecutors because it, unlike other political analysis, is the closest thing to an independent arbiter... And this arbiter (these prosecutors) have gone to school for years on end to make decisions like this. It matters. There has never, in the history of our country, been anything similar to it. 

The argument for Obstruction is made up of 10+ instances that show a pattern of obstructive conduct. Referencing one piece of the case against Trump will obviously call into consideration the question of possible innocence. But these 1,000 prosecutors, apparently unlike you, took in the whole picture and came to the conclusion that they would press charges against this President based on this pattern of Obstructive events. 

Don't take this as an attack, sis. 

[Eighteen 5,430]

@TheQueenLG i can't quote your reply for some reason. but i just wanted to apologize for my aggressive reply, i was in a bad mood earlier  xoxo <3 <3

in regards to your post, i simply say that it might be complicated from what i have read. if the president weren't the president, he could be charged with obstruction of justice. but with the presidency, comes presidential powers and privileges--he is not a normal citizen--and therefore the waters become murky regarding whether or not he committed a crime under the letter of the law, i think. the report says: 

Spoiler

 

"Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of-justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons , took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same."

 

furthermore, some of what is happening is not settled law; in fact, the mueller report states this in part II as well: "As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues." it goes on to say that congress can determine that the president used his presidential powers corruptly, as we already know. my view is that when thinking about jurisprudence regarding the president's obstruction, it is still somewhat vague in some areas, though congress can simply make some sort of determination, after which, i'm guessing, it will head to the courts to settle (again, not sure about this last part).

and PS i'm not falling into any trap. on a partisan and moral level i think DT should be impeached bc i believe his intent was definitely to obstruct justice regardless of whatever presidential privileges he may have or whatever arguments about his intent people might assert. i just am unsure if this has any credence when thinking about the law (unlike you who seems to be very sure about these things). i also believe barr is trump's lackey (though i did initially give him the benefit of the doubt). i simply try to see things from the perspective of the law as best as i can (and again, no, i'm not a lawyer, and yeah 1000+ prosectors, i know).  i also put some faith in nancy pelosi, who is the only politician to bring trump to his knees during the gov't shutdown. i think she knows what she's doing. i don't pretend to know the ramifications of impeachment on 2020, but i don't argue against taking things carefully and having all ducks in a row before starting impeachment proceedings. 

[RoverLoader 1,254]

I'm bored of this now. They aren't changing anyone's minds. Infact, it's doing quite the opposite; it's entrenching viewpoints. The candidates that are campaigning need to work on getting their message out there and trying to persuade people why they would be better presidents. This whole impeachment thing is going nowhere and it's pushing other issues out of the picture; healthcare, civil rights, transport, energy resources and pollution. 

[imnotyourbabe10 6,120]

Hate to say it but I think we're at the point where we have to just vote all these scumbags out of office next year.  Then, once he's a private citizen again, justice will hopefully be served.  SDNY still has sh!t on him, right?

It is really irksome that the standards for our government and its checks and balances are not taken seriously anymore.  I feel like from retail to jobs that involve HIPPA (like doctors or counselors), there is more sanctity in ethics than the entire US government. 

PS: Mueller is an honorable man.  He has done everything in accordance with standard procedures.

[Morphine Prince 109,691]

 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

6 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

12 hours ago, Eighteen said:

@TheQueenLG i can't quote your reply for some reason. but i just wanted to apologize for my aggressive reply, i was in a bad mood earlier  xoxo <3 <3

in regards to your post, i simply say that it might be complicated from what i have read. if the president weren't the president, he could be charged with obstruction of justice. but with the presidency, comes presidential powers and privileges--he is not a normal citizen--and therefore the waters become murky regarding whether or not he committed a crime under the letter of the law, i think. the report says: 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

"Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of-justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons , took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same."

 

furthermore, some of what is happening is not settled law; in fact, the mueller report states this in part II as well: "As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues." it goes on to say that congress can determine that the president used his presidential powers corruptly, as we already know. my view is that when thinking about jurisprudence regarding the president's obstruction, it is still somewhat vague in some areas, though congress can simply make some sort of determination, after which, i'm guessing, it will head to the courts to settle (again, not sure about this last part).

and PS i'm not falling into any trap. on a partisan and moral level i think DT should be impeached bc i believe his intent was definitely to obstruct justice regardless of whatever presidential privileges he may have or whatever arguments about his intent people might assert. i just am unsure if this has any credence when thinking about the law (unlike you who seems to be very sure about these things). i also believe barr is trump's lackey (though i did initially give him the benefit of the doubt). i simply try to see things from the perspective of the law as best as i can (and again, no, i'm not a lawyer, and yeah 1000+ prosectors, i know).  i also put some faith in nancy pelosi, who is the only politician to bring trump to his knees during the gov't shutdown. i think she knows what she's doing. i don't pretend to know the ramifications of impeachment on 2020, but i don't argue against taking things carefully and having all ducks in a row before starting impeachment proceedings. 

I have zero faith in Pelosi, right now, tbh. I admire your willingness to trust her, as I believe she, more than anyone else, is responsible for this failure to open an inquiry into impeachment. I am much more willing to trust, and you probably have this memorized by now, more than 1,000 former prosecutors from both parties asserting that Trump would be facing prison right now if he weren't President. I think you're being reasonable, don't get me wrong... We just have slightly different approaches to this... Have an awesome day, sweetie