Don't be naive. The only reason no charges were brought against Trump, is because a sitting President can't be indicted. Mueller laid out at least 10 instances of obstruction...plus many more connections between Russia and the Trump Campaign. When Mueller testifies, you are going to hear a totally different story, that the BS one that Barr gave.
Mueller report
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Don't be naive. The only reason no charges were brought against Trump, is because a sitting President can't be indicted. Mueller laid out at least 10 instances of obstruction...plus many more connections between Russia and the Trump Campaign. When Mueller testifies, you are going to hear a totally different story, that the BS one that Barr gave.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
In your mind, why would obstruction of Justice, in any situation, ever be a crime?
Hundreds of former Justice department officials.... from both parties
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:
· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence
Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.
Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”
Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation
The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.
First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.
Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.
As the report explains, “ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.
All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.
Witness tampering and intimidation
The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”
Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.
We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.
As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:
· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence
Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.
Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”
Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation
The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.
First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.
Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.
As the report explains, “
All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.
Witness tampering and intimidation
The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “
Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.
We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.
As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.
Not talking about indictment. Talking impeachment. If the Dems have a solid case why aren't they moving forward? What Russian connections are you referring to that Mueller didn't cover? Why would Mueller say anything now that he didn't in his report?
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Your two sentences contradict one another but since you appear to be a LibTurd, it's understandable.
The reason that Trump nor Barr will agree to that is because staff attorneys are not allowed to ask questions in an oversight committee meeting. Seeing how you are a LibTurd, investigate that for awhile.
What does Trump have to do with Barr testifying? Oh that's right.... Barr has his head so far up trumps ass, that he has to give him permission to come up for air.
There is no such rule that staff can't ask questions at these meetings. It happens all the time. There is this thing called Google, try it
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Don't waste your time with him. He's just a Trump Chimp throwing crap at the wall hoping something sticks.
They do have a solid case and would easily impeach him in the house. But obviously get no where close in the Senate. So all the people who are brainwashed, would than eat up trump crying for the next two years.... about how they are "stealing" the election. It still may come to that, but at this point it's just not worth it.
The whole damn argument is Barr mischaracterized the report, and all the redactions. having Mueller testify will clear all that up....if they allow him to speak.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Mueller may not be able to indict but nothing precluded him from listing exact criminal charges and supporting testimony and other evidence to support a prosecution.
If you clowns want to play the scam you are currently play uneducated with,
Exactly what the hell was the Mueller investigation all about?
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
They are moving forward with further investigation. Trump is obstructing that continued investigation. Not sure what he’s so worried about if he’s totally innocent.
Duh that's what he did. AT least 10 instances of obstruction. Did you even bother to read the letter that I posted above ....you know the one with the hundreds of former DOJ officials( from both parties! ) saying that based on the Mueller report trump committed many crimes?
newfie
Well-Known Member
is that the same house that said they would be satisfied with the results of the Mueller investigation?
newfie
Well-Known Member
I don't know if its drugs but he's surprisingly naïve for two reasons.
one if he believes the house's motives are as innocent as he described
two if he believes we would be gullible enough to believe so
newfie
Well-Known Member
If anybody has been targeting Mueller it's been Trump. End of story case closed. As far as "targeting" by the house, all they ( McGhan, Munchikin, etc) have to do is show up, be truthful and they walk away. No contempt proceedings, no subpoena's nothing... just show up when asked and don't lie. Why doesn't any American want to hear the truth?
oh look you came out of your daze and remembered our presidents name. how nice
I can appreciate your innocence and gullibility just don't expect us to buy into it .
newfie
Well-Known Member
why are the senators afraid to ask their own questions?
newfie
Well-Known Member
as he should congress lied to trump when they said they would accept the results of the SP investigation
newfie
Well-Known Member
duh mueller said no , no consolation prize
newfie
Well-Known Member
are we talking about Hillary or Trump? because while trump was not successful , Hillary was
newfie
Well-Known Member
sure because trump just loves continuing the witch hunt so people can sing his praises.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Mueller said that would be unfair to the president. Ttku.....
