Mueller report

[newfie]

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.

don't be so naïve, mueller said that had nothing to do with his decision to not charge Trump

 

[newfie]

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.

yes all of them love Trump and thought they would come out and bash trump just because. does your side really believe this nonsense?

 

[newfie]

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.

so Obama is allowed to have holder as his wing man , but now its suddenly wrong?

 

[turq]

is that the same house that said they would be satisfied with the results of the Mueller investigation?

Have they seen the Mueller investigation in it's entirety? Or have they seen the version that ass kisser Barr put out? Now if this was reversed and this report was about Obama....wouldn't you ( the Judiciary committee) want to see the whole version? It's not Barr's report it's our ( the people of this Country) report.

And really none of this matters...it it's only a matter of time. Tick tock tick tock

 

[newfie]

They do have a solid case and would easily impeach him in the house.

you need twenty republican votes to impeach in the house, nothing easy about that. google it

 

[newfie]

Have they seen the Mueller investigation in it's entirety?

they have had the opportunity to but chose not to. their loss

 

[turq]

yes all of them love Trump and thought they would come out and bash trump just because. does your side really believe this nonsense?

And you call me naive? There are many people who put their Country ahead of their politics...but you keep on drinking that kool aid

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The tieguy koolaid is flowing!!!!

 

[newfie]

And you call me naive? There are many people who put their Country ahead of their politics...but you keep on drinking that kool aid

their liberal country ahead of politics . correct you are naïve

by the way could you pick up the pace , I cant wait all night for you to slowly read your DNC talking points

 

[It will be fine]

you need twenty republican votes to impeach in the house, nothing easy about that. google it

How do you figure? Impeachment votes are by simple majority.

 

[newfie]

How do you figure? Impeachment votes are by simple majority.

sounds like you need an education too

 

[newfie]

Have they seen the Mueller investigation in it's entirety? Or have they seen the version that ass kisser Barr put out? Now if this was reversed and this report was about Obama....wouldn't you ( the Judiciary committee) want to see the whole version? It's not Barr's report it's our ( the people of this Country) report.

And really none of this matters...it it's only a matter of time. Tick tock tick tock

your democratic leadership has presentation A which only has 5 percent redacted, they have the option to view the complete unredacted version but chose not to. any other losing arguments you would like to apply your death grip to?

 

[turq]

you need twenty republican votes to impeach in the house, nothing easy about that. google it

Nope...it's a simple majority in the House......guess how I confirmed what I already knew...

 

[newfie]

Nope...it's a simple majority in the House......guess how I confirmed what I already knew...

nope two thirds super majority is required , sorry you're wrong...…...again

 

[floridays]

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?

What you posted was not from the Mueller report.
I'll assume Mueller can say exactly what he means when he want's to. He has penned many criminal complaints in his career, hell they issued many indictments originating from this investigation.
He knows clearly how to present alleged criminal acts to a court. He couldn't, he didn't.
His court in this case was the media and leftists. All you clowns are running with is what he refused to put in the form of a criminal complaint, specific detailed accusation of criminal acts.

 

[turq]

your democratic leadership has presentation A which only has 5 percent redacted, they have the option to view the complete unredacted version but chose not to. any other losing arguments you would like to apply your death grip to?

Are you delusional? keep trying that Google thing again. You'll get the hang of it.

 

[turq]

nope two thirds super majority is required , sorry you're wrong...…...again

Are you really this dense? You realize there is the SENATE and the HOUSE right?

 

[newfie]

Are you really this dense? You realize there is the SENATE and the HOUSE right?

are you really that dense? what is your house waiting for if everything is as you say?

 

[It will be fine]

nope two thirds super majority is required , sorry you're wrong...…...again

That’s not how the house works. Do you understand impeachment is like an indictment with the trial being held in the senate? The house impeaches with a simple majority.

 

[turq]

are you really that dense? what is your house waiting for if everything is as you say?

The moment Newfie realized he's an idiot.