Progressives, part 3...

Round 1 is over.  Obvious that dems are wanting the optics of Trump being above the law and impeachment hearing is coming.

Pubs made it look Obvious that the investigation is tainted, most people working on it are hacks.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Yes. I agree on your first part, and I differ on the second part, but it does not matter.

I already summarized it.  Lieu laid out what he said are the 3 elements (he omitted intent) of obstruction.  Mueller ended by saying he disagreed with what Lieu claimed to prove.

Mueller would go on to acknowledge whether a number of these examples are actual obstruction when it is powers granted to the POTUS is a matter of debate.  Basically before you even go another step, you have to determine whether intent even matters with respect to the statute.  But then what Mueller refuses to discuss (which Barr did address) is the matter of intent - there's no underlying crime.  How can it be a criminal intent when there's no underlying crime? 

You're not going to prove Trump committed a crime.  I'm sure if he did Mueller would have said so, LOL.  The entire document, by a partisan investigative team, is a one-sided case for impeachment.

posted by gut

I already summarized it.  Lieu laid out what he said are the 3 elements (he omitted intent) of obstruction.  Mueller ended by saying he disagreed with what Lieu claimed to prove.

Mueller would go on to acknowledge whether a number of these examples are actual obstruction when it is powers granted to the POTUS is a matter of debate.  Basically before you even go another step, you have to determine whether intent even matters with respect to the statute.  But then what Mueller refuses to discuss (which Barr did address) is the matter of intent - there's no underlying crime.  How can it be a criminal intent when there's no underlying crime? 

You're not going to prove Trump committed a crime.  I'm sure if he did Mueller would have said so, LOL.  The entire document, by a partisan investigative team, is a one-sided case for impeachment.

On your last point no. He would not have said so, because of the current policy. But, he did say once he left office he could be...so he left the door open. I also do not get this argument that it is a partisan hack job. It is Robert fucking Mueller. He picked the team, so I trust his judgement based off of his years and years of FBI expereince. 

On the other point, I just disagree as it seems so does Mueller. Even if there was ultimately no crime, if a person still instructors others to illegal acts to try and stop or limit the investigation, that is obstruction. But, hey, I'm not a legal expert. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

On your last point no. He would not have said so, because of the current policy. But, he did say once he left office he could be...so he left the door open. I also do not get this argument that it is a partisan hack job. It is Robert fucking Mueller. He picked the team, so I trust his judgement based off of his years and years of FBI expereince. 

On the other point, I just disagree as it seems so does Mueller. Even if there was ultimately no crime, if a person still instructors others to illegal acts to try and stop or limit the investigation, that is obstruction. But, hey, I'm not legal expert. 

2 things:

1.  If you are investigating the president and EVERY person doing it is on the other political party......Robert "Fucking" Mueller is a political hack.

2.  Mueller just said that Trump can terminate an FBI director, AG, a special council if he wants.  Its legal.  If he has the constitutional right to do so then you cant go after him for it.  

posted by Spock

2 things:

 

1.  If you are investigating the president and EVERY person doing it is on the other political party......Robert "Fucking" Mueller is a political hack.

2.  Mueller just said that Trump can terminate an FBI director, AG, a special council if he wants.  Its legal.  If he has the constitutional right to do so then you cant go after him for it.  

1. This is where I get annoyed, So you are just assuming those people at the FBI and DOJ just let their political leanings into their job? Is it not possible for people in the government to separate politics from their actual job? Do all investigators have to give up their right to vote in order to investigate, or is there a test of saying only those of the same party can investigate? That is so stupid and just assumes people only look through things in a political lens instead of where the case takes them. I have a lot of friends in colleagues in the government that still go about their job in a professional manner but did not vote for the President. 

2. Sure, but at the same time, he also said there was still some stuff in there that did not exonerate the President. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

1. This is where I get annoyed, So you are just assuming those people at the FBI and DOJ just let their political leanings into their job? Is it not possible for people in the government to separate politics from their actual job? Do all investigators have to give up their right to vote in order to investigate, or is there a test of saying only those of the same party can investigate? That is so stupid and just assumes people only look through things in a political lens instead of where the case takes them. I have a lot of friends in colleagues in the government that still go about their job in a professional manner but did not vote for the President. 

2. Sure, but at the same time, he also said there was still some stuff in there that did not exonerate the President. 

1.  Even the FBI officials have been on TV saying that they are apolitical and that they should be impartial.  Did you hear how much $ they donated to the dems?  Did you hear the part where they have all been intertwined with Clinton for decades?

2.but...but..but...  try to make statement without that word.  It wreaks of no confidence in what you are trying to get across

Lol Schiff opening statement could be exactly the same for Clinton.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

On your last point no. He would not have said so, because of the current policy. But, he did say once he left office he could be...so he left the door open. I also do not get this argument that it is a partisan hack job. It is Robert fucking Mueller. He picked the team, so I trust his judgement based off of his years and years of FBI expereince. 

On the other point, I just disagree as it seems so does Mueller. Even if there was ultimately no crime, if a person still instructors others to illegal acts to try and stop or limit the investigation, that is obstruction. But, hey, I'm not a legal expert. 

Mueller disagrees, but the point was he acknowledged there is debate over several key legal conclusions (which he isn't sharing, wink wink) he has drawn.

Again, you can indict a ham sandwich.  Doesn't mean you can prove a crime, which Mueller plainly said to Lieu that he disagreed a crime was proven.  Prosecutors don't usually take cases they aren't certain they can win.

Saying intent doesn't matter with respect to unsuccessfully obstructing an investigation, but then that intent does matter with respect to exercising constitutional powers - neither of which there is a consensus legal opinion, which Mueller acknowledged - seems like having your cake and eating it to, no? 

Or is Mueller arguing that an investigation, regardless of evidence or merit, would supercede Presidential authority to shut it down?  Even if that's correct, and again there is not a legal/DOJ consensus, you then have to decide if intent matters (and there's no legal/DOJ consensus on that).  So Mueller is really, really threading a needle here to justify an indictment.

posted by Spock

Its legal.  If he has the constitutional right to do so then you cant go after him for it.  

That's the dance.

Mueller believes that authority is not absolute.  That's fairly unobjectionable.   But then the intent should matter, and Mueller is arguing the intent doesn't matter.  It seems plainly obvious that it would have to.

The POTUS must have the ability to shutdown endless investigations of non-crimes that interfere with governing.  Intent has to matter - if there's justification for exercising his authority, then there's no crime.

Mueller is looking frazzled right now.  Stumbling words.....frail voice.  Cant dispute contradictions of the report.

Optics look bad for Mueller and his report.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

1. This is where I get annoyed, So you are just assuming those people at the FBI and DOJ just let their political leanings into their job? Is it not possible for people in the government to separate politics from their actual job? Do all investigators have to give up their right to vote in order to investigate, or is there a test of saying only those of the same party can investigate? That is so stupid and just assumes people only look through things in a political lens instead of where the case takes them. I have a lot of friends in colleagues in the government that still go about their job in a professional manner but did not vote for the President. 

2. Sure, but at the same time, he also said there was still some stuff in there that did not exonerate the President. 

When you have Andrew Weissmann as the real head of the investigation, a Clinton supporter, donor and, for all practical puposes, operative, that is a real, real, real problem.  He essentially wrote Volume II of the report which was nothing more than a political hit piece.  In addition to him, at least 4 others on the ‘hit team’ were Clinton donors. 

These were not run-of-the-mill bureaucrats going about their daily work in D.C.; these were powerful operatives with a chip on their shoulder and all the power one could want.  Screw them.

I look forward to the upcoming findings relative to the genesis of the witch hunt, and the indictments to follow.

Mueller and the dems just entered the final round to get Trump......lets see if Mueller shows his true colors

LMFAO.....Nunes finally gets his big moment to shine, and flat out chokes.

I'm starting to wonder whether Mueller ever read his whole report.

You can't choke when he wont answer his questions.  

Most people watching this are going to be more interested is the Dossier and the origin of the investigation then what Trump did

Presidential candidate Castro just bombed also.

posted by majorspark

I'm starting to wonder whether Mueller ever read his whole report.

I mean, I'm not surprised the guy doesn't have a photographic memory of 400+ pages.  And obviously he's not going to, and didn't write it.  His signing it just means he stands behind what is in it and the process.  As for not answering questions, isn't that how almost every hearing goes?  I think after all these hearings all these years I've yet to see hardly anyone testifying offer anything meaningful.  No purpose or point of these hearing beyond political optics.

I tend to agree that there never should have been Part 2 on Obstruction.  If there's no collusion and you had a complete and cooperative investigation, then that should be the end of it.   You don't know if you have a case beyond reasonable doubt, and you don't even know if Trump "attempted" to engage in obstruction or was simply contemplating exercise of constitutional powers.  What the heck are we even debating here - "high process crimes"?

I would say that the winners/losers after this shit show today were:

Lose- Mueller.....he looked like a old man that didnt want to be there.  The US people.  We spent $30 million on that crap.

Winners- The Clintons

It's going to be funny watching crowds chant "LOCK HIM UP!" at Democrat campaign rallies.

Also, big loser today: Biden.  Seems like there is a lot of the same crap there with China and Russia that Trump had, probably more.  So if Biden gets elected, do we get to go thru all this again with DOJ obstructing the POTUS for the opposition party?

LOL....Trump embarassing reporters in his daily "helicopter briefing".  I missed the correction from Mueller (same thing he corrected LAST time after his presser) when he appeared possibly to give Rep. Lieu the goods saying "we couldn't charge Trump because of the OLC rule".  Mueller walked that back - again. 

So Trump just excoriated reporter after reporter for missing the correction....and you know better.....and you still asked the question....it's why you're fake news......and it's why people don't trust you because you're not an honest reporter.....not what was said - go back and read the correction you're fake news.

Of course, you'll probably never see the exchange played anywhere other than Fox