And was it really worth out time? Seeing as it's resulted in no indictments, and for many Trump supporters, and, worst, neutrals, it makes it seem as if he's been exonerated and that he's innocent...
shareNothing. But the TDS folks need something to spend their time with until 2024.
shareIt provides details on the investigation that can be used by Democrats as a basis for impeachment and as a political bludgeon whether or not they decide to impeach. It was carefully crafted and timed by Mueller exactly for this purpose.
shareWhat details? There is, alas, no basis for impeachment, but I could have told my fellow Democrats that two years ago.
shareI was referring to the ten instances of potentially obstructive conduct outlined in excruciating detail in the report and Mueller's "on the one hand, on the other hand and...I can't decide" position on them. It practically invites the Democrats to explore each of those instances through their own investigation and hearings, and to draw their own conclusion.
Needless to say, they will reach a different conclusion than Mueller, who decided not to indict the President regardless of his bizarre characterization of that choice as somehow not being a decision, and will claim (correctly) that the House is not limited by the specifics of criminal law in their consideration of potential impeachment.
The effort may fail in the House and Trump will not be convicted and removed by the Senate even if impeached, but that's not the point. The goal is to keep the machine moving until the 2020 election and to hurt Trump as much as possible along the way.
Didn't Mueller say the decision to indict a President belongs to Congress, not him? That's why it's imperative Congress sees the complete report.
It's too bad Cult 45 cares more about a crooked politician than the country as a whole.
No. Congress cannot indict anyone. They can only refer suspected criminal matters to the Department of Justice.
shareYou're not getting it. Mueller lays out the evidence but was constrained from indicting out of deference to OLC guidelines. Sitting presidents can't be indicted according to those guidelines, they can only be impeached by congress in order to be held to account. He leaves it up to congress to decide after laying out the evidence.
shareThere was never any guarantee that Congress would even see the report. I will concede that he hoped Congress would see it and impeach him -- that's the entire reason behind Mueller's tortured and highly suspect theories of obstruction and the abdication of his responsibility to reach a prosecution or declination decision.
What do you mean "tortured and highly suspect theories"? He lays out the evidence. He does no theorizing.
Maybe you're talking about cover-up tzar Bill Barr's tortured and highly suspect theories that were clearly misleading. With that I'd agree.
"There was never any guarantee that Congress would even see the report."
What do you mean? You understand, right, that the whole point of a special counsel is to investigate a mandate and report to congress its findings so they can make a determination whether to impeach. What you're suggesting, that congress wouldn't be entitled to a report that it spells out in the Special Counsel regs they are the authoritative body to render judgement on, doesn't make sense.
Unless you mean there was no guarantee his report wouldn't be obstructed from congress by cover-up tzar Bill Barr. If so, I agree. But that would be due to Barr's criminal obstruction, not because congress didn't have a right to the full report.
Do you understand that he was "abdicating his responsibility" because he was deferring to OLC guidelines in place since Nixon? Since he cannot indict a sitting president he saw no reason to render a decision but instead to lay out the evidence for congress to decide.
A Special Counsel is appointed to investigate criminal activity and has two responsibilities: prosecute, if warranted, and provide a confidential report to the Attorney General outlining the reasons for his prosecution and/or declination decisions. There is no mandate to provide anything to Congress. They only have the report because "cover-up tzar" Barr decided to give it to them.
"prosecute, if warranted"
Again, you're still not getting it. How would a special counsel prosecute if a sitting president can't be indicted?
The channel for prosecution as spelled out in the Constitution would be through impeachment in congress. In order for that to happen congress is ENTITLED to the full report in order to make that determination.
I get it. We just disagree.
shareThe Mueller report clearly states that Congress is supposed to make the decision for impeachment after viewing the report. It wasn't meant to to be censored from Congressional members who are investigating wrongdoing and have high level security clearance.
sharehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-report-lays-out-obstruction-evidence-against-the-president/ar-BBW3OiQ?ocid=spartandhp
The long-awaited report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III details abundant evidence against President Trump, finding 10 episodes of potential obstruction but ultimately concluding it was not Mueller’s role to determine whether the commander in chief broke the law.
his investigation has already produced criminal charges against 34 people, including six former Trump associates and advisers. Multiple related investigations involving the president are ongoing[/b].
[b]Investigators paint an unflattering portrait of a president who believes the Justice Department and the FBI should answer to his orders, even when it comes to criminal investigations[/b].
Trump insisted that past attorneys general had been more obedient to their presidents,
The special counsel’s report on possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russians to interfere in the 2016 election is extremely detailed
— painting a starkly different picture for Trump than Attorney General William P. Barr has offered, and revealing new details about interactions between Russians and Trump associates.
Mueller made abundantly clear: [b]Russia wanted to help the Trump campaign, and the Trump campaign was willing to take it[/b].
[b]The report detailed a timeline of contacts between the Trump campaign and those with Russian ties
For example, Mueller’s team asserted that in August 2016, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the FBI has assessed as having ties to Russian intelligence, met with Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, “to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a ‘backdoor’ way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine.”
The special counsel wrote that both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump’s “assent to success (were he elected President).”
Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with (a RUSSIAN) called Kilimnik ...
Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting[/b].”
WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE continued:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-report-lays-out-obstruction-evidence-against-the-president/ar-BBW3OiQ?ocid=spartandhp
[b]his obstruction of justice investigation was heavily informed by an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinion that says a sitting president cannot be indicted[/b] — a conclusion Mueller’s team accepted.
They seemed to shy from producing even an internal document that alleged the president had done something wrong — deciding, essentially, that they wouldn’t decide.
[b]Barr addressed the media before releasing the nearly 400-page report. He made repeated references to “collusion,” echoing language the president has stressed even though it is not a legal term.
I meant impeach - not indict. I wouldn't expect Trump's lackey at the DOJ to indict.
shareGot to point out that the Mueller report reveals you would have been wrong two years ago just like you're still wrong right now Malko. You shouldn't be sourcing Fox News headlines to affirm your confirmation bias. Fox News is understood to be a propaganda channel here in the states. You got duped.
We learned Bill Barr outright lied to inappropriately inject his own opinion on obstruction when Mueller's opinion was at odds with Barr. He was punting to congress to decide the decision. He lays out a ton of evidence but didn't come to a conclusion himself because he was respecting OLC guidelines that a sitting president could not be indicted.
I hate Fox News with a passion.
The only time I've ever watched it was election night 2012, simpky to enjoy watching Karl Rove's meltdown.
The fact that you've pegged me as a regular Fox News viewer when I don't watch the wretched channel at all (I dislike propaganda of all types including MSNBC - personally, and I know it's not a popular stance anymore, but I prefer to make my own mind up), sadly invalidates anything and everything you say.
Then why are you peddling busted arguments from Fox News headlines that no indictments means Trump is exonerated when Mueller never even considered indicting Trump because of OLC prohibitions?
shareYour argument makes zero sense.
Since I don't watch Fox News, and never have, I'm not 'peddling busted arguments from Fox News'.
This is what you want to believe. This is what your sense of moral indignation and righteousness tells you, so I appreciate that it must send your brain in a complete tailspin for me to sincerely tell you that I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS.
Neoliberal centrists are so sure of their righteousness on issues from science to religion that some of you can't process that perhaps, on occasion, you might actually be wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble, but on this occasion you, and the others here attacking me for being pro-Trump and a Fox News watcher, have got their facts wrong.
"it makes it seem as if he's been exonerated and that he's innocent..."
"no basis for impeachment"
Are these not your words? If you think these aren't ripped straight from Fox News headlines, then maybe it's because you're an unwitting victim.
I just want to let you know that they are and it makes you sound like a propaganda victim of State TV. There is nothing in the Mueller report that is "exonerating" or "makes him look innocent". If you think so then I suggest you read it.
What you're repeating is right wing spin AKA propaganda.
It's doubtful that you read the report so whose propaganda are you parroting?
shareNo-one’s. I think for myself.
How about you? Who has told you want to think?
You think for yourself in one sentence....mangle grammar in another.
Way to make a point and then prove it.
Grammar or spelling?
I should have said 'what' not 'want', but I'm not going to edit it. You've called me out. Well done.
I acknowledge my error, and will keep it intact, because I'm not dishonest or mendacious. I believe in truth and non-partisan objectivity.
That doesn't alter the fact that yours is another ad hominem attack.
Obviously you haven't read the report. You're just trying to change the subject.
Censored Mueller report:
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf
Um....no indictments?
No indictments of Donald Trump, you mean. Because, otherwise.....
Yes, no indictments of the person who, sadly, counts in all this: Trump.
My real concern, a concern that goes beyond the concerns of all the ivory tower types in Washington D.C., The New York Times, and CNN, is how the failure of this report to uncover any clear illegality may end up supporting a narrative that emboldens Trump, and causes neutral parts of the electorate (including many in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, you know, the states the DNC need in order to win the EC) to back Trump on the basis that he's been 'unfairly harassed'.
The revelation that upon hearing of Mueller's appointment Trump said "I'm fucked!" merely confirms what we already knew about the man. That he's a moron with zero attention to detail and a persecution complex. We knew this all in 2016, if not way before. How will this change the minds of anyone who voted for the useless oaf back then?
Please get your heads out of your asses, and instead of preoccupying yourself with your own sense of outrage, focus instead on what matters: how will any of this play to the electorate, and more importantly the EC, at large.
Unlike some of you, I actually want to beat Trump in 2020, rather than simply whine about how awful he is.
So why do you keep repeating falsehoods like "how the failure of this report to uncover any clear illegality" if you're not a propaganda victim?
I'll say it again, the ONLY reason Mueller decides not make a decision on CRIMINAL INDICTMENT is because he's respecting OLC guidelines.
He clearly gives a ton of evidence on criminal obstruction and leaves it to congress to decide. Do you understand that obstruction of justice is illegal?
I'm not a propaganda victim, because don't read or watch propaganda. I use my own brain instead of asking Fox or CNN what to think, thus, my opinions arguably have more validity than brainless sheep who abide by whatever the media or politicians tell them.
I loathe Trump with a passion. I want him out of office by January 2021, but that requires being smart and putting up a decent candidate to beat him, whilst exposing his utter unsuitability for the Presidency and terrible policies.
And yes, I understand that obstruction of justice is illegal, but I'm concerned about the optics here. If there is no strong or compelling case that Trump colluded with Russia, the dsmgef is that many voters will believe the investigation was a partisan sham to begin with and thus believe that Trump was right in principle, if not legally, to obstruct it.
Really? Because, honestly, a diet of Fox News would've been the only excuse for some of your behaviors.
If you do "use my own brain".....you're obviously using an inferior tool for the job.
Youve been wrong about me watching Fox News, and yet you have the audacity to attack my intelligence.
But may I ask you, have you ever watched Fox News? Because if you've watched more than five minutes of it, that makes you a bigger Fox News watcher than me.
I HAVE watched Fox News. I find them as deplorable as MSNBC. But I did it solely to have an informed opinion of what I speak to. Unlike you, who seems to just pull things out of your uninformed ass and try to sound somewhat intelligent.
shareWell, apart from five minutes back on election night 2012, I've never watched Fox News.
I've seen clips of it on The Daily Show, and that's about it.
I detest it, much as I detest most partisan news sources, particularly right-wing ones.
I suspect too much time spent watching any partisan news source severely damages one's objectivity. Too much time listening to your own side causes confirmation bias, and too much time listening to the extremists on the other side causes one to develop a jaded view of one's opponents, when the reality is that most normal people (i.e. not us, but the people who don't live and breathe politics 24/7) are nowhere near as bad as MSNBC and Fox makes them look.
But if I'm a Fox News zealot simply for having once watched a mere five minutes of the insufferable channel (and I only did that to laugh at the loathesome Karl Rove following Obama's welcome re-election), what would that make you?
Better than you.
shareSounds like it's time to stop listening, then. Good opinions are built on info, not sound bites and prepaid personalities spewing from the Automated Telling Machine
shareBut once everyone in power made it clear that they would not indict a sitting President.....why would you think that there would be indictments to Trump in the Mueller report?
I mean....that was pretty clearly a waste of time. It's showing everyone and everything else that he had his malformed hands in.
When you start making cheap shots about Trump's hands, it's time to wrap this discussion up.
Ad hominem attacks, much like scraping the barrel and clutching at straws for signs of collusion, are beneath us, well, at least me. If you, and not I, are the state of modern liberalism, we truly are doomed.
Good thing I was a Republican from 1983 to 2016, isn't it? Liberalism is pretty safe.
Unless you're one. Then it's a clown car driven by Stevie Wonder. Because you're quite the tool.
Ah, you're a fucking conservative.
That explains a lot...
Well, it's your wretched party that nominated this sack of shit pal.
Let's see, we have:
"Ad hominem attacks, much like scraping the barrel and clutching at straws for signs of collusion, are beneath us, well, at least me."
Followed by:
"Ah, you're a fucking conservative.
That explains a lot..."
Oh yeah, ad hominem attacks are really beneath you.
When you start making cheap shots about Trump's hands, it's time to wrap this discussion up.The point is very clear though. Mueller specifically said he would not indict a sitting president which is why he pivoted that decision to Congress. Yet at every opportunity you avoid that statement. If someone brings up Trump's hands in the same paragraph thats what you talk about. If someone dares accuse you of watching Fox News in the same paragraph thats what you talk about.
Ad hominem attacks, much like scraping the barrel and clutching at straws for signs of collusion, are beneath us, well, at least me. If you, and not I, are the state of modern liberalism, we truly are doomed.
It's not his job to indict. He presents the evidence, and then Congress either proceeds with impeachment or doesn't. Presidents get impeached; once they leave office, they can get indicted.
shareWell then you agree that Mueller's lack of indicting Trump is not an exoneration. Malko is saying it was.
shareFrom what I can gather of our friend Malko, he's not American. Even some Americans don't understand the Constitution. But that's what Mueller was referring to. He COULDN'T indict a sitting President. The remedy for a sitting President is impeachment. The fact that Mueller is following the Constitution doesn't mean that Trump is exonerated.
shareI understand the OLC guidelines though. You make it sound like I'm disagreeing with Mueller handing the decision over to Congress. I'm not.
Here's what I wrote:
"One more time... Mueller followed guidelines not to indict a sitting president and handed that decision over to Congress. How in your mind does that equate to Mueller exonerating Trump or finding no evidence of obstruction?"
Well, what I'm saying is that it neither exonerates nor indicts Trump, it merely follows the Constitution. There was never a question of his indicting Trump. It wasn't his place. It was Congress's place. Anyone who thinks it equates to exonerating Trump simply doesn't understand the Constitution.
I came into this conversation late, so I'll just assume you've summed up Malkovich's POV accurately. It's that POV, as you've described it, that I'm addressing more than I am you. I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse.
Who said the Mueller report indicts Trump? What are you even talking about? Its as if you're creating some strawman that you can knock down and pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
share"Well then you agree that Mueller's lack of indicting Trump is not an exoneration. Malko is saying it was." Hence my even mentioning indicting. My point is that Mueller's report wasn't supposed to indict or exonerate; he was simply supposed to present findings to Congress -- he'll be testifying before Congress later -- and they decide whether they want to impeach. Impeachment will -- or won't -- be the next step, and it's not Mueller's call to make.
shareHuge sections of the report are missing. Whose "personal privacy"? Obviously Kushner, Trump Jr and in at least one instance Trump family. Anything that mentions them negatively is hidden under P.P.
I'm not sure why so many in Cult 45 want to support criminality.
It's important that Congress see an uncensored report instead of a censored one controlled by Trump's lackey.
The reason it resulted in no indictments is because Mueller chose to respect OLC guidelines that a sitting president can't be indicted. He spells this out in the report. Therefore he lays out the truckload of evidence but does not come to a conclusion in respect to guidelines, leaving it to congress to decide.
So your entire premise is wrong because OLC guidelines preclude the president from being indicted in the first place. You let yourself get spun by Bill Barr's spin. Impeachment is a political question for congress to decide.
What we know from Mueller report:
1. Russia interfered
2. They did it to help Trump
3. Trump wanted their help
4. Trump's campaign met with the Russians to seek out that help
5. Trump and his campaign repeatedly lied about those contacts
6. Trump fired the FBI Director to stop an investigation into the matter
Mueller lays out all the evidence he uncovered for congress to determine if they are "high crimes and misdemeanors" as defined as impeachable offenses in the Constitution.
1. Not Trump's crime
2. Still not Trump's crime
3. Still not Trump's crime. He can want a nuclear holocaust, but unless he actually does snything to precipitate such a thing, he has not committed a crime
4. That Trump's team met with Russians to seek help does not mean Trump authorised that help
5. Lying about a contact once again does need meet the threshold in terms of criminality with respect to collusion. Only with respect to obstructing justice
6. Trump obstructed justice. That much is true. But as illegal as those actions may be, some people may argue that if he isn't guilty of collusion to begin with, he should never have been subject to this investigation
But I still go back to my original statement. Mueller emphatically states that he can neither confirm nor deny that Trump has committed a crime. So what have we learned with respect to the collusion (not the obstruction of the report itself) that we didn't already know or suspect in 2016?
Bear in mind this, despite being a lawyer, my concern here is political rather than legal. I'm conscious of the fact that even after Nixon resigned having ordered the sacking of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and both his AG and Deputy-AG were forced to resign, he was still pardoned by President Ford a few years later. And then, after a mere four years in which the Democrats took The White House, we ended up with 12 years (!) of Republican bullshit.
Nixon, despite looking even more guilty than Trump, still precipitated a Republican resurgence in 1980. So, the left needs to be really careful how they play this.
To say there's "no basis for impeachment" reveals you don't really understand what impeachment is. A president can be impeached over a misdemeanor. This fact is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. It's up to congress to decide whether the president's actions rise to impeachable offenses.
The entire Mueller report lays out wrongdoing by Trump and his entire campaign and administration, regardless of whether it meets the threshold of a criminal conspiracy or not. The ENTIRE DOCUMENT screams collusion. It's also heavily redacted so we need the full report which will surely contain even more damning information. Again, Mueller is laying out all the evidence for congress to decide because he doesn't see it as his place to decide whether a president's actions are indictable crimes out of OLC deference.
At the very least you are a victim of Bill Barr's spin because you're parroting his claims about what Mueller said instead of what Mueller actually said.
"despite being a lawyer"
Uh say what? You're purporting to be a lawyer? No you're not. The way you're misunderstanding, mischaracterizing, and dismissively treating the evidence revealed in this report exposes that you're not. That you didn't even understand OLC guidelines that a sitting president could not face indictment also proves you're no lawyer.
Why would you pretend to be a lawyer when you're so obviously not?
You're also fundamentally misreading US political history if you think Nixon's resignation led to Republican resurgence. Your logic doesn't make any sense. Ford lost because he pardoned Nixon. This isn't even controversial, it's accepted when his approval sank through the floor upon the pardon and he never recovered.
Nice catch.
What's the deal with pretending to be a lawyer Malko?
I come from a family of lawyers even though I'm not one. The way you discuss legal matters makes it more than obvious you're no lawyer.
I'm going to have to call you out again here for being a total fraud and trying to pretend you're a lawyer Malko:
"Bear in mind this, despite being a lawyer, my concern here is political rather than legal. I'm conscious of the fact that even after Nixon resigned having ordered the sacking of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and both his AG and Deputy-AG were forced to resign, he was still pardoned by President Ford a few years later."
This was some funny shit. Terrible political analysis where you pretend to be a lawyer and look like a joke.
Correct 👍
shareAnd was it really worth out time?
You think I supported that nonsense (i.e. the attempts to impeach Clinton over a personal affair)?
shareNot saying you supported it - just giving you a basis of where investigations stand as of 1998. The Clinton / Whitewater investigation set the precedent for all future investigations.
sharehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/here-are-the-top-takeaways-from-muellers-report-so-far/ar-BBW4DFs?ocid=spartandhp
**Congress Has Power to Act Further on Possible Obstruction[/b]**
>Mueller said he lacked confidence to clear Trump of obstruction of justice but added that lawmakers have the authority to act. “**[b]We concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a president’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice[/b]**,” the report states.
>“**[b]Our investigation found multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russia-interference and obstruction investigations,” according to the report. “The president engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation[/b]**.”
**[b]Mueller issued 37 INDICTMENTS[/b]**.
Legally there is NO SUCH thing as COLLUSION (which is essentially a FAKE WORD being used by the SCAM MAN who ran the FAKE UNIVERSITY).
**[b]CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY[/b]** is what the INVESTIGATION was about. Whether or not we have someone in office who is PUTIN'S PUPPET because he's IN DEBT and OWES him money.
And since we still don't have his INCOME TAXES, we still don't know if that's the case or not.
Think of the OJ SIMPSON situation.
A CRIMINAL COURT found him NOT GUILTY.
A CIVIL COURT found him as GUILTY as SIN.
As a SENATOR explains:
What the report reveal is someone who is:
**[b]DISHONEST, UNETHICAL, IMMORAL, UNPATRIOTIC[/b]**
In other words, it reveals to us someone who is NOT FIT for OFFICE due to his **[b]ONGOING ABUSE of the POWER of the OFFICE[/b]** that he now holds (due to the RUSSIAN INFLUENCE that interfered with our ELECTION process which he also still REFUSES do to anything about).
**[b]CORRUPT USE of HIS AUTHORITY[/b]**
and
**[b]UNDUE INFLUENCE[/b]**
are both IMPEACHABLE offenses that deal with **[b]an ABUSE of POWER**.
It's not over until it is really over.. . .. stay tuned.
shareMueller is going to testify before Congress. My guess is that he's going to surprise people on both sides. One NeverTrump conservative said, "The sheer number of lies about their contacts with the Russians is staggering once you see them all gathered into one place." One fellow said he was only up to page fifty, and the happy dance the Trump Administration was doing over Barr's summary had already been blown to pieces. "There's a lot to unpack, here," he said.
Hot takes are always the worst, though, so it's better to wait and do all that unpacking.