smr wrote:Joat42 wrote:I find it funny that some people need to nitpick on specific words trying to defend their position instead of being offended and outraged about what has happened and what is still happening to some degree.
Spin Joat42!
Fact 1 and 2 are indisputable. Those are the facts legally speaking.
No, "Fact 1 and 2" are the furthest thing from facts. They are in fact lies.
One more time: Barr. Lied.
The report does not clear Trump on either Collusion OR Obstruction.
For Collusion the report detailed HUNDREDS of contacts between the campaign and the Russians, it laid out page after page after page of collusive behavior. Then it made a very narrow finding that the evidence did not rise to a level sufficient to prosecute for a specific act of conspiracy that involved a stated cooperation agreement between the Russians and the Campaign which was all Mueller had been given jurisdiction to look at which is WORLDS AWAY from "clearing Trump of Collusion".
On Obstruction Mueller flat out laid out a case for charging Trump. He said in black and white that
if he could have cleared Trump on Obstruction he would have but the evidence would not allow him to clear Trump.
He also said in plain language that DOJ guidelines would not allow him to indict a sitting president, but Congress could impeach him or he could be charged after he left office.
I mean FFS, if you can't be bothered to read the report while making pronouncements about what is in it can you AT THE VERY FUCKING LEAST read the summaries?
Here, I'll post the Obstruction volume summary here for you if that makes it easier, and I'll even explain what it freaking means (bolding mine)
Mueller wrote:INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II
This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which states that, "[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he ... shall provide the Attorney
General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached."
Beginning in 2017, the President of the United States took a variety of actions towards the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice. The Order appointing the Special Counsel gave this Office jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the FBI's Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations. The Special Counsel's jurisdiction also covered potentially obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel's investigation itself. This Volume of our report
summarizes our obstruction-of-justice investigation of the President.
We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the
constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2
Translation into even more simple terms for smr: "The DOJ says WE ARE NOT ALLOWED to indict a sitting president no matter what we find because that would cause serious problems for that president's ability to do their job".
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.
3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary
materials were available.
Translation into even more simple terms for smr:: If he did commit crimes it is important for the integrity of the justice system and the entire principle of the rule of law that we know what happened so he can be held accountable.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Translation into even more simple terms for smr: BECAUSE they are not allowed to indict him, if they explicitly charged in this document that he had committed a crime he would not get to defend himself in court. That would also make it hard for the president to do his job. So even if they find he committed a crime THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SAY THAT EXPLICITLY. They're just going to lay out the evidence and then submit the report.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him
Translation into even more simple terms for smr: They may not be allowed to say "the president did commit obstruction of Justice" but they ARE allowed to say "the president did NOT commit obstruction of justice." And if there was any way to CLEAR him on obstruction they WOULD say that.
They looked at what he did and THEY CANNOT CLEAR HIM.
Guess what option that leaves even if they don't think they're allowed to say it smr?
What's going to be interesting to see is if Barr pissed Mueller off badly enough by lying about his report and misleading the public that Mueller will consent to answer this question when he's called to testify:
"If Trump was NOT a sitting president would you have indicted?"He may still decline to answer it thinking DOJ rules don't allow him to say even outside the official report. But if he DOES answer it anyone who has read that report knows what the answer is going to be.
And there is a reason THIS is contained in the closing section of the Obstruction volume:
A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official's conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. l, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC has recognized. A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.").
Translation into even more simple terms for smr: "Hey Congress, I may not be allowed to indict him while he's in office, but you can impeach him and/or throw him in prison for all of this after he is OUT of office."
