Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mueller doesn't report to Congress. He reports to the AG.
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
Mueller punted to Barr.
Arguably true, but also quite broad and misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
Mueller was hired by the DOJ, not Congress. By law, Barr didn't have to release report public if there are no indictments.
True, but whether Congress can subpoena it is an open question. Legality aside, it's worth noting that the House voted 420-0 to make Mueller's report public. Lindsay Graham blocked a parallel resolution in the Senate for political reasons ("But Hillary").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
Mueller's report was never meant to be cross-examined. That's why he didn't indict 1 person of collusion or obstruction.
Speculation. Also false on at least one major point. Mueller explicitly stated that he refrained from charging Trump with obstruction because of the DOJ's position that a sitting president cannot stand trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
For political purposes, he wanted to stick it to Trump and leaked the Barr memo to the press 1 day before his testimony to damage him which was political and if Mueller goes to Congress to testify under oath that 's one of the questions he has to answer.
Baseless speculation. You have no clue who leaked the Barr memo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
Another question is, when did he find out there was no collusion with Russia, 1 year ago?
Relevance? Are you suggesting that Mueller should have released his findings piecemeal, before the investigation was complete? What would you have said if he prematurely released his findings that Trump's conduct met all the legal elements for obstruction of justice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
He has lots of questions to answer under oath and fill a lot of gaps.....that's one of the main reasons he won't testify.
He will testify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
His answers could come back to haunt him.
Yes, this is true of any witness who testifies under oath, particularly before a divided Congress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
Especially with the new investigation in how all of this got started.
I think you're confused about Mueller's role in "how all of this got started." He didn't appoint himself as special counsel. He's also not an "angry Democrat," despite Trump's Twitter musings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
They have to wait how this investigation got started because if it was started under false pretenses and illegal tactics then like any court case it would get dropped if this thing goes to trial and the last thing Mueller and the Democrats need is that blowing in their faces and the pressure would be on Mueller why didn't he include that in his report and why didn't he charged anybody because of it.
You're conflating evidentiary suppression rules with purely political questions. This isn't a trial, and Trump doesn't have a Fourth Amendment right to exclude evidence unlawfully seized during a "WITCH HUNT by 18 Angry Democrats," or whatever the latest number is.
You should just focus on your usual talking points, and steer clear of the legal analysis.
They've seen it to the extent of the law...why do you hate that?
Stomping your feet because you though "mueller time" was about to happen and it does not....does not mean they have the right to see everything....you know, that pesky thing called "the law."
I think you missed my point, I was agreeing with you - the legally available unredacted report is available to Nadler et al and yet they have not looked at it because they are afraid it wont back up their narrative.
Arguably true, but also quite broad and misleading.
True, but whether Congress can subpoena it is an open question. Legality aside, it's worth noting that the House voted 420-0 to make Mueller's report public. Lindsay Graham blocked a parallel resolution in the Senate for political reasons ("But Hillary").
Speculation. Also false on at least one major point. Mueller explicitly stated that he refrained from charging Trump with obstruction because of the DOJ's position that a sitting president cannot stand trial.
Baseless speculation. You have no clue who leaked the Barr memo.
Relevance? Are you suggesting that Mueller should have released his findings piecemeal, before the investigation was complete? What would you have said if he prematurely released his findings that Trump's conduct met all the legal elements for obstruction of justice?
He will testify.
Yes, this is true of any witness who testifies under oath, particularly before a divided Congress.
I think you're confused about Mueller's role in "how all of this got started." He didn't appoint himself as special counsel. He's also not an "angry Democrat," despite Trump's Twitter musings.
You're conflating evidentiary suppression rules with purely political questions. This isn't a trial, and Trump doesn't have a Fourth Amendment right to exclude evidence unlawfully seized during a "WITCH HUNT by 18 Angry Democrats," or whatever the latest number is.
You should just focus on your usual talking points, and steer clear of the legal analysis.
This was about as crushing a factual takedown I’ve seen on CD in quite some time.
True, but whether Congress can subpoena it is an open question. Legality aside, it's worth noting that the House voted 420-0 to make Mueller's report public. Lindsay Graham blocked a parallel resolution in the Senate for political reasons ("But Hillary").
It doesn't matter what Congress votes. The Legislative branch doesn't have more powers than the Executive branch where the report has jurisdiction since Congress can't indict and by law Barr didn't have to make the report public if there are no indictments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial Observer
Speculation. Also false on at least one major point. Mueller explicitly stated that he refrained from charging Trump with obstruction because of the DOJ's position that a sitting president cannot stand trial.
Wrong! Mueller played both sides on the fence on obstruction and decided to punt to his bosses at the DOJ since he couldn't prove INTENT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial Observer
Baseless speculation. You have no clue who leaked the Barr memo.
It wasn't Barr. It came from the Mueller team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial Observer
He will testify.
Did he give you a call? I hope he does so he answers many questions about his report but he won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial Observer
I think you're confused about Mueller's role in "how all of this got started." He didn't appoint himself as special counsel. He's also not an "angry Democrat," despite Trump's Twitter musings.
he picked his team and some are angry Democrats who campaigned for Hillary Clinton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial Observer
You're conflating evidentiary suppression rules with purely political questions. This isn't a trial, and Trump doesn't have a Fourth Amendment right to exclude evidence unlawfully seized during a "WITCH HUNT by 18 Angry Democrats," or whatever the latest number is.
An Impeachment is a trial and the Senate is the jury. Don't you think that is not going to come out in a trial in a Senate (which it won't, this is all political by the Democrats)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partial Observer
You should just focus on your usual talking points, and steer clear of the legal analysis.
The feeling is mutual.....but if you think the Democrats have a strong case then vote to impeach....you don't need Mueller to testify, it's all on the report.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 05-14-2019 at 09:16 PM..
This was about as crushing a factual takedown I’ve seen on CD in quite some time.
no, he didn't. Both of you need to take the separation of powers and constitution 101 classes.
Mueller doesn't outrank Barr or the President in the Executive branch. Comey said under oath that the President was NOT under investigation. So the President has prosecutorial discretion in all investigations in the Executive Branch and to fired anybody in the DOJ that thinks any different.
Mueller investigating Trump for the firing of Comey is silly and he has no case. The President could have fired him by the way he brushed his hair and it's all constitutional legal.
A President can't commit obstruction for doing his constitutional duties. If Congress didn't want the Executive Branch which Trump is the Chief Prosecutor of the nation and that branch handling the investigation then Congress should have done it.
I think you missed my point, I was agreeing with you - the legally available unredacted report is available to Nadler et al and yet they have not looked at it because they are afraid it wont back up their narrative.
Yep, completely missed your point, my apologies....
This was about as crushing a factual takedown I’ve seen on CD in quite some time.
Nawww.. just sounds like a guy trying to sound 'smart'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark59
Dems are scared to death with AG Barr. He is an honorable man who knows the law very well. He is going after all the Obama criminals and they know it.
Be worried, very worried once the dems started being indicted for their massive crimes.
Yupp.. it's like an adult has just come into the room after finding out there has been an active CRIMINAL Probe by John Durham going on for weeks and possibly months, a guy with real experience and credibility jailing corrupt law and intelligence enforcement officials. It's hilarious seeing these guys panic. Brennon the tough guy is all of sudden stuttering like a school girl, while Baker is now trying to justify that 'mistakes' were made. This change of tone happened overnight if you watch their recent blitzes on CNN.
Clapper's potentially in big trouble as confidential leaks are a bit part of this probe too. I have a feeling he'll be first to turn to save his hide and continue to enjoy his freedom.
Just reported, Barr is working with the various Intelligence agencies (CIA, National Security) are cooperating, meaning that this is massive and serious. The IG Report will be the final piece to provide a solid, non-bias foundation to this.
Specifically, State warned the FBI about Steele. Supervisor receiving that warning was Strzok. But the warning was ignored or dismissed and dossier used as a deception to the Court.
Kevin Brock, the former FBI assistant director for intelligence, said the State Department’s email in October 2016 ordinarily should have triggered the FBI to reevaluate Steele as a source.
“This is quite important,” Brock said. “Under normal circumstances, when you get information about the conduct of your source that gives rise to questions about their reliability or truthfulness, you usually go back and reevaluate their dependability and credibility.
Specifically, State warned the FBI about Steele. Supervisor receiving that warning was Strzok. But the warning was ignored or dismissed and dossier used as a deception to the Court.
Kevin Brock, the former FBI assistant director for intelligence, said the State Department’s email in October 2016 ordinarily should have triggered the FBI to reevaluate Steele as a source.
“This is quite important,” Brock said. “Under normal circumstances, when you get information about the conduct of your source that gives rise to questions about their reliability or truthfulness, you usually go back and reevaluate their dependability and credibility.
Note that the author of that opinion piece is John Solomon, about whom Wikipedia says this: "He is primarily known for having been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
