|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 30 2019 00:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2019 23:42 xDaunt wrote:Byron York has a fascinating piece today shedding some light on why Mueller did not subpoena Trump (unlike the fake news quality garbage that is in WashPo today). The source is John Dowd, who was the first head of Trump’s legal team. Here is the key segment: Dowd, who was Trump's lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018, said Mueller was hampered by two daunting problems. The first was that Mueller could not establish that a crime had occurred — that there had been conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to fix the 2016 election. Indeed, the Mueller report, as quoted in Attorney General William Barr's summary of its findings, said "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" and "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."
Mueller's second problem, as Dowd and the Trump team saw it, was that precedent from a Clinton-era independent counsel investigation, the Mike Espy case, held that to overcome a presidential claim of privilege, a prosecutor had to show that the president's testimony would provide evidence that was directly relevant to a criminal matter, and that that evidence was not available from any other source. Dowd argued that the White House had cooperated so extensively with Mueller, had provided him so much material that helped explain the president's actions, including contemporaneous accounts of what Trump said in private conversations, that Mueller could not effectively claim that he had no other source of information. Source. Translating this, Mueller had two big hurdles to overcome in subpoenaing Trump. The first mentioned is a basic due process hurdle: is there probable cause to get the subpoena? The second is an executive privilege hurdle. I promise you that the due process hurdle is what gave Mueller pause. He knew that if he had to fight Trump over the subpoena, he would have to explain to a court in detail what the predicate for the subpoena was. The obvious problem with this is that there was no predicate. Here’s what Dowd says about his conversations with Mueller: "[Mueller] said, 'Well, John, I need to know what was in the president's head,'" Dowd recalled. "I said you already do, you know in real time."
The conflict dominated a difficult March 5, 2018, meeting. "I asked, what's the president's status?" Dowd said. "[Mueller said] he's a witness-slash-subject. And I said, you mean he has no exposure? He said that's right. So I knew then for sure, by inference, that [Mueller] had nothing to proceed on in the collusion and conspiracy area."
Still, Mueller said he needed to interview Trump, and that he might subpoena the president.
"He dropped that on the table, and I reacted very strongly," Dowd recalled. "I said go ahead, you're threatening this president with a subpoena. It's doubtful whether the [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel would have approved such a thing. ... But beside that, I said, well go ahead. I want to hear what you tell the court is your basis to do it when you don't have a crime, you've just told me [Trump] doesn't have any exposure, so what are you going to tell a U.S. district judge? Because we're going to move to quash this thing. And Jay Sekulow and his team were ready to do it ... We're ready to do it if you want to do it."
"Then he backed off, he said don't get upset," Dowd continued.
"I said, look, what basis do you have to do it? We're not afraid of a grand jury subpoena. You want to do it, you've got yourself a war and you're going to lose it. There's no way [Mueller] could win that. I think he concluded that, even with all the firepower he had on his side, I think they knew they couldn't do it. I think they thought they might scare us into it, but we were not going to go there."
The subpoena never came. This conclusion raises two further points. First, this is yet more evidence that Mueller never had anything to support and warrant investigating Trump for Russia collusion. His case was so weak that he wouldn’t risk a fight over a subpoena (and let’s not forget that Mueller declined to renew the FISA warrant after he learned about the IG having the Strzok/Page texts). So everyone banking on there being something in the Mueller report that is going to damn Trump on the Russia investigation is likely due for more heartbreak. Second, this raises the question of when did Mueller figure out that he had nothing to support the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. If he wasn’t willing to have the subpoena fight, he must have known very early in the process. I think the latest date would be by the end of July 2017 when the IG told him about the Strzok/Page texts and before he had Rosenstein issue the second scope memo in August 2017. What Mueller should have done was hold a press conference and exonerate Trump on that part of the investigation. Instead, Mueller needlessly dragged the country through another year and a half of Russia collusion hoax nonsense. Mueller is not a good guy here. Mueller was appointed and didn’t not start the investigation. He was appointed by the deputy AG due to concerns Trump was trying to obstruct the an investigation by firing the FBI director. Which Trump admitted to doing to stop the investigation on national TV.
I didn’t say he started the investigation. I merely asked when he figured out it was all bullshit. Everyone knows he took over an already open investigation. This, of course, also raises the question of whether Comey knew it was bullshit. Same with the other people who were working on the base before Mueller came on board. A huge chunk of Mueller’s team had been working on this stuff from its origination. Even Andy Weissman was briefed on the dossier in the summer of 2016, almost a year before he joined Mueller. Hell, the Carter Page FISA had already been renewed twice before Mueller showed up. Dare we suggest that gathering zero evidence of Russia collusion from it should have been a pretty big fucking hint that the investigation was bullshit?
|
On March 30 2019 00:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2019 00:00 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2019 23:42 xDaunt wrote:Byron York has a fascinating piece today shedding some light on why Mueller did not subpoena Trump (unlike the fake news quality garbage that is in WashPo today). The source is John Dowd, who was the first head of Trump’s legal team. Here is the key segment: Dowd, who was Trump's lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018, said Mueller was hampered by two daunting problems. The first was that Mueller could not establish that a crime had occurred — that there had been conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to fix the 2016 election. Indeed, the Mueller report, as quoted in Attorney General William Barr's summary of its findings, said "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" and "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."
Mueller's second problem, as Dowd and the Trump team saw it, was that precedent from a Clinton-era independent counsel investigation, the Mike Espy case, held that to overcome a presidential claim of privilege, a prosecutor had to show that the president's testimony would provide evidence that was directly relevant to a criminal matter, and that that evidence was not available from any other source. Dowd argued that the White House had cooperated so extensively with Mueller, had provided him so much material that helped explain the president's actions, including contemporaneous accounts of what Trump said in private conversations, that Mueller could not effectively claim that he had no other source of information. Source. Translating this, Mueller had two big hurdles to overcome in subpoenaing Trump. The first mentioned is a basic due process hurdle: is there probable cause to get the subpoena? The second is an executive privilege hurdle. I promise you that the due process hurdle is what gave Mueller pause. He knew that if he had to fight Trump over the subpoena, he would have to explain to a court in detail what the predicate for the subpoena was. The obvious problem with this is that there was no predicate. Here’s what Dowd says about his conversations with Mueller: "[Mueller] said, 'Well, John, I need to know what was in the president's head,'" Dowd recalled. "I said you already do, you know in real time."
The conflict dominated a difficult March 5, 2018, meeting. "I asked, what's the president's status?" Dowd said. "[Mueller said] he's a witness-slash-subject. And I said, you mean he has no exposure? He said that's right. So I knew then for sure, by inference, that [Mueller] had nothing to proceed on in the collusion and conspiracy area."
Still, Mueller said he needed to interview Trump, and that he might subpoena the president.
"He dropped that on the table, and I reacted very strongly," Dowd recalled. "I said go ahead, you're threatening this president with a subpoena. It's doubtful whether the [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel would have approved such a thing. ... But beside that, I said, well go ahead. I want to hear what you tell the court is your basis to do it when you don't have a crime, you've just told me [Trump] doesn't have any exposure, so what are you going to tell a U.S. district judge? Because we're going to move to quash this thing. And Jay Sekulow and his team were ready to do it ... We're ready to do it if you want to do it."
"Then he backed off, he said don't get upset," Dowd continued.
"I said, look, what basis do you have to do it? We're not afraid of a grand jury subpoena. You want to do it, you've got yourself a war and you're going to lose it. There's no way [Mueller] could win that. I think he concluded that, even with all the firepower he had on his side, I think they knew they couldn't do it. I think they thought they might scare us into it, but we were not going to go there."
The subpoena never came. This conclusion raises two further points. First, this is yet more evidence that Mueller never had anything to support and warrant investigating Trump for Russia collusion. His case was so weak that he wouldn’t risk a fight over a subpoena (and let’s not forget that Mueller declined to renew the FISA warrant after he learned about the IG having the Strzok/Page texts). So everyone banking on there being something in the Mueller report that is going to damn Trump on the Russia investigation is likely due for more heartbreak. Second, this raises the question of when did Mueller figure out that he had nothing to support the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. If he wasn’t willing to have the subpoena fight, he must have known very early in the process. I think the latest date would be by the end of July 2017 when the IG told him about the Strzok/Page texts and before he had Rosenstein issue the second scope memo in August 2017. What Mueller should have done was hold a press conference and exonerate Trump on that part of the investigation. Instead, Mueller needlessly dragged the country through another year and a half of Russia collusion hoax nonsense. Mueller is not a good guy here. Mueller was appointed and didn’t not start the investigation. He was appointed by the deputy AG due to concerns Trump was trying to obstruct the an investigation by firing the FBI director. Which Trump admitted to doing to stop the investigation on national TV. I didn’t say he started the investigation. I merely asked when he figured out it was all bullshit. Everyone knows he took over an already open investigation. This, of course, also raises the question of whether Comey knew it was bullshit. Same with the other people who were working on the base before Mueller came on board. A huge chunk of Mueller’s team had been working on this stuff from its origination. Even Andy Weissman was briefed on the dossier in the summer of 2016, almost a year before he joined Mueller.
This entire theory hinges on Mueller not seeking a subpoena because the case was flawed at its root, rather than executive privilege. And it is an assumption, plain and simple. It also excludes the third option, that Mueller knew the White House was unlikely to comply with the subpoena and the courts ability to force the executive branch to do specific things is limited.
The theory is desperate speculation, nothing more.
|
On March 30 2019 00:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2019 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 30 2019 00:00 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2019 23:42 xDaunt wrote:Byron York has a fascinating piece today shedding some light on why Mueller did not subpoena Trump (unlike the fake news quality garbage that is in WashPo today). The source is John Dowd, who was the first head of Trump’s legal team. Here is the key segment: Dowd, who was Trump's lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018, said Mueller was hampered by two daunting problems. The first was that Mueller could not establish that a crime had occurred — that there had been conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to fix the 2016 election. Indeed, the Mueller report, as quoted in Attorney General William Barr's summary of its findings, said "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" and "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."
Mueller's second problem, as Dowd and the Trump team saw it, was that precedent from a Clinton-era independent counsel investigation, the Mike Espy case, held that to overcome a presidential claim of privilege, a prosecutor had to show that the president's testimony would provide evidence that was directly relevant to a criminal matter, and that that evidence was not available from any other source. Dowd argued that the White House had cooperated so extensively with Mueller, had provided him so much material that helped explain the president's actions, including contemporaneous accounts of what Trump said in private conversations, that Mueller could not effectively claim that he had no other source of information. Source. Translating this, Mueller had two big hurdles to overcome in subpoenaing Trump. The first mentioned is a basic due process hurdle: is there probable cause to get the subpoena? The second is an executive privilege hurdle. I promise you that the due process hurdle is what gave Mueller pause. He knew that if he had to fight Trump over the subpoena, he would have to explain to a court in detail what the predicate for the subpoena was. The obvious problem with this is that there was no predicate. Here’s what Dowd says about his conversations with Mueller: "[Mueller] said, 'Well, John, I need to know what was in the president's head,'" Dowd recalled. "I said you already do, you know in real time."
The conflict dominated a difficult March 5, 2018, meeting. "I asked, what's the president's status?" Dowd said. "[Mueller said] he's a witness-slash-subject. And I said, you mean he has no exposure? He said that's right. So I knew then for sure, by inference, that [Mueller] had nothing to proceed on in the collusion and conspiracy area."
Still, Mueller said he needed to interview Trump, and that he might subpoena the president.
"He dropped that on the table, and I reacted very strongly," Dowd recalled. "I said go ahead, you're threatening this president with a subpoena. It's doubtful whether the [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel would have approved such a thing. ... But beside that, I said, well go ahead. I want to hear what you tell the court is your basis to do it when you don't have a crime, you've just told me [Trump] doesn't have any exposure, so what are you going to tell a U.S. district judge? Because we're going to move to quash this thing. And Jay Sekulow and his team were ready to do it ... We're ready to do it if you want to do it."
"Then he backed off, he said don't get upset," Dowd continued.
"I said, look, what basis do you have to do it? We're not afraid of a grand jury subpoena. You want to do it, you've got yourself a war and you're going to lose it. There's no way [Mueller] could win that. I think he concluded that, even with all the firepower he had on his side, I think they knew they couldn't do it. I think they thought they might scare us into it, but we were not going to go there."
The subpoena never came. This conclusion raises two further points. First, this is yet more evidence that Mueller never had anything to support and warrant investigating Trump for Russia collusion. His case was so weak that he wouldn’t risk a fight over a subpoena (and let’s not forget that Mueller declined to renew the FISA warrant after he learned about the IG having the Strzok/Page texts). So everyone banking on there being something in the Mueller report that is going to damn Trump on the Russia investigation is likely due for more heartbreak. Second, this raises the question of when did Mueller figure out that he had nothing to support the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. If he wasn’t willing to have the subpoena fight, he must have known very early in the process. I think the latest date would be by the end of July 2017 when the IG told him about the Strzok/Page texts and before he had Rosenstein issue the second scope memo in August 2017. What Mueller should have done was hold a press conference and exonerate Trump on that part of the investigation. Instead, Mueller needlessly dragged the country through another year and a half of Russia collusion hoax nonsense. Mueller is not a good guy here. Mueller was appointed and didn’t not start the investigation. He was appointed by the deputy AG due to concerns Trump was trying to obstruct the an investigation by firing the FBI director. Which Trump admitted to doing to stop the investigation on national TV. I didn’t say he started the investigation. I merely asked when he figured out it was all bullshit. Everyone knows he took over an already open investigation. This, of course, also raises the question of whether Comey knew it was bullshit. Same with the other people who were working on the base before Mueller came on board. A huge chunk of Mueller’s team had been working on this stuff from its origination. Even Andy Weissman was briefed on the dossier in the summer of 2016, almost a year before he joined Mueller. This entire theory hinges on Mueller not seeking a subpoena because the case was flawed at its root, rather than executive privilege. And it is an assumption, plain and simple. It also excludes the third option, that Mueller knew the White House was unlikely to comply with the subpoena and the courts ability to force the executive branch to do specific things is limited. The theory is desperate speculation, nothing more.
No, you have it quite backwards. My theory is well-supported factually. Everyone who still laughably thinks that there’s some big anti-Trump surprise in the Mueller report is “desperately speculating.” I have cited to all sorts of evidence in my posts. You guys have cited nothing. You might as well be wishing for unicorns and fairies.
Edit: As for the substance of your post, here’s the problem with presuming that it was privilege that stopped Mueller (aside from Dowd’s own words that I highlighted): Mueller had nothing to lose by having the subpoena fight if he had the predicate to issue the subpoena in the first place. So what if a judge rules against him in the privilege issue? He could just move on and go about his business. But what if the judge ruled against him on the predicate? Then Mueller would be FUCKED.
|
On March 30 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2019 00:21 Plansix wrote:On March 30 2019 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 30 2019 00:00 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2019 23:42 xDaunt wrote:Byron York has a fascinating piece today shedding some light on why Mueller did not subpoena Trump (unlike the fake news quality garbage that is in WashPo today). The source is John Dowd, who was the first head of Trump’s legal team. Here is the key segment: Dowd, who was Trump's lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018, said Mueller was hampered by two daunting problems. The first was that Mueller could not establish that a crime had occurred — that there had been conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to fix the 2016 election. Indeed, the Mueller report, as quoted in Attorney General William Barr's summary of its findings, said "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" and "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."
Mueller's second problem, as Dowd and the Trump team saw it, was that precedent from a Clinton-era independent counsel investigation, the Mike Espy case, held that to overcome a presidential claim of privilege, a prosecutor had to show that the president's testimony would provide evidence that was directly relevant to a criminal matter, and that that evidence was not available from any other source. Dowd argued that the White House had cooperated so extensively with Mueller, had provided him so much material that helped explain the president's actions, including contemporaneous accounts of what Trump said in private conversations, that Mueller could not effectively claim that he had no other source of information. Source. Translating this, Mueller had two big hurdles to overcome in subpoenaing Trump. The first mentioned is a basic due process hurdle: is there probable cause to get the subpoena? The second is an executive privilege hurdle. I promise you that the due process hurdle is what gave Mueller pause. He knew that if he had to fight Trump over the subpoena, he would have to explain to a court in detail what the predicate for the subpoena was. The obvious problem with this is that there was no predicate. Here’s what Dowd says about his conversations with Mueller: "[Mueller] said, 'Well, John, I need to know what was in the president's head,'" Dowd recalled. "I said you already do, you know in real time."
The conflict dominated a difficult March 5, 2018, meeting. "I asked, what's the president's status?" Dowd said. "[Mueller said] he's a witness-slash-subject. And I said, you mean he has no exposure? He said that's right. So I knew then for sure, by inference, that [Mueller] had nothing to proceed on in the collusion and conspiracy area."
Still, Mueller said he needed to interview Trump, and that he might subpoena the president.
"He dropped that on the table, and I reacted very strongly," Dowd recalled. "I said go ahead, you're threatening this president with a subpoena. It's doubtful whether the [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel would have approved such a thing. ... But beside that, I said, well go ahead. I want to hear what you tell the court is your basis to do it when you don't have a crime, you've just told me [Trump] doesn't have any exposure, so what are you going to tell a U.S. district judge? Because we're going to move to quash this thing. And Jay Sekulow and his team were ready to do it ... We're ready to do it if you want to do it."
"Then he backed off, he said don't get upset," Dowd continued.
"I said, look, what basis do you have to do it? We're not afraid of a grand jury subpoena. You want to do it, you've got yourself a war and you're going to lose it. There's no way [Mueller] could win that. I think he concluded that, even with all the firepower he had on his side, I think they knew they couldn't do it. I think they thought they might scare us into it, but we were not going to go there."
The subpoena never came. This conclusion raises two further points. First, this is yet more evidence that Mueller never had anything to support and warrant investigating Trump for Russia collusion. His case was so weak that he wouldn’t risk a fight over a subpoena (and let’s not forget that Mueller declined to renew the FISA warrant after he learned about the IG having the Strzok/Page texts). So everyone banking on there being something in the Mueller report that is going to damn Trump on the Russia investigation is likely due for more heartbreak. Second, this raises the question of when did Mueller figure out that he had nothing to support the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. If he wasn’t willing to have the subpoena fight, he must have known very early in the process. I think the latest date would be by the end of July 2017 when the IG told him about the Strzok/Page texts and before he had Rosenstein issue the second scope memo in August 2017. What Mueller should have done was hold a press conference and exonerate Trump on that part of the investigation. Instead, Mueller needlessly dragged the country through another year and a half of Russia collusion hoax nonsense. Mueller is not a good guy here. Mueller was appointed and didn’t not start the investigation. He was appointed by the deputy AG due to concerns Trump was trying to obstruct the an investigation by firing the FBI director. Which Trump admitted to doing to stop the investigation on national TV. I didn’t say he started the investigation. I merely asked when he figured out it was all bullshit. Everyone knows he took over an already open investigation. This, of course, also raises the question of whether Comey knew it was bullshit. Same with the other people who were working on the base before Mueller came on board. A huge chunk of Mueller’s team had been working on this stuff from its origination. Even Andy Weissman was briefed on the dossier in the summer of 2016, almost a year before he joined Mueller. This entire theory hinges on Mueller not seeking a subpoena because the case was flawed at its root, rather than executive privilege. And it is an assumption, plain and simple. It also excludes the third option, that Mueller knew the White House was unlikely to comply with the subpoena and the courts ability to force the executive branch to do specific things is limited. The theory is desperate speculation, nothing more. No, you have it quite backwards. My theory is well-supported factually. Everyone who still laughably thinks that there’s some big anti-Trump surprise in the Mueller report is “desperately speculating.” I have cited to all sorts of evidence in my posts. You guys have cited nothing. You might as well be wishing for unicorns and fairies.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, as most people, including P6 keep saying.
There is evidence of lots of shady shit happening. Everything linking it to Trump is circumstantial or from untrustworthy sources (e.g. Manafort or Flynn, who have been shown to perjure themselves already). So they can't catch Trump on anything other than associating with scum, which unfortunately isn't a crime in and of itself.
So no, there is no direct evidence that Trump knowingly received aid from a foreign government in order to win the election. So he knew that even if he collects all the circumstantial evidence and gets the subpoena, Trump's lawyers would just claim executive privilege on everything (and then Trump would tweet about it), and there would not be enough to actually win that long drawn out fight, so why try? There is indeed no anti-Trump surprise. There is also not nothing. Just not enough to convict.
|
On March 30 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2019 00:21 Plansix wrote:On March 30 2019 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 30 2019 00:00 Plansix wrote:On March 29 2019 23:42 xDaunt wrote:Byron York has a fascinating piece today shedding some light on why Mueller did not subpoena Trump (unlike the fake news quality garbage that is in WashPo today). The source is John Dowd, who was the first head of Trump’s legal team. Here is the key segment: Dowd, who was Trump's lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018, said Mueller was hampered by two daunting problems. The first was that Mueller could not establish that a crime had occurred — that there had been conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to fix the 2016 election. Indeed, the Mueller report, as quoted in Attorney General William Barr's summary of its findings, said "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" and "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."
Mueller's second problem, as Dowd and the Trump team saw it, was that precedent from a Clinton-era independent counsel investigation, the Mike Espy case, held that to overcome a presidential claim of privilege, a prosecutor had to show that the president's testimony would provide evidence that was directly relevant to a criminal matter, and that that evidence was not available from any other source. Dowd argued that the White House had cooperated so extensively with Mueller, had provided him so much material that helped explain the president's actions, including contemporaneous accounts of what Trump said in private conversations, that Mueller could not effectively claim that he had no other source of information. Source. Translating this, Mueller had two big hurdles to overcome in subpoenaing Trump. The first mentioned is a basic due process hurdle: is there probable cause to get the subpoena? The second is an executive privilege hurdle. I promise you that the due process hurdle is what gave Mueller pause. He knew that if he had to fight Trump over the subpoena, he would have to explain to a court in detail what the predicate for the subpoena was. The obvious problem with this is that there was no predicate. Here’s what Dowd says about his conversations with Mueller: "[Mueller] said, 'Well, John, I need to know what was in the president's head,'" Dowd recalled. "I said you already do, you know in real time."
The conflict dominated a difficult March 5, 2018, meeting. "I asked, what's the president's status?" Dowd said. "[Mueller said] he's a witness-slash-subject. And I said, you mean he has no exposure? He said that's right. So I knew then for sure, by inference, that [Mueller] had nothing to proceed on in the collusion and conspiracy area."
Still, Mueller said he needed to interview Trump, and that he might subpoena the president.
"He dropped that on the table, and I reacted very strongly," Dowd recalled. "I said go ahead, you're threatening this president with a subpoena. It's doubtful whether the [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel would have approved such a thing. ... But beside that, I said, well go ahead. I want to hear what you tell the court is your basis to do it when you don't have a crime, you've just told me [Trump] doesn't have any exposure, so what are you going to tell a U.S. district judge? Because we're going to move to quash this thing. And Jay Sekulow and his team were ready to do it ... We're ready to do it if you want to do it."
"Then he backed off, he said don't get upset," Dowd continued.
"I said, look, what basis do you have to do it? We're not afraid of a grand jury subpoena. You want to do it, you've got yourself a war and you're going to lose it. There's no way [Mueller] could win that. I think he concluded that, even with all the firepower he had on his side, I think they knew they couldn't do it. I think they thought they might scare us into it, but we were not going to go there."
The subpoena never came. This conclusion raises two further points. First, this is yet more evidence that Mueller never had anything to support and warrant investigating Trump for Russia collusion. His case was so weak that he wouldn’t risk a fight over a subpoena (and let’s not forget that Mueller declined to renew the FISA warrant after he learned about the IG having the Strzok/Page texts). So everyone banking on there being something in the Mueller report that is going to damn Trump on the Russia investigation is likely due for more heartbreak. Second, this raises the question of when did Mueller figure out that he had nothing to support the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. If he wasn’t willing to have the subpoena fight, he must have known very early in the process. I think the latest date would be by the end of July 2017 when the IG told him about the Strzok/Page texts and before he had Rosenstein issue the second scope memo in August 2017. What Mueller should have done was hold a press conference and exonerate Trump on that part of the investigation. Instead, Mueller needlessly dragged the country through another year and a half of Russia collusion hoax nonsense. Mueller is not a good guy here. Mueller was appointed and didn’t not start the investigation. He was appointed by the deputy AG due to concerns Trump was trying to obstruct the an investigation by firing the FBI director. Which Trump admitted to doing to stop the investigation on national TV. I didn’t say he started the investigation. I merely asked when he figured out it was all bullshit. Everyone knows he took over an already open investigation. This, of course, also raises the question of whether Comey knew it was bullshit. Same with the other people who were working on the base before Mueller came on board. A huge chunk of Mueller’s team had been working on this stuff from its origination. Even Andy Weissman was briefed on the dossier in the summer of 2016, almost a year before he joined Mueller. This entire theory hinges on Mueller not seeking a subpoena because the case was flawed at its root, rather than executive privilege. And it is an assumption, plain and simple. It also excludes the third option, that Mueller knew the White House was unlikely to comply with the subpoena and the courts ability to force the executive branch to do specific things is limited. The theory is desperate speculation, nothing more. No, you have it quite backwards. My theory is well-supported factually. Everyone who still laughably thinks that there’s some big anti-Trump surprise in the Mueller report is “desperately speculating.” I have cited to all sorts of evidence in my posts. You guys have cited nothing. You might as well be wishing for unicorns and fairies.
The article you cited is trump’s attorney giving an interview about a discussion he had with Mueller and saying they would fight the subpoena. And then he claims that they didn’t subpoena the president because the case is bad.
As someone who was alive during the Clinton investigations, I am fully aware that subpoenaing the president is a huge legal battle even when you have overwhelming evidence the president lied under oath and you have the full backing of congress. So the idea that Mueller decided to not to doesn’t prove much, since this is a very different case and congress did not have his back.
|
|
|
United States41470 Posts
I recently read that Clinton, who went to law school, had them define sexual relations before answering the question and, on the basis of their definition, answered honestly. His answer was then taken out of the context of that definition that excluded blowjobs to paint him as having lied to the regular people.
It’s essentially a lawyer trap. Create a scenario in which a smart lawyer will read the rule book and think he’s getting one over on everyone with a technicality. Then tell everyone what happened and anyone not a lawyer will go “that lying lawyer piece of shit”. Presumably Clinton forgot that everyone hates lawyers doing lawyer stuff.
|
On March 30 2019 00:39 KwarK wrote:
I recently read that Clinton, who went to law school, had them define sexual relations before answering the question and, on the basis of their definition, answered honestly. His answer was then taken out of the context of that definition that excluded blowjobs to paint him as having lied to the regular people.
If that were the case, how did Ken Starr ever conclude that he was guilty of lying under oath? Because presumably the transcripts would then include that definition.
|
The part that the entire interview leaves out is that obstruction of justice is a crime that requires the prosecutor to prove what is going on in the mind of the accused. They need to prove that the accused was trying to obstruct justice. That can be challenging in a traditional case where the defendant isn’t the president of the United States, with the power to deny requests for documents or access to witnesses through executive privilege.
Trump’s attorney’s number one goal was to prevent Trump from testifying under oath because it would be bad for him. It would give the investigation greater insight and evidence into Trumps intent and there was a very real change Trump would commit perjury. Mueller made the decision not to go after the subpoena because it would be a huge legal fight and at the end of the day he knew no court couldn’t force the President to testify.
|
United States41470 Posts
On March 30 2019 00:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2019 00:39 KwarK wrote:
I recently read that Clinton, who went to law school, had them define sexual relations before answering the question and, on the basis of their definition, answered honestly. His answer was then taken out of the context of that definition that excluded blowjobs to paint him as having lied to the regular people. If that were the case, how did Ken Starr ever conclude that he was guilty of lying under oath? Because presumably the transcripts would then include that definition.
They didn’t. His testimony was misleading, not false. He got screwed in the court of popular opinion.
|
On March 30 2019 00:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2019 00:39 KwarK wrote:
I recently read that Clinton, who went to law school, had them define sexual relations before answering the question and, on the basis of their definition, answered honestly. His answer was then taken out of the context of that definition that excluded blowjobs to paint him as having lied to the regular people. If that were the case, how did Ken Starr ever conclude that he was guilty of lying under oath? Because presumably the transcripts would then include that definition.
Because “technically not perjury” works when you are a citizen and the state is coming after you. Not when you are president and the head of the state itself.
|
On March 29 2019 23:42 xDaunt wrote:Byron York has a fascinating piece today shedding some light on why Mueller did not subpoena Trump (unlike the fake news quality garbage that is in WashPo today). The source is John Dowd, who was the first head of Trump’s legal team. Here is the key segment: Show nested quote +Dowd, who was Trump's lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018, said Mueller was hampered by two daunting problems. The first was that Mueller could not establish that a crime had occurred — that there had been conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to fix the 2016 election. Indeed, the Mueller report, as quoted in Attorney General William Barr's summary of its findings, said "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" and "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."
Mueller's second problem, as Dowd and the Trump team saw it, was that precedent from a Clinton-era independent counsel investigation, the Mike Espy case, held that to overcome a presidential claim of privilege, a prosecutor had to show that the president's testimony would provide evidence that was directly relevant to a criminal matter, and that that evidence was not available from any other source. Dowd argued that the White House had cooperated so extensively with Mueller, had provided him so much material that helped explain the president's actions, including contemporaneous accounts of what Trump said in private conversations, that Mueller could not effectively claim that he had no other source of information. Source. Translating this, Mueller had two big hurdles to overcome in subpoenaing Trump. The first mentioned is a basic due process hurdle: is there probable cause to get the subpoena? The second is an executive privilege hurdle. I promise you that the due process hurdle is what gave Mueller pause. He knew that if he had to fight Trump over the subpoena, he would have to explain to a court in detail what the predicate for the subpoena was. The obvious problem with this is that there was no predicate. Here’s what Dowd says about his conversations with Mueller: Show nested quote +"[Mueller] said, 'Well, John, I need to know what was in the president's head,'" Dowd recalled. "I said you already do, you know in real time."
The conflict dominated a difficult March 5, 2018, meeting. "I asked, what's the president's status?" Dowd said. "[Mueller said] he's a witness-slash-subject. And I said, you mean he has no exposure? He said that's right. So I knew then for sure, by inference, that [Mueller] had nothing to proceed on in the collusion and conspiracy area."
Still, Mueller said he needed to interview Trump, and that he might subpoena the president.
"He dropped that on the table, and I reacted very strongly," Dowd recalled. "I said go ahead, you're threatening this president with a subpoena. It's doubtful whether the [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel would have approved such a thing. ... But beside that, I said, well go ahead. I want to hear what you tell the court is your basis to do it when you don't have a crime, you've just told me [Trump] doesn't have any exposure, so what are you going to tell a U.S. district judge? Because we're going to move to quash this thing. And Jay Sekulow and his team were ready to do it ... We're ready to do it if you want to do it."
"Then he backed off, he said don't get upset," Dowd continued.
"I said, look, what basis do you have to do it? We're not afraid of a grand jury subpoena. You want to do it, you've got yourself a war and you're going to lose it. There's no way [Mueller] could win that. I think he concluded that, even with all the firepower he had on his side, I think they knew they couldn't do it. I think they thought they might scare us into it, but we were not going to go there."
The subpoena never came. This conclusion raises two further points. First, this is yet more evidence that Mueller never had anything to support and warrant investigating Trump for Russia collusion. His case was so weak that he wouldn’t risk a fight over a subpoena (and let’s not forget that Mueller declined to renew the FISA warrant after he learned about the IG having the Strzok/Page texts). So everyone banking on there being something in the Mueller report that is going to damn Trump on the Russia investigation is likely due for more heartbreak. Second, this raises the question of when did Mueller figure out that he had nothing to support the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. If he wasn’t willing to have the subpoena fight, he must have known very early in the process. I think the latest date would be by the end of July 2017 when the IG told him about the Strzok/Page texts and before he had Rosenstein issue the second scope memo in August 2017. What Mueller should have done was hold a press conference and exonerate Trump on that part of the investigation. Instead, Mueller needlessly dragged the country through another year and a half of Russia collusion hoax nonsense. Mueller is not a good guy here.
Mueller is by the books, he's not like Comey where he's going to venture out on his own and hold a press conference because he thinks it's the morally right thing to do. He followed the regulations and submitted a report after concluding the whole thing (which wasn't limited to just Trump's involvement in collusion). This idea of a press conference is pretty much a pro-Comey idea.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 29 2019 23:42 xDaunt wrote:Byron York has a fascinating piece today shedding some light on why Mueller did not subpoena Trump (unlike the fake news quality garbage that is in WashPo today). The source is John Dowd, who was the first head of Trump’s legal team. Here is the key segment: Show nested quote +Dowd, who was Trump's lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018, said Mueller was hampered by two daunting problems. The first was that Mueller could not establish that a crime had occurred — that there had been conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to fix the 2016 election. Indeed, the Mueller report, as quoted in Attorney General William Barr's summary of its findings, said "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" and "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference."
Mueller's second problem, as Dowd and the Trump team saw it, was that precedent from a Clinton-era independent counsel investigation, the Mike Espy case, held that to overcome a presidential claim of privilege, a prosecutor had to show that the president's testimony would provide evidence that was directly relevant to a criminal matter, and that that evidence was not available from any other source. Dowd argued that the White House had cooperated so extensively with Mueller, had provided him so much material that helped explain the president's actions, including contemporaneous accounts of what Trump said in private conversations, that Mueller could not effectively claim that he had no other source of information. Source. Translating this, Mueller had two big hurdles to overcome in subpoenaing Trump. The first mentioned is a basic due process hurdle: is there probable cause to get the subpoena? The second is an executive privilege hurdle. I promise you that the due process hurdle is what gave Mueller pause. He knew that if he had to fight Trump over the subpoena, he would have to explain to a court in detail what the predicate for the subpoena was. The obvious problem with this is that there was no predicate. Here’s what Dowd says about his conversations with Mueller: Show nested quote +"[Mueller] said, 'Well, John, I need to know what was in the president's head,'" Dowd recalled. "I said you already do, you know in real time."
The conflict dominated a difficult March 5, 2018, meeting. "I asked, what's the president's status?" Dowd said. "[Mueller said] he's a witness-slash-subject. And I said, you mean he has no exposure? He said that's right. So I knew then for sure, by inference, that [Mueller] had nothing to proceed on in the collusion and conspiracy area."
Still, Mueller said he needed to interview Trump, and that he might subpoena the president.
"He dropped that on the table, and I reacted very strongly," Dowd recalled. "I said go ahead, you're threatening this president with a subpoena. It's doubtful whether the [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel would have approved such a thing. ... But beside that, I said, well go ahead. I want to hear what you tell the court is your basis to do it when you don't have a crime, you've just told me [Trump] doesn't have any exposure, so what are you going to tell a U.S. district judge? Because we're going to move to quash this thing. And Jay Sekulow and his team were ready to do it ... We're ready to do it if you want to do it."
"Then he backed off, he said don't get upset," Dowd continued.
"I said, look, what basis do you have to do it? We're not afraid of a grand jury subpoena. You want to do it, you've got yourself a war and you're going to lose it. There's no way [Mueller] could win that. I think he concluded that, even with all the firepower he had on his side, I think they knew they couldn't do it. I think they thought they might scare us into it, but we were not going to go there."
The subpoena never came. This conclusion raises two further points. First, this is yet more evidence that Mueller never had anything to support and warrant investigating Trump for Russia collusion. His case was so weak that he wouldn’t risk a fight over a subpoena (and let’s not forget that Mueller declined to renew the FISA warrant after he learned about the IG having the Strzok/Page texts). So everyone banking on there being something in the Mueller report that is going to damn Trump on the Russia investigation is likely due for more heartbreak. Second, this raises the question of when did Mueller figure out that he had nothing to support the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. If he wasn’t willing to have the subpoena fight, he must have known very early in the process. I think the latest date would be by the end of July 2017 when the IG told him about the Strzok/Page texts and before he had Rosenstein issue the second scope memo in August 2017. What Mueller should have done was hold a press conference and exonerate Trump on that part of the investigation. Instead, Mueller needlessly dragged the country through another year and a half of Russia collusion hoax nonsense. Mueller is not a good guy here.
It must be nice knowing from that moment forward that Mueller had nothing to go on. The subpoena “fight” feels like ancient history already.
|
Well, we’re going to see the vast majority of the Mueller report sooner rather than later. Barr wrote a letter to Nadler and Graham staging that the report will be released in weeks (with redactions as appropriate) and that he is available to testify to the Senate judiciary committee on May 1 and the House judiciary committee on May 2. Apparently he is working with Mueller on the redactions. Source.
|
On March 30 2019 07:17 xDaunt wrote:Well, we’re going to see the vast majority of the Mueller report sooner rather than later. Barr wrote a letter to Nadler and Graham staging that the report will be released in weeks (with redactions as appropriate) and that he is available to testify to the Senate judiciary committee on May 1 and the House judiciary committee on May 2. Apparently he is working with Mueller on the redactions. Source.
Really wish they would have just said this sooner. Then again, they probably figured may as well see if they can avoid it.
|
I just want to watch Mueller answering questions about all this. That is must see TV right there 
|
On March 30 2019 08:15 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:I just want to watch Mueller answering questions about all this. That is must see TV right there I doubt it, everything should be in the report and if he doesn't give his opinion inside the report he will most likely not do it in front of a camera either.
|
Yeah, Mueller won’t deviate from his report at all and I’d bet he limits his testimony even further, he’s very much not a showman
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
