US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1369

On April 21 2019 03:30 Gorsameth wrote:
One big thing here. Mueller didn't redact anything. Barr did.
And I think I can safely say Congress would not accept a completely blacked out file, which is what you get if you redact the evidence that didn't find Trump exonerated.

Now, before I take questions, I want to address a few aspects of the process for producing the public report that I am releasing today. As I said several times, the report contains limited redactions relating to four categories of information. To ensure as much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories.

These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases. The redactions are their work product.

On April 21 2019 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
I just don't know how the idea Barr wasn't a person of ill repute took hold in the Democrats that confirmed him in the first place or why there's no accountability there?

On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath.

On April 21 2019 02:48 semantics wrote:
You can obstruct without underlying crime(Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby) obstruction is about intent. Attempted obstruction also isn't a thing, an attempt at obstruction is still just plain old obstruction. Now there is nuance here especially with a sitting president.

On April 21 2019 03:07 Danglars wrote:

Martha Stewart sold thousands of shares after receiving private information. She wasn't prosecuted for that crime, but don't even try to say there wasn't underlying crime.

Libby's your man on no underlying crime. He made false statements to a grand jury with corrupt intent and was indicted and convicted of obstruction of justice on those grounds.

On April 21 2019 00:58 IgnE wrote:
Quite the interesting wording there guys. Fair enough. Mueller did not exonerate him regarding obstruction of justice.

On April 20 2019 15:38 IgnE wrote:


Mueller had the authority to bring charges, and did bring charges against several people, but declined to bring any charges against Trump. The power to accuse, to chase, to prosecute, is in the name: special prosecutor. “Not making a judgment” in this case is the same thing as exoneration, in the sense of freeing from accusation by the special prosecutor under the Department of Justice. The investigation is over. Trump stands formally unaccused. “Leaving it to Congress” sets in motion a different system, a political one, kind of like how OJ was exonerated of criminal charges but then lost a civil suit.

As to the ensuing conversation that followed this post I’d point out, for the record, that I don’t usually willfully ignore people when they ask me questions. People actually don’t ask questions as often as they comment or accuse.

The most remarkable thing about special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report is how blithely the prosecutor reversed the burden of proof on the issue of obstruction.

To be sure, President Trump’s conduct outlined on this score isn’t flattering, to put it mildly. For example, the special counsel’s evidence includes indications that the president attempted to induce White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire the special counsel (in June 2017), and then (in January 2018) to deny that the president had made the request.

Mueller’s report further suggests that the president dangled pardons. He made ingratiating comments about Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen when they appeared to be fighting the cases against them (and presumably fighting the prosecutor’s efforts to get them to cooperate) but then turned on Flynn and Cohen when they decided to plead guilty and provide testimony for Mueller.

On the other hand, there is evidence that cuts sharply against obstruction. The president could have shut down the investigation at any time, but he didn’t. He could have asserted executive privilege to deny the special counsel access to key White House witnesses, such as McGahn. To the contrary, numerous witnesses were made available voluntarily (there was no need to try to subpoena them to the grand jury), and well over a million documents were disclosed, including voluminous notes of meetings between the president and his White House counsel.

Most important, the special counsel found that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and that the president’s frustration wasn’t over fear of guilt — the typical motivation for obstruction — but that the investigation was undermining his ability to govern the country. The existence of such a motive is a strong counter to evidence of a corrupt intent, critical because corrupt intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in an obstruction case.

In his report, Mueller didn’t resolve the issue. If he had been satisfied that there was no obstruction crime, he said, he would have so found. He claimed he wasn’t satisfied. Yet he was also not convinced that there was sufficient proof to charge. Therefore, he made no decision, leaving it to Attorney General William Barr to find that there was no obstruction.

This is unbecoming behavior for a prosecutor and an outrageous shifting of the burden of proof: The constitutional right of every American to force the government to prove a crime has been committed, rather than to have to prove his or her own innocence.

This is exactly why prosecutors should never speak publicly about the evidence uncovered in an investigation of someone who isn’t charged. The obligation of the prosecutor is to render a judgment about whether there is enough proof to charge a crime. If there is, the prosecutor indicts; if there is not, the prosecutor remains silent.

If special counsel Mueller believed there was an obstruction offense, he should have had the courage of his convictions and recommended charging the president. Since he wasn’t convinced there was enough evidence to charge, he should have said he wasn’t recommending charges. Period.