US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1508

On May 30 2019 08:10 Stratos_speAr wrote:


We already know that you think that. However, you stated that Mueller's reasoning for not coming to a charging decision (that it would be unfair) was disingenuous because the report that he presented is unfair.

I called you out on that bullshit because his report is pretty much "here's the evidence. I refuse to say anything at all about what it means. Have at it."

That's about as far away from "tarring with innuendos" as you can get. You're spinning it to try to make Mueller look partisan and it makes you look like you're throwing a temper tantrum over reality not supporting your conclusions.

On May 30 2019 05:59 ShoCkeyy wrote:


Can you break down this structure of not making charge? Mueller said during the press conference the department has a policy where they cannot investigate or indict a sitting president. He said there is a process for that in congress (impeachment). If he felt confident the president didn’t commit a crime he would say so.

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.

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.

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.

On May 30 2019 08:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Unless I'm reading the wrong U.S. vs. Briggs

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-briggs-5 (this is the one that came up after searching Mueller's footnote 5 in Volume II)

Then arguing that this case applies to Mueller's situation is incredibly weak, at best.

On May 30 2019 07:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:


I'm not agreeing with Mohdoo's argument but your argument is incredibly weak. You're basically implying that if Mueller wanted to stick to "fairness" he shouldn't have investigated at all. That argument is bullshit on it's face. Mueller presented the evidence. That's it. His conclusion is the definition of "here's the evidence. No conclusions are made". You're just throwing a temper tantrum because the evidence makes your guy look bad.

On May 30 2019 07:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:


I'm not agreeing with Mohdoo's argument but your argument is incredibly weak. You're basically implying that if Mueller wanted to stick to "fairness" he shouldn't have investigated at all. That argument is bullshit on it's face. Mueller presented the evidence. That's it. His conclusion is the definition of "here's the evidence. No conclusions are made". You're just throwing a temper tantrum because the evidence makes your guy look bad.