Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why not invoke executive privilege?? Trump tax return story

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

    I never said Mueller was a "Trump shill." I'm saying that he and his report are not independent of the executive branch. Don't jump to extremes. Instead, recall your middle school education about separation of powers.

    Via Barr, Trump has been able to say "complete exoneration" and "no obstruction," and people believe it. Do you believe that Mueller's report found no evidence of obstruction and/or that Mueller's report exonerated Trump on that front?

    ...How many pages of the report have you read?
    Well via Schiff-stain et al, democrats have been able to say "proof of collusion"....and people (TDS sufferers) still believe it.

    Mueller's report does exonerate Trump of "collusion" which was the whole premise to begin with. Absent the premise, the examples of possible obstruction noted were apparently weak enough that Mueller couldn't bring himself to submit sealed indictments to be opened after Trump is out of office.

    Moving right along....

    What democrats fail to realize is what they're setting themselves up for in the future when there's a dem president.

    If republicans take back the house and there's a president Biden, are you good with them poring over Biden's (and his son's) personal financials looking for "things" in the interest of "oversight"?

    TDS has long-term implications you know.



    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

      Yes. After he's done and reports, which is what happened.

      Mueller gives his report to the AG because that's who appointed him. After that, it's in the AG's hands to interpret, take action on, or disseminate as appropriate.

      Are you suggesting Mueller was influenced by Barr in his investigation?
      IOW, you're okay with presidents covering up the results of special investigations through complicit AGs and Congresses? Got it.
      Just win, baby.
      George Washington was the man who never told a lie. Richard Nixon was the man who never told the truth. Donald Trump is the man who doesn't know the difference.
      Venezuela is what happens when you have Trump without the Madison.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

        Well via Schiff-stain et al, democrats have been able to say "proof of collusion"....and people (TDS sufferers) still believe it.

        Mueller's report does exonerate Trump of "collusion" which was the whole premise to begin with. Absent the premise, the examples of possible obstruction noted were apparently weak enough that Mueller couldn't bring himself to submit sealed indictments to be opened after Trump is out of office.

        Moving right along....

        What democrats fail to realize is what they're setting themselves up for in the future when there's a dem president.

        If republicans take back the house and there's a president Biden, are you good with them poring over Biden's (and his son's) personal financials looking for "things" in the interest of "oversight"?

        TDS has long-term implications you know.


        Here are Mueller's orders:
        Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States Department of Justice. (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (c) (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
        Here is 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a):
        (a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
        Now, will you answer the question I posed?

        Do you believe that Mueller's report found no evidence of obstruction and/or that Mueller's report exonerated Trump on that front?
        Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-23-2019, 10:48 AM.
        For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
        https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


        My (old dead) band!:
        www.steelphantoms.com/
        PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

          And now we an independent attorney looking into how the Trump collusion fantasy began. Don't forget that.
          A man hand picked by an AG who is clearly key to Trump's cover-up. Yeah, that sounds like a really solid way to do it. The corruption grows deeper and deeper in the ever-expanding cesspool-that-used-to-be-a-swamp.

          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...ation-n1005266
          Two of President Donald Trump's personal attorneys welcomed a report Monday night that Attorney General William Barr had asked a U.S. attorney to look into the origins of the Russia investigation.

          ...Rudy Giuliani, one of the president's personal attorneys, told NBC News: "I believe Barr has selected an excellent person...


          If Rudy likes him then something's wrong.


          And may I remind everyone:
          The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have consistently defended the Russia investigation, which culminated in special counsel Robert Mueller's report in March. The report found "sweeping" and "systematic" Russian interference in the election and identified links between Trump campaign officials and figures associated with the Russian government.
          The report said it didn't conclude that Trump committed a crime, but it said it "also does not exonerate him."



          I don't yet think we've reached the bottom of this.
          George Washington was the man who never told a lie. Richard Nixon was the man who never told the truth. Donald Trump is the man who doesn't know the difference.
          Venezuela is what happens when you have Trump without the Madison.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

            Here are Mueller's orders:
            Here is 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a):
            Now, will you answer the question I posed?

            Do you believe that Mueller's report found no evidence of obstruction and/or that Mueller's report exonerated Trump on that front?
            I don't believe the report itself exonerates anything. (Yes I know I said it did on collusion). The interpretation of the report by the DOJ does exonerate Trump on both fronts and that's what the congressional pant-wetting tantrums are all about.

            On both subjects, Mueller cites instances that were investigated for collusion and obstruction. Mueller declares he can't find evidence of collusion and still provides the instances that were investigated in the report. Ditto with obstruction with the difference being he says he can't make a decision either way. If Mueller could positively declare there was obstruction, he would've submitted sealed indictments to be opened after Trump left office. He didn't do that.

            Now answer my question....

            Are you good with a republican congress exercising its constitutionally mandated "oversight" and investigating Biden and his family...just to see if they can find anything?



            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

              I don't believe the report itself exonerates anything. (Yes I know I said it did on collusion). The interpretation of the report by the DOJ does exonerate Trump on both fronts and that's what the congressional pant-wetting tantrums are all about.

              On both subjects, Mueller cites instances that were investigated for collusion and obstruction. Mueller declares he can't find evidence of collusion and still provides the instances that were investigated in the report. Ditto with obstruction with the difference being he says he can't make a decision either way. If Mueller could positively declare there was obstruction, he would've submitted sealed indictments to be opened after Trump left office. He didn't do that.
              It appears obvious that you haven’t read the report, but I could be wrong. How much of it have you read? Did you read the first few pages and final conclusion of Volume II? Would you like me to quote them for you?

              Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post
              Now answer my question....

              Are you good with a republican congress exercising its constitutionally mandated "oversight" and investigating Biden and his family...just to see if they can find anything?


              If they have clues to suspicious activity, then I am fine with them investigating Biden and family. I might poke fun at it, but I won’t call it criminal or unconstitutional. I certainly would not support Biden obstructing it. Similarly, because I thought Clinton’s private server DID arouse suspicions, I supported investigation (and I thought DNC leadership was unbelievably stupid to push for her nomination for president).

              This is good! We’re answering each other’s questions! I question your statement in bold above. Please answer whether you’ve read the sport and understand what it says about accusing or indicting the president.

              Also, do you recognize that Congress is not under the overview of the AG and that therefore they are a separated power from the executive branch?
              Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-23-2019, 11:16 AM.
              For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
              https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


              My (old dead) band!:
              www.steelphantoms.com/
              PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                [/B]It appears obvious that you haven’t read the report, but I could be wrong. How much of it have you read? Did you read the first few pages and final conclusion of Volume II? Would you like me to quote them for you?
                I have the report saved as pdf and read it as needed depending on the topic I'm discussing.

                I know it's like pron to some folks..with the pages stuck together and all that.

                Here's what I know it doesn't say...it doesn't say that if it weren't for that pesky rule about indicting sitting presidents, we would've indicted. It doesn't say that anywhere although I understand how some people's brain make that translation in what they read.

                Please feel free to quote any portion that says there would absolutely be an indictment.

                Again...Mueller could've rendered a sealed indictment to be opened after Trump left office. He chose not to.


                Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                If they have clues to suspicious activity, then I am fine with them investigating Biden and family. I might poke fun at it, but I won’t call it criminal or unconstitutional. I certainly would not support Biden obstructing it. Similarly, because I thought Clinton’s private server DID arouse suspicions, I supported investigation (and I thought DNC leadership was unbelievably stupid to push for her nomination for president).

                This is good! We’re answering each other’s questions! I question your statement in bold above. Please answer whether you’ve read the sport and understand what it says about accusing or indicting the president.
                We shall see.

                Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                , do you recognize that Congress is not under the overview of the AG and that therefore they are a separated power from the executive branch?
                Sure and do you recognize congress is not a superior to the executive branch?
                Last edited by nedezero1; 05-23-2019, 11:36 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post


                  And why do you think the Trump team is using their current line of defense rather than invoking executive privilege?
                  Because Trump is perpetually in "campaign mode" and even he knows he's going to need more than the 30 something percent that the maga crowd represent. So if he invokes executive privilege it will appear he's trying to cover something up. At least to anyone besides the maga brigade.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                    I have the report saved as pdf and read it as needed depending on the topic I'm discussing.

                    I know it's like pron to some folks..with the pages stuck together and all that.

                    Here's what I know it doesn't say...it doesn't say that if it weren't for that pesky rule about indicting sitting presidents, we would've indicted. It doesn't say that anywhere although I understand how some people's brain make that translation in what they read.
                    No it doesn't. Because what it DOES say is that Mueller doesn't believe it would be fair to state him guilty of crimes in a venue for which he has no ability to defend himself. And that even a sealed indictment would be 'unfair'.

                    From the text:

                    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.




                    If he didn't think the evidence presented was clear evidence that he was guilty of criminal wrongdoing, then there would have been no reason for him to go to all the time and trouble to explain why he wasn't specifically stating such.

                    Like he didn't do in Volume I.
                    Last edited by Vito Corleone; 05-23-2019, 11:52 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by guido61 View Post

                      No it doesn't. Because what it DOES say is that Mueller doesn't believe it would be fair to state him guilty of crimes in a venue for which he has no ability to defend himself. And that even a sealed indictment would be 'unfair'.

                      From the text:

                      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.




                      If he didn't think the evidence presented was clear evidence that he was guilty of criminal wrongdoing, then there would have been no reason for him to go to all the time and trouble to explain why he wasn't specifically stating such.

                      Like he didn't do in Volume I.
                      And....the DOJ took the report. Looked at the evidence, looked at other elements of the situation (like no corrupt intent, no underlying crime, 2 years of cooperation with no executive privilege asserted, etc.) and determined no prosecutable obstruction existed.

                      The DOJs final assessment supercedes Mueller's report ...you know that right?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                        And....the DOJ took the report. Looked at the evidence, looked at other elements of the situation (like no corrupt intent, no underlying crime, 2 years of cooperation with no executive privilege asserted, etc.) and determined no prosecutable obstruction existed.

                        The DOJs final assessment supercedes Mueller's report ...you know that right?
                        And since the DOJ is not independent of the executive branch, while the legislative IS independent (as you agree), a congressional investigation would have different powers and different limitations. Therefore, a Congressional investigation is not a re-do of the special counsel investigation. QED
                        Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-23-2019, 02:15 PM.
                        For those who prefer to listen rather than read and who ask these questions: What underlying crimes were being investigated when Trump obstructed justice? Why wasn't he indicted? Why did Mueller discuss indicting a sitting president in Volume II but not Volume I?
                        https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Muell...ook/B07PXN468K


                        My (old dead) band!:
                        www.steelphantoms.com/
                        PM me if you want to give me a Deluxe US Strat with locking tuners and 22 frets for <$800. Fancy Strymon pedals welcome too!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                          And....the DOJ took the report. Looked at the evidence, looked at other elements of the situation (like no corrupt intent, no underlying crime, 2 years of cooperation with no executive privilege asserted, etc.) and determined no prosecutable obstruction existed.

                          The DOJs final assessment supercedes Mueller's report ...you know that right?
                          Yes. But for anyone to try and argue that Mueller didn't see any prosecutable obstruction because he didn't recommend prosecution or issue a sealed indictment is to either be lying or not understand what he actually said in the report. So can we at least agree that your statements in this regard were incorrect and that you now understand what is in the report?

                          But regarding Barr: Yes. Everyone knows Barr made the decision to not move forward. And that he is in the position of power to make that decision. That isn't the point of debate.

                          What IS up for discussion is both A) WHY he did that and B) what to do next.

                          A) The wording of the Mueller Report and the evidence laid out is pretty clear. SO clear that it makes Barr's motivations suspect. Many people believe he was being more political and working as an agent of the President rather than as an independent prosecutor. I'm going to guess you will argue otherwise, but surely you can step back and be objective enough to at least see WHY people would think so? Even if they are being partisan about it (and certainly that's at least part of their motivation) it's not like it's completely outrageous and from left field. It borders on stunning that ANY prosecutor would look at the evidence in the report and say, essentially, "nope...nothing to see here!".

                          B) Regardless of Barr's actions, the congress STILL has the right and ability to do what they want with the evidence presented in the report. Arguing they should do nothing because Barr didn't want to do anything is pretty silly. Especially in light of how much evidence is present in the report and the fact that Mueller not only didn't exonerate him, but laid it all out as clearly and plainly as anyone possibly could without actually issuing recommendations to indict or impeach.

                          I suppose he could have written "YOU MUST IMPEACH" in invisible ink on the final page?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by guido61 View Post

                            I suppose he could have written "YOU MUST IMPEACH" in invisible ink on the final page?
                            Pelosi doesn't want to impeach. I tend to think she's right. I am not a Trump supporter but I do not support impeachment. I think Mueller was brilliant. This is way too big a deal to be decided by one person or a political party. Trump's fate should be decided by the voters (assuming he runs again).

                            Having said that, I think Trump should be fair game for investigation. And I would feel the same way about a Dem president in a similar situation. And yes, I include Joe Biden's son in that as well.

                            How many investigations into HRC and now the Pubs don't want thier guy to be looked at? Nope.

                            Zip
                            665 - Neighbor of the Beast

                            Originally Posted by RobRoy: I believe that the only way Obama will remain in power is if he suspends elections. And at that point he is no longer president. He is dictator. But I don't believe he will even survive that long. It could be suicide, impeachment by BOTH parties, you name it.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Zipperhead View Post

                              Pelosi doesn't want to impeach. I tend to think she's right. I am not a Trump supporter but I do not support impeachment. I think Mueller was brilliant. This is way too big a deal to be decided by one person or a political party. Trump's fate should be decided by the voters (assuming he runs again).

                              Having said that, I think Trump should be fair game for investigation. And I would feel the same way about a Dem president in a similar situation. And yes, I include Joe Biden's son in that as well.

                              How many investigations into HRC and now the Pubs don't want thier guy to be looked at? Nope.

                              Zip
                              I don't think they should impeach either. Trump wants them to because he knows he won't be removed from office and he wants to be able to play victim and then declare victory.

                              Pelosi is playing it right. They can do all the investigations without calling it "impeachment". And Trump's trying to play hardball by not cooperating at all and essentially shutting down the government. He's daring her to impeach him. We will see how far the courts let him get away with not cooperating and what the public thinks of him refusing to govern. Especially with things like sequestration and debt ceiling limits coming up.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Zipperhead View Post

                                Pelosi doesn't want to impeach. I tend to think she's right. I am not a Trump supporter but I do not support impeachment. I think Mueller was brilliant. This is way too big a deal to be decided by one person or a political party. Trump's fate should be decided by the voters (assuming he runs again).

                                Having said that, I think Trump should be fair game for investigation. And I would feel the same way about a Dem president in a similar situation. And yes, I include Joe Biden's son in that as well.

                                How many investigations into HRC and now the Pubs don't want thier guy to be looked at? Nope.

                                Zip
                                Mueller played it by the book. And people should not get their hopes up too much for having him testify. I think he should and I think it will be good to get him on record stating many of the condemning things that are in the report, but he's not going to stand up and say "if not for the OLC rules, I would have indicted", he's not going to throw Barr under the bus and he's mostly going to say "I refer you to the report" over and over. Those thinking any of those thing will happen are going to be sorely disappointed.

                                But still, there are many things in the report that we need to hear him say in his own words and voice and have it on record.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X