Mueller Report: Trump is 100% Guilty but President is above the law

[sayak83]

Apparently, that's what Mueller report seems to suggest. So unless he is impeached or loses the presidency, he can't be indicted.

Here is an erudite discussion on this horror of a US president from Brookings Institute legal panel,

Enjoy with tea/coffee or beer.

 

[Enoch07]

Apparently, that's what Mueller report seems to suggest. So unless he is impeached or loses the presidency, he can't be indicted.

Here is an erudite discussion on this horror of a US president from Brookings Institute legal panel,

Enjoy with tea/coffee or beer.

Guilty of what?

 

[Stanyon]

Ha ha, White privilege kicks soooo much a**

 

[sayak83]

Guilty of what?

collusion and obstruction.

 

[Enoch07]

collusion and obstruction.

Mueller report clears him of collusion. Its plainly worded. Without collusion there is no obstruction. What is in the Muller report is the Obama administration having knowledge of Russian interference in 2014, lied about it, and did nothing about it.

 

[fantome profane]

Without collusion there is no obstruction.

That is just not true.

 

[Enoch07]

That is just not true.

Yes it is. It's a done deal.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes it is. It's a done deal.

Have you read the Mueller report?

I am guessing based on this comment that you have not.

 

[Polymath257]

Apparently, that's what Mueller report seems to suggest. So unless he is impeached or loses the presidency, he can't be indicted.

More specifically, it is the role of the House of representatives to indict and the role of the Senate to hold a trial and convict.

If there isn't the will on the part of Congress to act, the the president remains in office.

Enjoy with tea/coffee or beer.

My whiskey consumption has gone up dramatically since 2016.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mueller report clears him of collusion. Its plainly worded. Without collusion there is no obstruction. What is in the Muller report is the Obama administration having knowledge of Russian interference in 2014, lied about it, and did nothing about it.

Obstruction is the consolation prize for prosecutors who can't charge'm for the crime investigated.
They convicted Martha Stewart of obstruction when they couldn't on insider trading.

 

[Stevicus]

Apparently, that's what Mueller report seems to suggest. So unless he is impeached or loses the presidency, he can't be indicted.

Here is an erudite discussion on this horror of a US president from Brookings Institute legal panel,

Enjoy with tea/coffee or beer.

That's a long video. Is there a summary of the highlights and main points?

 

[metis]

Mueller's conclusion was that on the issue of collaboration that the limited evidence he had on that did not rise to the criminal level, which is not the same as saying there "there was no collusion". And Trump and some of his staff were clearly working on obstruction of justice, but Mueller left it up to Congress to decide what to do as he doesn't believe that a sitting president can be indicted.

 

[Ponder This]

Apparently, that's what Mueller report seems to suggest. So unless he is impeached or loses the presidency, he can't be indicted.

Here is an erudite discussion on this horror of a US president from Brookings Institute legal panel,

Enjoy with tea/coffee or beer.

Nice! I am entertained. I think that since they feel so strongly about this that they should continue to press their perceived interpretation of the Mueller Report. Seriously though. They seem qualified and I give them credit for acknowledging that they are payed for by The Democracy Fund, which is important for evaluating their political bias (credibility).

They failed on a few key points such as failing the "shoe is on the other foot" test, but they did acknowledge that there was no proof of intent to obstruct or to conspire despite their wiggling and waggling about it. They phrased it as a "problem" that there was no proof of intent and that this was one thing that made it difficult to prosecute an (obviously?) guilty President. They criticized Mueller for not interviewing the President directly so that proof of intent could be established.

Another major failing of the presentation was the large amount of speculation about what Mueller was thinking or how Mueller felt. ...probably thought, maybe felt... it's really disappointing to see that because those are clear places where they can insert their bias about the investigation (and a lot of people won't notice). It's classic projection and they really should've stayed far, far away from doing that if they wanted to maintain the impression of being impartial as opposed to wittingly or unwittingly advancing a political agenda.

Finally, they really needed to have better counterpoint discussion. Benjamin Wittes did make the (token?) effort, but it was clear that they didn't have anybody sitting up there to really argue counterpoints when Margaret Taylor was caught off-guard when asked to provide a counterpoint. In response she asked, "Do you really want me to?" And that suggests the disturbing motivation: that they weren't interested in presenting a fair view of the Mueller Report.

 

[sayak83]

Mueller report clears him of collusion. Its plainly worded. Without collusion there is no obstruction. What is in the Muller report is the Obama administration having knowledge of Russian interference in 2014, lied about it, and did nothing about it.

No, it clears him of conspiracy but clearly outlines that collusion did happen repeatedly.

If you are being investigated, hampering the investigation is obstruction and a crime whether or not the original charges are established or not.

 

[sayak83]

That's a long video. Is there a summary of the highlights and main points?

I am not very good at parsing videos. Link will be up. Watch when u wish.

 

[sayak83]

Ha ha, White privilege kicks soooo much a**

I don't understand this comment.

 

[sayak83]

Nice! I am entertained. I think that since they feel so strongly about this that they should continue to press their perceived interpretation of the Mueller Report. Seriously though. They seem qualified and I give them credit for acknowledging that they are payed for by The Democracy Fund, which is important for evaluating their political bias (credibility).

They failed on a few key points such as failing the "shoe is on the other foot" test, but they did acknowledge that there was no proof of intent to obstruct or to conspire despite their wiggling and waggling about it. They phrased it as a "problem" that there was no proof of intent and that this was one thing that made it difficult to prosecute an (obviously?) guilty President. They criticized Mueller for not interviewing the President directly so that proof of intent could be established.

Another major failing of the presentation was the large amount of speculation about what Mueller was thinking or how Mueller felt. ...probably thought, maybe felt... it's really disappointing to see that because those are clear places where they can insert their bias about the investigation (and a lot of people won't notice). It's classic projection and they really should've stayed far, far away from doing that if they wanted to maintain the impression of being impartial as opposed to wittingly or unwittingly advancing a political agenda.

Finally, they really needed to have better counterpoint discussion. Benjamin Wittes did make the (token?) effort, but it was clear that they didn't have anybody sitting up there to really argue counterpoints when Margaret Taylor was caught off-guard when asked to provide a counterpoint. In response she asked, "Do you really want me to?" And that suggests the disturbing motivation: that they weren't interested in presenting a fair view of the Mueller Report.

You are welcome to your take.

 

[Enoch07]

Have you read the Mueller report?

Yes

No, it clears him of conspiracy but clearly outlines that collusion did happen repeatedly.

No, only if you fill in the redacted sections with your own biased opinion like the panel did in your video. Its outrageous what they are doing, and possibly criminal.

If you are being investigated, hampering the investigation is obstruction and a crime whether or not the original charges are established or not.

Where is the evidence of hampering?

 

[fantome profane]

Without collusion there is no obstruction.

When you were reading the Mueller report you must have come across this passage:

“obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime”). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

Seems to directly contradict your thesis, doesn’t it?

This is not a done deal.

 

[Enoch07]

When you were reading the Mueller report you must have come across this passage:



Seems to directly contradict your thesis, doesn’t it?

This is not a done deal.

Yeah it is. Because it's easy to build a strawman when you take info out of context. Here is what you and the panel in the above video left out.

And I quote:

"In this investigation the evidence does not establish that the President was involved to an underlying (as in the problem was already there before) crime related to Russian election interference."

But it does point to other possible motives* this is not proof or evidence this is conjecture.

It's a rap.

If I was Trump I would start my defamation lawsuit against Lawfare and its parent company The Washington Post a.s.a.p.