[News] Trump, Russia, and the 2016 Election

All news related to Donald Trump's alleged ties to Russia and to the Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. New details should be cited to reputable sources.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/OeCBn1m.png)

Mueller:

If we had confidence the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

Citing Department of Justice policy:

A President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.
Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

I’m watching Fox News right now, and after Newt’s rosy spin, all three legal guys said this was an absolute call for impeachment, and took Mueller’s statement as clear evidence of Trump’s guilt.

They are now bringing up the clear lie Barr made about Mueller’s reason for not charging. Earlier, one of the legal experts said Mueller’s “good faith” was an admonishment of Barr, as, why would he need to assume good faith if he questioned his actions.

This isn’t an argument that these reads are correct. I’m just pointing out that Fox News is taking this more serious.

I’m serious. This is surreal. They are pushing back hard on Giuliani right now. The Fox News guys are making him look like an idiot.

Doesn't take much. Rudy is a joke. I wouldn't even hire him for a speeding ticket defense.

Nadler: "Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump — and we will do so. No one, not even the President of the U.S., is above the law."

And of course Trump tweets this...

“There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed!”

No you idiot. That isn’t how it works

Jayhawker wrote:

I’m watching Fox News right now, and after Newt’s rosy spin, all three legal guys said this was an absolute call for impeachment, and took Mueller’s statement as clear evidence of Trump’s guilt.

They are now bringing up the clear lie Barr made about Mueller’s reason for not charging. Earlier, one of the legal experts said Mueller’s “good faith” was an admonishment of Barr, as, why would he need to assume good faith if he questioned his actions.

This isn’t an argument that these reads are correct. I’m just pointing out that Fox News is taking this more serious.

What's the over/under on how long it takes for Fox News to start talking up Pence as the next president?

JC wrote:

And of course Trump tweets this...

“There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed!”

No you idiot. That isn’t how it works

It’s the stupidest / most effective coverup in history.

DSGamer wrote:
JC wrote:

And of course Trump tweets this...

“There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed!”

No you idiot. That isn’t how it works

It’s the stupidest / most effective coverup in history.

It’s definitey a feature and not a bug.

If we are literally too stupid in our defense; if our arguments already come to you with large holes in them, you’ll just fly right through them with wide eyes, totally ignoring the substance that is even there.

Rat Boy wrote:

What's the over/under on how long it takes for Fox News to start talking up Pence as the next president?

It's the moderately credible news department at Fox that's talking impeachment. They exist to give Fox plausible deniability when the channel's heavy hitters--Tucker Carlson, Hannity, and Laura Ingraham--hit the stage tonight and start screaming that Mueller committed treason.

Fox has made it's bed with Trump and will only stop when it's no longer profitable for them to scare old white men so that companies can sell them cars and boner pills.

Mueller brought a book to a Twitter fight. - Ari Melber

Mueller’s office just release this, after his statement.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7wJ8fbXoAA6IrM?format=jpg&name=medium)

Perhaps there are legal or procedural or jurisdictional reasons, but I feel like most of what Mueller has put out (like the above statement) could not intentionally be more obtuse.

Boudreaux wrote:

Perhaps there are legal or procedural or jurisdictional reasons, but I feel like most of what Mueller has put out (like the above statement) could not intentionally be more obtuse.

I think part of it is he saw what Comey did with Clinton's emails and doesn't want to repeat that. On the one hand it would be incredibly satisfying to have him come out and say exactly what he means, on the other it's refreshing to have someone like him NOT want to overstep his bounds and respect the separation of powers between branches of the government.

It seems obvious to me (maybe I'm missing something) but the whole thing is basically..here is what we found we laid out our conclusions and its 100% up to Congress to pursue wtf they want. So realistically that means zero since Congress aint going to do sh*t other than continue to Trump up the country.

Mueller needs to testify before the House Oversight committee and be asked variants of "If Donald Trump was not President, given the information you had, would you have indicted him?" until he gives a solid yes or no.

Also, "How do you recommend we change the campaign finance laws so 'Don Jr. was too ignorant of the law to indict' doesn't happen again?"

TheGameguru wrote:

It seems obvious to me (maybe I'm missing something) but the whole thing is basically..here is what we found we laid out our conclusions and its 100% up to Congress to pursue wtf they want. So realistically that means zero since Congress aint going to do sh*t other than continue to Trump up the country.

One part of Congress will shuffle their feet and make chuffing noises about “self-impeachment” and the other will continue to wipe their asses with the Constitution.

Boudreaux wrote:

Perhaps there are legal or procedural or jurisdictional reasons, but I feel like most of what Mueller has put out (like the above statement) could not intentionally be more obtuse.

It has to do with Mueller wanting to make information available without anything that looks like he has made a judgement as to Trump’s guilt.

Today was to poke a hole in Barr’s spin of the report, to get the focus back in what he wrote instead of Barr’s interpretation. And from the initial reaction from Fox News, it is working. It’s the first time they questioned Barr’s role.

But Mueller was never going to go full Starr Report in this.

I’ll be surprised if an impeachment inquiry is not opened by the end of the week.

Whatever happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Jayhawker wrote:

I’ll be surprised if an impeachment inquiry is not opened by the end of the week.

Just make sure your 'shocked face' is ready to go when needed.

fangblackbone wrote:

Whatever happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse?

What happened to it is that it's a legally valid defense for the crimes that Don Jr was implicated in.

Boudreaux wrote:

Perhaps there are legal or procedural or jurisdictional reasons, but I feel like most of what Mueller has put out (like the above statement) could not intentionally be more obtuse.

What, not a lawyer?

Jayhawker wrote:
Boudreaux wrote:

Perhaps there are legal or procedural or jurisdictional reasons, but I feel like most of what Mueller has put out (like the above statement) could not intentionally be more obtuse.

It has to do with Mueller wanting to make information available without anything that looks like he has made a judgement as to Trump’s guilt.

Today was to poke a hole in Barr’s spin of the report, to get the focus back in what he wrote instead of Barr’s interpretation. And from the initial reaction from Fox News, it is working. It’s the first time they questioned Barr’s role.

But Mueller was never going to go full Starr Report in this.

I’ll be surprised if an impeachment inquiry is not opened by the end of the week.

I can get behind what I didn't strike, but don't agree with what I did strike.

I see Mueller saying "we have nothing to add, stop trying to make us the savior of your desire to immediately impeach/prosecute Trump because we didn't fine enough to conclusively do so. If Congress, etc., thinks they have enough to impeach, discuss it with them, not me. I'm not your smoking gun. The report is the best I've got."

If that were the case he would not have mentioned the clear contradiction with Barr, as well as release an additional statement that made that distinction even more clear.

He said the fate of the President does not reside in the DOJ, but rather the congress.

As for the crime of conspiracy, he did not find enough evidence to find a crime. Some evidence was found, but it didn’t meet the threshold.

But, in the case of obstruction, he doesn’t say they lacked evidence. Instead, he lays out evidence he found of 10 obstructive acts, and makes clear that, like conspiracy, they would say that there lacked enough evidence to charge obstruction, if that was the case.

All of this flies in the face of what Barr said. His statement Was a targeted takedown of Barr. That’s why the right wing is freaking out and hating Mueller, not claiming he wrote a fair report.

All of this works to move the public towards impeachment.

Jayhawker wrote:

If that were the case he would not have mentioned the clear contradiction with Barr, as well as release an additional statement that made that distinction even more clear.

He said the fate of the President does not reside in the DOJ, but rather the congress.

As for the crime of conspiracy, he did not find enough evidence to find a crime. Some evidence was found, but it didn’t meet the threshold.

But, in the case of obstruction, he doesn’t say they lacked evidence. Instead, he lays out evidence he found of 10 obstructive acts, and makes clear that, like conspiracy, they would say that there lacked enough evidence to charge obstruction, if that was the case.

All of this flies in the face of what Barr said. His statement Was a targeted takedown of Barr. That’s why the right wing is freaking out and hating Mueller, not claiming he wrote a fair report.

All of this works to move the public towards impeachment.

Especially since none of the Trumps really testified. The evidence ultimately is there.

garion333 wrote:

What, not a lawyer? ;)

Obviously not. Maybe the language he has used in the report and various public statements, to a lawyer, is like gigantic florescent skywriting that could not be more clear. I get the gist of how it's being interpreted, but it seems to be lending itself to a lot of different interpretations, when a more straightforward statement of conclusion would not.

fangblackbone wrote:

Whatever happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse?

What? Nobody told me about this "ignorance of the law" rule, so it shouldn't apply to me.

fangblackbone wrote:

Whatever happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse?

IANAL, but I listen to a lot of law-related podcasts. Some crimes specifcally require intent to break the law for it to be a crime, some don't. You can't have intent to break the law if you're too dumb to know you are breaking a law. Unfortunately for America, this is one of those times. I think Congress should change that specifically for campaign finance, because we really need to deter people from being used by foreign powers.

Mixolyde wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

Whatever happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse?

IANAL, but I listen to a lot of law-related podcasts. Some crimes specifcally require intent to break the law for it to be a crime, some don't. You can't have intent to break the law if you're too dumb to know you are breaking a law. Unfortunately for America, this is one of those times. I think Congress should change that specifically for campaign finance, because we really need to deter people from being used by foreign powers.

IANAL eaither, but most of the times the people caught up in those acts are tried for mental incompetency and sent to an institution. If they’re mentally sound, normally their tried for breaking the law.

WaPo: If Americans won’t read Mueller’s report, spoon-feed it to them

The assumption that Mueller will not testify is misplaced. He did not say that he would refuse to abide by a congressional subpoena, though he may stick to the script (i.e., the report) as he did on Wednesday. Given the necessity for verbally communicating the results to the public, this wouldn’t be a waste of time.

Tribe argued that “even if Mueller says no more to the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees under oath than he said on TV today, the impact would be huge. More than 50 million pairs of eyes and ears will tune in.” Tribe adds, “He needs to testify despite his reluctance. As a private citizen, he has no legal basis to decline. Whether it’s worthwhile to press the point despite the delay that could entail is another matter.”

Moreover, Mueller’s stick-to-the-script testimony will limit Republicans’ ability to disrupt and badger the witness. He can remain above the fray.

As we have suggested, with or without Mueller, the House Judiciary Committee must educate the public through hearings that, in essence, put on TV what Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) got down in a series of 280-character tweets. Here’s a suggested schedule (if Mueller testifies, he could be asked about each of the items below, with other witnesses and full evidence presented subsequently):

Day 1: Russia interfered to help Trump. Trump and lots of his allies sought such help. This was a betrayal of our democracy.
Day 2: How Trump, by inviting such help and then denying the inescapable conclusion that Russia helped him, undermined national security.
Day 3: What is obstruction, why is it a big deal and what do you have to prove?
Days 4-13: Each day is devoted to a different category of obstruction.
Day 15: What is the Office of Legal Counsel memo and why did Mueller not indict?
Day 16: What kinds of cases with far less evidence than this one have been prosecuted for obstruction.
Day 17: Impeachment doesn’t require evidence (let alone conviction) of a crime. However, in this case, there are impeachable actions that are not crimes (e.g., inviting Russian interference) and actions that are crimes (See Days 4-13).
Day 18: A highlight reel of the Bill Clinton impeachment, during which Republicans made impassioned speeches about the necessity of removing a president who has obstructed justice.