Yes, collusion. Yes, obstruction. Mueller's investigation shows Trump did both

[reagansghost]

In his “summary” of the special counsel report, Attorney General William Barr proclaimed that Robert Mueller’s team had cleared Trump of “collusion” and had left it to Barr to determine whether or not Trump had committed obstruction. So Barr quickly made that decision, giving Trump a pass.

But that’s not what the report said. When the public finally got a chance to see most of the actual report, it was clear that Barr’s letter was a huge distortion of the actual findings. Robert Mueller detailed at least 11 occasions where Trump attempted to withhold evidence, pressured witnesses to lie, or simply tried to end the investigation. And when it came to “collusion,” Muller made it clear that there was no such thing, not under the law. Instead, he was trying to meet the very high bar for federal charges of conspiracy—a bar placed even higher because the efforts at obstruction, the use of encryption, witnesses who refused to testify, and the destruction of evidence made it impossible to learn the truth.

But putting the Muller report in context shows two simple conclusions: The Trump campaign did conspire with the Russian government, and Donald Trump did obstruct justice.

As law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman explains in the New York Times, the Mueller report actually does establish that “members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Shugerman notes, “By the preponderance of evidence standard, the report contains ample evidence to establish conspiracy and coordination with the Russian government, sometimes through intermediaries, other times through a Russian spy.”

The evidence contained in the report may not rise to the level that federal prosecutors felt was necessary to support charges against members of the Trump campaign in court. But it’s certainly strong enough to support articles of impeachment. And the case for obstruction is even stronger.

According to Murray Waas at the New York Review of Books, two former prosecutors working for Mueller said directly what was implicit in the report: If it were not for Department of Justice regulations that protect a sitting executive, Donald Trump would currently be under indictment. This information didn’t come from a leak, or from the attorneys speaking as anonymous sources; it came from the attorneys speaking to other law enforcement officials in conversations that happened months before the report came out, but which were confidential at the time,

During the investigation, the Mueller team remained “hermetically sealed,” producing almost nothing that even looked like a leak. There are still at least a dozen cases that were spun off by the special counsel investigation about which the public can only guess as to potential charges and defendants. But in the course of laying out those cases, the Mueller team did have to talk to investigators and prosecutors working for other jurisdictions. And in those conversations, the prosecutors on Mueller’s team made it clear that they did have more than enough evidence to indict Donald Trump for obstruction.

As Shugerman points out, Ken Starr had no problem in leveling an obstruction charge against Bill Clinton, even though Clinton’s actions were not a threat to the integrity of his investigation. One of the reasons for this was that Starr considered himself genuinely independent, while Mueller felt himself to be a part of the DOJ and bound by its guidelines. But the bigger reason is that the Starr report “framed itself as an impeachment referral, not a prosecution decision, and thus avoided having to reach the more daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

On every count that Starr forwarded, he didn’t seek to have information that was at the level needed to prosecute, but stopped at a lower standard of “substantial and credible information.” Starr didn’t have to worry about indicting Clinton—because he wasn’t aiming at indictment.

And honestly, the same can be said of the Mueller report. While Barr announced the results of the investigation as if they were the results of a criminal proceeding, the report’s frequent references to the powers of Congress make it clear that the report was never meant to be seen as the kind of black-and-white prosecutorial decision that Barr insists that it is. Barr didn’t just twist the results of the investigation; he twisted its purpose.

Mr. Barr had the analysis backward in his summary letter. The failure to prove an underlying crime does not mean there was no obstruction. The obstruction meant that it became impossible to know whether there was a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt — and it impeded the Russian investigation.

There is ample evidence on both issues that meets the standard of “substantial and credible information.” And as the DOJ’s own rules make clear, that’s the only standard that counts.

~ Mark Sumner

[cancel2 2022]

In his “summary” of the special counsel report, Attorney General William Barr proclaimed that Robert Mueller’s team had cleared Trump of “collusion” and had left it to Barr to determine whether or not Trump had committed obstruction. So Barr quickly made that decision, giving Trump a pass.

But that’s not what the report said. When the public finally got a chance to see most of the actual report, it was clear that Barr’s letter was a huge distortion of the actual findings. Robert Mueller detailed at least 11 occasions where Trump attempted to withhold evidence, pressured witnesses to lie, or simply tried to end the investigation. And when it came to “collusion,” Muller made it clear that there was no such thing, not under the law. Instead, he was trying to meet the very high bar for federal charges of conspiracy—a bar placed even higher because the efforts at obstruction, the use of encryption, witnesses who refused to testify, and the destruction of evidence made it impossible to learn the truth.

But putting the Muller report in context shows two simple conclusions: The Trump campaign did conspire with the Russian government, and Donald Trump did obstruct justice.

As law professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman explains in the New York Times, the Mueller report actually does establish that “members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Shugerman notes, “By the preponderance of evidence standard, the report contains ample evidence to establish conspiracy and coordination with the Russian government, sometimes through intermediaries, other times through a Russian spy.”

The evidence contained in the report may not rise to the level that federal prosecutors felt was necessary to support charges against members of the Trump campaign in court. But it’s certainly strong enough to support articles of impeachment. And the case for obstruction is even stronger.

According to Murray Waas at the New York Review of Books, two former prosecutors working for Mueller said directly what was implicit in the report: If it were not for Department of Justice regulations that protect a sitting executive, Donald Trump would currently be under indictment. This information didn’t come from a leak, or from the attorneys speaking as anonymous sources; it came from the attorneys speaking to other law enforcement officials in conversations that happened months before the report came out, but which were confidential at the time,

During the investigation, the Mueller team remained “hermetically sealed,” producing almost nothing that even looked like a leak. There are still at least a dozen cases that were spun off by the special counsel investigation about which the public can only guess as to potential charges and defendants. But in the course of laying out those cases, the Mueller team did have to talk to investigators and prosecutors working for other jurisdictions. And in those conversations, the prosecutors on Mueller’s team made it clear that they did have more than enough evidence to indict Donald Trump for obstruction.

As Shugerman points out, Ken Starr had no problem in leveling an obstruction charge against Bill Clinton, even though Clinton’s actions were not a threat to the integrity of his investigation. One of the reasons for this was that Starr considered himself genuinely independent, while Mueller felt himself to be a part of the DOJ and bound by its guidelines. But the bigger reason is that the Starr report “framed itself as an impeachment referral, not a prosecution decision, and thus avoided having to reach the more daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

On every count that Starr forwarded, he didn’t seek to have information that was at the level needed to prosecute, but stopped at a lower standard of “substantial and credible information.” Starr didn’t have to worry about indicting Clinton—because he wasn’t aiming at indictment.

And honestly, the same can be said of the Mueller report. While Barr announced the results of the investigation as if they were the results of a criminal proceeding, the report’s frequent references to the powers of Congress make it clear that the report was never meant to be seen as the kind of black-and-white prosecutorial decision that Barr insists that it is. Barr didn’t just twist the results of the investigation; he twisted its purpose.

Mr. Barr had the analysis backward in his summary letter. The failure to prove an underlying crime does not mean there was no obstruction. The obstruction meant that it became impossible to know whether there was a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt — and it impeded the Russian investigation.

There is ample evidence on both issues that meets the standard of “substantial and credible information.” And as the DOJ’s own rules make clear, that’s the only standard that counts.

~ Mark Sumner

Are you embarrassed to post the link to.the Daily Lettuce? When will you realise that it's over and you lost?

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/...Trump-did-both

[Vasquezrocks]

Enjoy your big nothing burger ......

[CharacterAssassin]

Are you embarrassed to post the link to.the Daily Lettuce? When will you realise that it's over and you lost?

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/...Trump-did-both

LOL! Why am I not surprised that a pussy like you simply cannot address the facts?

Mueller's own prosecutors are saying there's enough evidence to justify charges.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/0...truct-justice/

[evince]

they are russo bot holes


they dont think


they just repeat russo bot hole talking points

[Micawber]

“ If it were not for Department of Justice regulations that protect a sitting executive, Donald Trump would currently be under indictment. “

[evince]

the daily Kos has a good reputation


they have never been plagued by rounds and rounds of women having to come forward to being abused by the people who run the thing


they are not funded by some evil racist who Nixon and Ailes picked to make a station that lies so the republicans can still win elections

[archives]

Now you know you are going to get the predictable "no collusion, no obstruction" chant, which legally, the collusion claim may be valid, the old, "he didn't break any laws" did he? But that doesn't justify the Trump campaign meeting, calling, and soliciting help from Putin in their campaign, the only thing Mueller couldn't establish was if it was coordinated.

The Report, pgs 66-180 has Russians all over the Trump campaign, seemingly, the only thing the Russians didn't do was park cars, and none of that bothered the campaign leaders, in fact, at times, it seems the opposite is true. As I noted before, the same people who now view aid from Putin as acceptable would have prior to 2016 labeled it "unAmerican"

And lastly, as far as the "he didn't break any laws," an abortion doctor doesn't break any laws but I don't think you would find a lot of Trumpkins who would argue that that means his actions are acceptable

[evince]

these people are not Americans


the right here is Russian


real people would be effected by the facts we bring them


none of these posters ever face a fact that is given them


THAT IS NOT HUMAN BEHAVIOR


they are programs

[evince]

Treat them like what they are


the evil programs of a Russian dictator


no repect and no kindness


computer programs are not people


ask surei

[Heff]

"
1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion

As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of “collusion,” but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” appears in the Acting Attorney General’s August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. §371. See Black’s Law Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is “[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain something forbidden by law"); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871) (“An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object."); 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 352

(1897) (“An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.").

For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion.” The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy-either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law — includi

ng foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371’s offenses clause."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-document.html


But at least you can now finally admit "collusion" was BS. Only took over two years.

[reagansghost]

Barr was clearly hired explicitly to ditch Mueller's report, been watching some cable news show and their 'reporting' sounds like they just realized that obvious shit

and now Rosenstien caught sucking up to Barr to save his job, wtf?