Radiance3 wrote:
Based on your comment below, I think you have deficiency or the inability to comprehend the report.
The Mueller report presented to DOJ was with NO RUSSIA COLLUSION. You rewrote or made up your own.
Here is what you wrote. The opposite of the facts.
“First, the Mueller report did not state that there was no collusion, which it could
have, but merely stated that there was insufficient evidence to legally charge someone with conspiracy ... which is a very difficult thing to prove in a court of law."
br br b Based on your comment below, I think yo... (
show quote)
Once again, the universe of "alternate facts" has taken what appear to be simple, non-controversial words on the page and put them into the class of "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
The fact that there was no collusion proven does NOT mean that it did not occur.
First, there is no legal definition of 'collusion'. Second, the closest thing to it is 'conspiracy', which is notoriously difficult to prove in a court of law. Mueller states that the reason that there may have been no evidence is because many witnesses with direct knowledge either refused to talk to the Special Counsel or that they lied when questioned. That makes it difficult to get at the truth. Yes, no evidence of conspiracy was found, but that does not mean that it did not exist.
Michael Cohen stated that the way that the president works is that he never gives a direct order, but merely intimates that "it would be nice if 'such and such' were to happen." This insulates him from being responsible for underlings to take up that intimation and acting on it. He never ordered it.
Quote:
Second, Mueller did state that there was insufficient evidence to prove obstruction, but in the second part of that sentence (which you left out) he stated that he could not exonerate the president, either.”
It is not the duty of he Special Council to exonerate. His duty is to examine and arrive at his findings, then report to DOJ.
If the words 'cannot exonerate' mean what I was brought up to believe that the dictionary defines them as, there cannot be any exoneration based on available evidence. He cannot be proven to have obstructed, nor can he be proven to have not done so.
The duty of the Special Counsel was to derive facts and arrive at a legal conclusion as to their veracity. When those facts, while suspected to exist, cannot be derived because of witness non-cooperation or outright lying, it becomes impossible to get at the real truth.
Quote:
Here is the actual and final Conclusion.
By Mark Mazzetti and Katie Benner
• March 24, 2019
WASHINGTON — The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found no evidence that President Trump or any of his aides coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr.
The 2nd Conclusion:
Mueller report did not able to reach a final conclusion, because there were not sufficient evidence to prove the case, or there were no compelling evidence to prove the case. Because of that, the most appropriate and correct decision is NO Obstruction. Justice don’t accuse obstruction due to LACK OF SUFFIFIENT EVIDENCE beyond reasonable doubts.
That was the report forwarded to DOJ Bar. Therefore DOJ Barr concluded a Summary report of NO Russia Collusion, and No Obstruction based on the Mueller report due to lack of sufficient evidence, beyond reasonable doubts.
That is the job of the DOJ.
Again you have wrong assessment on this one.
That's just flat wrong. The Mueller report is just that, a report. Congress has a perfect right to investigate not only what is in the report but additional facts and allegations as they see fit.
Mueller's Report goes to DOJ, to issues the final report, and that is final.
Conclusion from the Mueller Report about the Obstruction.
The Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
br b Here is the actual and final Conclusion. br... (
show quote)
<sigh> First, I have no idea who the authors are or where they publish. Therefore there is no basis upon which to judge their accuracy or bias (if any).
Congress has the right to investigate whatever they want to, being a CO-EQUAL branch of government. To say that it cannot investigate and that the report is a "final" conclusion, flies in the face of years of previous administrations, Congresses and precedents.
Next, the AG made those conclusions at a superficial level without examining the underlying evidence and double-checking what the Special Counsel found. They are his opinions only, and only pertain to the legal definitions as to chargeable offenses. Again, the legal breakpoint for charging someone is far higher than what the evidence proved.
Your quote from the report itself, prove my point. Mueller was bound by the Justice Department Guidelines that prohibit charging or indicting a sitting president. Over seven hundred prosecutors have said openly that the ten-plus obvious obstruction incidents were more than enough to prosecute anyone but the president for that crime. Yes, Mueller said that that particular issue didn't come up, but I would venture that it was the 900-pound gorilla sitting in the corner. The burden of proof had to be so legally great as to overcome that restriction ... which would not have applied in any other instance.
Your statistics on the investigation are repetitively redundant. We all concede that they are correct. What we do not concede is a) that the AG drew the proper conclusion and b) he has the right to not forward the unredacted report to Congress. The reasons given for not forwarding the report are invalid on their face and obstructive in their own right. If past is prologue, they will fight it in court and probably lose. I suspect that they will probably try to ignore the court opinion as they have the Congressional subpoena, and where we go from there is anybody's guess.