Mueller indictments (split from Collusion with Russia)

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

(2) someone may have the proof - one way or the other- about those allegations.

Some allegations they may not care that much about. It may have come about during investigating something else. So a judgement call is required...is it really worth suggesting John Cuthber may have done such and such along with so and so without clear evidence...especially if, at worst, what John Cuthbert did isn't even indictable?

 

 

[iNow]

Yeah. Probably nothing. Bunch of alter boys and angels, the whole lot of em. 

 

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked a resolution that called for special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election to be publicly released for the second time this week. 

"I have consistently supported the proposition that his report ought to be released to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the law. … I think we should be consistent in letting the special counsel actually finish his work and not just when we think it may be politically advantageous to one side or the other," McConnell added. 

It's the third time Democrats have tried to pass the House resolution, which argues there is “overwhelming public interest” in the government releasing the contents of the high-profile report. The resolution calls on the Justice Department to fully release the report to Congress and to release it to the public “except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law.”

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/436006-mcconnell-blocks-resolution-calling-for-release-of-mueller-report

 

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Trump is a somewhat obnoxious human being to put it mildly. That is not a reason to release all the information in the report unredacted. There are obvious legal reasons, and I think guidelines for special council not to IMO (I am hardly a legal expert, so grain of salt).

Democrats are asking for what is acceptable under law. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It could be the equivalent of allowing libel if it's not indictable or worthy of it. Essentially nuisance allegations, most of which would be directed at someone other than Trump.

Libel? This was an official investigation which led to over 30 indictments and several guilty pleas. It investigated real crimes real criminals and people have been sentenced to years in prison. The report isn't school yard gossip. 

Moreover Trump and his people have chosen to speak about what is or isn't in the report. 

29 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Some allegations they may not care that much about. It may have come about during investigating something else. So a judgement call is required...is it really worth suggesting John Cuthber may have done such and such along with so and so without clear evidence...especially if, at worst, what John Cuthbert did isn't even indictable?

How many times did Hillary Clinton sit under oath before Congress and publicly answer questions about allegations her opponents made against her? As POTUS Obama could have claim executive privilege and prevented Clinton, Lynch, Holder, and etc from having to testify. Hiding away or avoiding discussion about "allegations" isn't how a public official in a free country where leaders are accountable to their constituents should behave. It isn't how administrations behaved in the past. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

50 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

 

Libel? This was an official investigation which led to over 30 indictments and several guilty pleas. It investigated real crimes real criminals and people have been sentenced to years in prison. The report isn't school yard gossip. 

 

Equivalent of.

Can you explain the rational behind the law and guidelines as to why the report won't be released verbatim if not unfairness?

54 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

Democrats are asking for what is acceptable under law. 

No. They are asking for the complete report. Are they not?

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. They are asking for the complete report. Are they not?

You’re suggesting provision of the complete report is NOT acceptable under the law (and despite a 420 to zero vote 2 days ago with no Republican opposition by the House of Representatives... who actually legislate and write our laws... to release it to the public)?

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

You’re suggesting provision of the complete report is NOT acceptable under the law (and despite a 420 to zero vote 2 days ago with no Republican opposition by the House of Representatives... who actually legislate and write our laws... to release it to the public)?

They don't know what's in it.

What I'm suggesting is there might be something that reasonably should not be disclosed.

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Equivalent of.

Can you explain the rational behind the law and guidelines as to why the report won't be released verbatim if not unfairness?

Information that could give away govt intelligence secrets, expose undercover agents, reveal sensitive business secrets, private information of citizens, and etc. 

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. They are asking for the complete report. Are they not?

"to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law". Something in the report will have to be redacted per privacy and security concerns.

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They don't know what's in it.

And never will if it isn't released to them. 

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What I'm suggesting is there might be something that reasonably should not be disclosed.

What could possibly be reasonably without from Congress? 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What I'm suggesting is there might be something that reasonably should not be disclosed.

Thanks for clarifying. That's fair, but I'm unsure there was ever any disagreement about that. I also tend to agree with Ten Oz' final point above regarding how unlikely it is there's anything within that needs to "reasonably" be withheld from congress.

[StringJunky]

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thanks for clarifying. That's fair, but I'm unsure there was ever any disagreement about that. I also tend to agree with Ten Oz' final point above regarding how unlikely it is there's anything within that needs to "reasonably" be withheld from congress.

What level of security clearance does a House rep have, do you know?

[zapatos]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What level of security clearance does a House rep have, do you know?

Seems to be an ad hoc system where it is understood everyone has some security clearance otherwise they cannot do their jobs. Some Representatives do jobs requiring more security than others.

Quote

According to the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence: “There are no written rules, agreed to by both branches, governing what intelligence will be shared with the Hill or how it will be handled. The current system is entirely the product of experience, shaped by the needs and concerns of both branches over the last 20 years.”

House members, beginning with the 104th Congress, do have to take a secrecy oath. Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – the committee with oversight over intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA – have a separate oath, commensurate with their unique access to sensitive information. Again, these oaths take the way of a public pledge, vice the arduous security-clearance process, complete with SF86, undertaken by the average security-cleared professional.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/05/16/do-members-of-congress-have-security-clearances/

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Seems to be an ad hoc system where it is understood everyone has some security clearance otherwise they cannot do their jobs. Some Representatives do jobs requiring more security than others.

It is a bit more complicated that as Congress is supposed to be an equal branch and do have some Intelligence oversight authority. 

Quote

 

The White House has the power to control information classification, and even withhold access to information and operational details from certain members of Congress. In this way, the executive branch can directly control what Congress can or cannot see, indirectly influencing the legislative branch's overall ability to make decisions. Thus, despite members of the Intelligence Committees and their staffs holding appropriate security clearances, they may sometimes only have a limited view into specific intelligence activities.[2] Though the National Security Act of 1947 states that Congress must be kept "fully informed" of significant intelligence activities, many Presidents have interpreted this clause to mean they only need to notify the "Gang of Eight" rather than the full membership of the congressional intelligence committees. The Gang of Eight consists of the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community_Oversight#Executive_and_Legislative_give-and-take

 

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Seems to be an ad hoc system where it is understood everyone has some security clearance otherwise they cannot do their jobs. Some Representatives do jobs requiring more security than others.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/05/16/do-members-of-congress-have-security-clearances/

Cheers.

49 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is a bit more complicated that as Congress is supposed to be an equal branch and do have some Intelligence oversight authority. 

 

 

[Ten oz]

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — The still-secret report on Russian interference in the 2016 election submitted by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, last week was more than 300 pages long, according to the Justice Department, a length that raises new questions about Attorney General William P. Barr’s four-page summary.

Mr. Barr wrote to Congress on Sunday offering what he called the “principal conclusions” of the report — including that Mr. Mueller had not found that the Trump campaign had taken part in a conspiracy to undermine the election. But he had notably declined to publicly disclose its length.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/mueller-report-length.html

 

I heard a legal commutator make an interesting point on the radio this morning. Under Trump it has been greatly argued that a President cannot be indicted. As a result Mueller's report did not seek to collude a criminal case for indictment. It is unclear if an indictment would even be constitutional. Rather the constitution clearly outlines impeachment proceeding via Congress as the way to remove a President. Not criminal charges.The commutator said Mueller Reports should be intended to make conclusions but rather lay out the case of the for for Congress to review and make a determination on regarding whether or not to proceed with impeachment. Basically it was argued that the Admin is distorting the purpose/nature of the report. 

 

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So a judgement call is required...is it really worth suggesting John Cuthber may have done such and such along with so and so without clear evidence...especially if, at worst, what John Cuthbert did isn't even indictable?

The traditional response is "Publish; and be damned!".

 

[CharonY]

On 3/26/2019 at 12:48 PM, Ten oz said:

I have some doubts that the Mueller Report gets released. It is being treated as such huge win for Trump currently that releasing it could only dull the shine. Any blowback from not releasing it almost has to be easier to deal with than blowback from the details it contains would be. 

A redacted version of the report has just been released. 

Edit: A quick read over the summaries indicate that the investigation was rather careful to draw conclusions, and highlighted how unusual the situation was. Such as e.g. that the President's action itself prima facie legal mechanisms, but they also considered the fact that these mechanisms allow enormous acts of obstruction. They specifically said that the evidence they obtained did not establish a direct crime with Russia underlying election interference (which, again is a bit different to finding no evidence; they found interactions between Russian government and the Trump campaign, but not sufficient  to support criminal charges) they state that the different motives (in case of the President) have to be considered. They seem to say that, yes the overall conduct pretty much amount to an intend to obstruct but they kind of keep it open or open with regard to the motives.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

A redacted version of the report has just been released. 

Edit: A quick read over the summaries indicate that the investigation was rather careful to draw conclusions, and highlighted how unusual the situation was. Such as e.g. that the President's action itself prima facie legal mechanisms, but they also considered the fact that these mechanisms allow enormous acts of obstruction. They specifically said that the evidence they obtained did not establish a direct crime with Russia underlying election interference (which, again is a bit different to finding no evidence; they found interactions between Russian government and the Trump campaign, but not sufficient  to support criminal charges) they state that the different motives (in case of the President) have to be considered. They seem to say that, yes the overall conduct pretty much amount to an intend to obstruct but they kind of keep it open or open with regard to the motives.

I bet there will be many puzzle enthusiasts focussing on the redacted parts.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I bet there will be many puzzle enthusiasts focussing on the redacted parts.

Interesting bit is that Trump actually directed folks to effectively end or obstruct the investigation. But they just denied to do so. Perhaps ironically, if he had more loyalist (but less capable) folks in position, it could have gotten worse. That being said, the report quite explicitly keeps the door open for the matter of obstruction charges, which will very likely be explored by Democrats for the next election.

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Interesting bit is that Trump actually directed folks to effectively end or obstruct the investigation. But they just denied to do so. Perhaps ironically, if he had more loyalist (but less capable) folks in position, it could have gotten worse. That being said, the report quite explicitly keeps the door open for the matter of obstruction charges, which will very likely be explored by Democrats for the next election.

Ultimately, Barr and Mueller are only messengers and the real court will be Congress and the public. I think Mueller seems to be leaving quite a bit open for interpretation from the little bits I've read, as you say. If there's anything that will bring Trump down in that report, I don't think choosing now to release it as a way to lessen the  impact will make any difference; it's been going on too long.

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Ultimately, Barr and Mueller are only messengers and the real court will be Congress and the public. I think Mueller seems to be leaving quite a bit open for interpretation from the little bits I've read, as you say. If there's anything that will bring Trump down in that report, I don't think choosing now to release it as a way to lessen the  impact will make any difference; it's been going on too long.

The document pretty much points to congress to do the evaluation. However, lacking urgency (say, evidence that the President is under foreign control), it will more likely be used in a political way. 

The report does paint a picture that the Trump Campaign expected help from Russia, but there was no explicit evidence for a tit for tat. It is somewhat troubling but pretty much established prior to the report that Russia expected to benefit from a Trump presidency and worked toward that goal. 

With regard to the "no evidence" line that was touted earlier by Barr/Trump, the report is also mentioning that certain evidence was destroyed by investigative targets and does explicitly not rule out that "unavailable information would shed additional light" on the described events. Obviously that is a rather harsh difference from an actual exoneration of sorts. 

Edit:

I must say, the overall tone of the report (or at least bits I have read) are more damning than I thought. While stopping short of calling out a crime, it did little (if anything) to soften its blows and uses quite some space to at least strongly imply corrupt use of authority and the first half, which does not rise to the criminal level, nonetheless is used implicitly to outline all the events to explain why the President chose to exert his powers in the way he did, without explicitly spelling it out. It could be just by accident that they laid things out that way, but somehow I doubt it. Regardless of the actual content, there is quite a bit of compelling writing going on here.

[iNow]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

They specifically said that the evidence they obtained did not establish a direct crime with Russia underlying election interference (which, again is a bit different to finding no evidence; they found interactions between Russian government and the Trump campaign, but not sufficient  to support criminal charges) they state that the different motives (in case of the President) have to be considere

Specifically, they said it would be challenging for the government to win a case focused on motives and intent given the availability evidence, especially against a sitting president, but left open the door to further investigation... especially once Trump is no longer in office. 

I just finished reading it. Am sure others will have alternative interpretations. 

[CharonY]

Some interpret it more strongly, as an effective path to impeachment. 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Some interpret it more strongly, as an effective path to impeachment. 

I think those people are fooling themselves. A possible path to impeachment? Maybe  An effective path to impeachment? No way. Not even close.

Impeachment is a political process (I.e. laws and facts are secondary), and the contents of this report aren’t sufficient to get a GOP led Senate on board with it. End program.

Perhaps this report will drive new investigations and new findings, but IMO it doesn’t rise to that level on its own. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by iNow

[CharonY]

I agree, also it is unclear whether congress actually wants an impeachment process in the first place. 

[rangerx]

51 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I agree, also it is unclear whether congress actually wants an impeachment process in the first place. 

Censure might be in order. Does congress need the senate to confirm that?

 

[iNow]

Yesterday, nearly 400 former federal prosecutors, across the aisle both Republicans and Democrats, signed a letter asserting that President Trump would have been indicted for obstruction of justice based on the Mueller report and evidence within were he not currently serving as president.

Today, roughly 300 more signed on for a total of 700 thus far;

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/442537-list-of-former-federal-prosecutors-accusing-trump-of-obstruction

“Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice,” the letter reads.