Politicsshutmuellerdown

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:31 PM

Mueller investigation takes a Bizarre Turn




The Washington Post reports that Robert Mueller is investigating President Trump’s “private comments and state of mind” during the period when he issued a series of tweets belittling Attorney General Jeff Sessions. According to the Post, the thrust of Mueller’s inquiry is to determine whether the president’s goal was to oust Sessions in order to pick a replacement who would exercise control over Mueller’s investigation.

If this story is true, it demonstrates why the nation needs someone in the Justice Department to exercise control over Mueller’s investigation. It also confirms the suspicion that Mueller is either nuts, desperate to get Trump, or both.

I hated it when Trump went after Sessions on Twitter, a move all-too characteristic of this unpresidential president. But to view the attack as evidence of obstruction of justice strikes me, on first reading, as ridiculous.

For one thing, the president has the right to replace the attorney general if he believes his appointee isn’t performing well in any aspect of his job, including the overseeing of an investigation that involves the president. I don’t see how the exercise of this power can be the basis for, or evidence of, obstruction of justice. The remedy for misuse of the power is, as Andy McCarthy has often argued, impeachment, not a charge of obstruction.

Moreover, the president did not fire Sessions. Maybe he thought about doing so, but “thought crimes” aren’t obstruction of justice.

Maybe the president hoped through his tweets to induce Sessions to quit. There’s a good chance he did. But “hope crimes” aren’t obstruction of justice, either. At least not in this context.

According to all accounts I’ve read or heard, Trump went after Sessions because he was furious that the attorney general had recused himself from the Russia investigation. In addition, he believes that, if Sessions thought he couldn’t participate in this investigation, he should not have taken the job.

Whatever one thinks of Trump’s view, he is entitled to hold it, to express it, and to remove Sessions because of it (which he could have done but did not do).

Mueller, though, suspects that the attack on Sessions wasn’t a fit of rage about the past, but rather was all about the future — and about Mueller. He thinks that, heaven forbid, Trump’s goal was to increase Justice Department supervision over him and his team of Trump-haters.

It’s conceivable that such a motive played a part. But what if it did? It’s abnormal for an attorney general not to be able to oversee an investigation as important as Mueller’s. How can it be obstruction of justice to think about remedying, or hoping to remedy, this situation?

Since Trump didn’t sack Sessions and the attorney general didn’t resign, we don’t know who would have replaced him or how his replacement would have acted. Thus, we don’t know what the effect, if any, of a Sessions resignation would have been on Mueller’s investigation. Would the new AG have “obstructed” Mueller? One can only speculate. Building an obstruction of justice claim on such speculation seems crazy, desperate, or both

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/03/report-muellers-investigation-takes-a-bizarre-turn.php

41 replies, 1138 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mueller investigation takes a Bizarre Turn (Original post)
Gunslinger201 Mar 2018 OP
Dumper Mar 2018 #1
Gunslinger201 Mar 2018 #2
AmandaCMatthews Mar 2018 #11
oflguy Mar 2018 #3
AmandaCMatthews Mar 2018 #13
JaimeBondoJr Mar 2018 #4
jh4freedom Mar 2018 #5
GoldwatersSoul Mar 2018 #7
jh4freedom Mar 2018 #10
Carl Mar 2018 #17
GoldwatersSoul Mar 2018 #20
jh4freedom Mar 2018 #26
Carl Mar 2018 #27
jh4freedom Mar 2018 #33
Model10RB Mar 2018 #12
jh4freedom Mar 2018 #15
Carl Mar 2018 #34
jh4freedom Mar 2018 #37
Carl Mar 2018 #39
Shkreli Mar 2018 #23
jh4freedom Mar 2018 #31
rahtruelies Mar 2018 #41
Gamle-ged Mar 2018 #6
Gunslinger201 Mar 2018 #9
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy Mar 2018 #28
Trevor Mar 2018 #8
Carl Mar 2018 #19
Trevor Mar 2018 #21
Carl Mar 2018 #24
Trevor Mar 2018 #29
Carl Mar 2018 #32
jh4freedom Mar 2018 #35
Carl Mar 2018 #36
jh4freedom Mar 2018 #38
Carl Mar 2018 #40
Let it go Mar 2018 #14
jh4freedom Mar 2018 #16
D26-15 Mar 2018 #18
Let it go Mar 2018 #22
DoDaMan Mar 2018 #25
turquoise Mar 2018 #30

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:34 PM

1. Perhaps thinking of canning Sessions is a hate thought crime crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:37 PM

2. If he cant show Collusion by now

What is he doing?

He doesn’t get to look at the guys entire past

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:09 PM

11. This investigation train went off the tracks

the minute the news got out about who funded the Clinton Dossier.

Now Mueller is rooting around like a wild pig into everything BUT what his ‘investigation’ was supposed to be looking into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:41 PM

3. So now Mueller is investigating Trump's state of mind, huh?

This marks a milestone advancement of the "thought police"

Its not what you think, but rather what they think you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:10 PM

13. Hes the new Kreskin. But a bigger phony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:43 PM

4. Saw this today on CNN as I was getting dressed.

Mueller is trying to discern whether or not Trump THOUGHT about obstructing justice.

Hoot, it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:43 PM

5. "Mens Rea"

Mens rea, Latin for "guilty mind" is the mental element of 1) intention to commit a crime or 2) knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. **It is a necessary element of many crimes.**

The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime. As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.

In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. But if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability and the damages payable to the plaintiff."--Wikipedia

If Robert Mueller is investigating "mens rea," it is standard and ordinary prosecutorial practice to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:53 PM

7. Ummm No....

You don't look for mens rea without the guilty act. Otherwise almost anyone is suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoldwatersSoul (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:08 PM

10. Ummm yes...

Without mens rea, you don't have a guilty act. For example, if President Trump's intent in threatening to fire Sessions had nothing to do with impeding or eliminating the Mueller investigation then there is no grounds for an obstruction of justice finding. Mueller can't know that until he investigates it. Since Trump tweets and publicly discusses practically every move he makes and every thought he has, exonerating or incriminating evidence, one way or the other, should not be hard to find.
I believe Mueller will submit a final report at some point that may become the basis for a Bill of Impeachment. Congress would then get to define what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" as impeachable offenses. If the Republicans control the House, a bill of impeachment will be highly unlikely. If there's a Democratic majority, impeachment would be more likely and the most likely charge will be Abuse of Power, as it was with President Nixon and possibly also Obstruction of Justice as it was with Nixon and Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:31 PM

17. There still has to be an established crime.

One can not declare an action was obstruction of justice without there being actual obstruction.
If one is going to try to deduce what a persons thought was while there was no actual event then everyone could be arrested for something.

Ever get so mad at someone you momentarily thought about killing them?
Bet most of us have at some point.
Did we commit a crime in doing so but never actually doing it?

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:48 PM

20. Thank you,

Men rea also known as motive isn't really discussed before a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:55 PM

26. The weird thing about our constitutional system

Obstruction of Justice may be defined by whatever 218 members of Congress (a majority) say it is in a Bill of Impeachment and then 100 Senators get to vote on guilt or innocence in an impeachment trial. When Bill Clinton was charged with Obstruction it was for conversations he had with his private secretary before her grand jury testimony. The Senate voted Clinton to be not guilty. The vote was 50-50 and it takes 67 votes to convict.

Obstruction as an impeachable offense
ARTICLE I
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice...

Article III: States that in his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:58 PM

27. It will never come to that unless by some miracle dems take the House and really are determined

to look like fools.

Have at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:23 PM

33. Yeah, I agree

It would be just like the Republicans looked like fools with their obsession to impeach Bill Clinton. The week that the House voted for the Bill of Impeachment, Clinton got his highest ever job approval rating.
My point is that Mueller's going to submit his final report, whatever is then done with it is up to the Justice Department and/or Congress.
I'm in no position to "have at it," I'm just a fan, sitting in the cheap seats, watching the game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:09 PM

12. You cannot have a crime without a crime. Just thinking about doing crime is not a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Model10RB (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:22 PM

15. Exactly

And a prosecutor's job is to determine whether there is credible evidence that a crime MAY have been committed. It is the job of Triers of Fact (judge and/or jury) to determine if there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:23 PM

34. If this is what you or the left are hanging your hats on it really shows there is nothing there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:42 PM

37. I think you might have forgotten

That the Mueller investigation is entirely the creation of the Trump Justice Department. They hired Mueller, they supervise Mueller and if they have any problems with how Mueller is doing his job, they can terminate him. They haven't. When asked how he felt about the progress of the investigation in sworn testimony before Congress, Mueller's boss, Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General stated that he was happy with Mueller's work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 07:42 PM

39. Give me a break.

This is political and nothing more.

If up to me I would have been looking to investigate Comey but none of what we know now about the overall back story was known.

There is more then ample reasons to terminate the entire thing but your side of the aisle would literally riot over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:50 PM

23. HAahahahah

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shkreli (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:13 PM

31. HEEheeheeheehee

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 07:59 PM

41. ****** SEDITIOUS FAKE NEWS ALERT FROM THE DELUSIONAL IN THE 57 STATES*****

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:47 PM

6. One can now envision Mueller, clicking a pair of ball bearings, explaining "Ah, but the...

...strawberries, that's, that's where I had them, they laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, with geometric logic..."...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:07 PM

9. Great movie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gamle-ged (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:58 PM

28. Yep, it seems Mueller is going off the deep end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:03 PM

8. Some acts don't amount to obstruction on their own

But they contribute to a pattern that can be used to show other acts were committed with the intention to obstruct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:44 PM

19. Good luck trying to force a ridiculous standard for obstruction at this point.

The political reality is that unless there was a direct smoking gun it will amount to nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:48 PM

21. Even if its a smoking gun there wouldn't be enough GOP votes for impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:51 PM

24. Nor public support at this point.

The entire thing has been tainted to the point of being meaningless and there is no one to blame for it other then Mueller and the FBI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:07 PM

29. On Russia, Americans trust special counsel Mueller more than Trump, USA TODAY poll shows

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:22 PM

32. Even if true and most of the polls way oversample dems that does not mean they

would want the country thrown into upheaval over insignificant events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:30 PM

35. Tainted in your mind

But that will have no impact whatsoever on Mueller. He's still getting indictments and guilty pleas.

Suffolk University/USAToday Poll. Feb. 20-24, 2018. N=1,000 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"As you may know, the Justice Department has indicted 13 Russians and three companies on criminal charges for trying to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. When it comes to our elections and democracy, how seriously do you take these charges: very seriously, somewhat seriously, not very seriously, or not at all seriously?"
Very seriously: 52%
Somewhat seriously: 23%
Not very seriously: 11%
Not at all seriously: 9%
Unsure: 4%
http://www.pollingreport.com/trump_ad.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:33 PM

36. Question.

I have shown the bias of those polls.
They can be directly linked to where the methodology is usually available.

Is there a reason you link to a place that regurgitates them but does not actually even have a link to the poll itself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to jh4freedom (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 07:50 PM

40. Which does not access the methodology.

This is what some digging finds.

http://suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/3_1_2018_marginals.pdf

There is 0 chance the results will not be leftist despite the fact that the country has predominately voted rightward over the last several years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:19 PM

14. Thought police are here.

Mueller shows us the WORST of what an out of control government can do to destroy anyone it wishes to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:26 PM

16. Mueller presents his evidence

To a Grand Jury composed of 23 citizens. THEY decide whether anyone is to be indicted or not. An indictment is not a conviction. Anyone who is indicted can be found to be not guilty by a jury of their peers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:42 PM

18. Speculating on what someone might have thought should NEVER

go to a Grand Jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:49 PM

22. You can perjury trap pretty much anyone.

Yeah you can have evidence for a perjury trap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 05:54 PM

25. You think it would turn to Bernie. We already know that Bernie has been

fined for letting Australia meddle in the election by writing Bernie fat checks.

Lock Bernie up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Thu Mar 1, 2018, 06:13 PM

30. Special investigations cost a lot of money. So, yes, I believe that Mueller and

others like him do feel pressure to come up with something significant. However, I think he has come up with significant things, although those significant things had no bearing on "collusion" related to the election. On that score, he came up with only thirteen paid posters, a tiny fraction of Brock's posting army.

On the other hand, I don't think Trump is the most stable person in the US and I find claims of his playing sixty-two dimensional chess just as funny as I found them when Obama's fans made that claim about him.

My own view is that American politics have jumped the shark and getting emotionally attached to hem makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsshutmuellerdown