Unamerican Secret Trial presided by Democrat Adam Schiff

[JonNC]

It s correct to say that Mueller provided ample evidence of collusion, but he did not comment on it per se , because there is no such crime as collusion. The issue was whether or not there was sufficient evidence to warrant, a prosecution for conspiracy against the Unite States. The conclusion was that there was not.

Presumption of innocence. I know this is one of the numerous rights progressives seem to oppose, but there was no conspiracy collusion, no matter how often people say there was. Had Mueller wanted to find it, he should have looked at the Clinton campaign.

The conclusion was that there was not. That lack of evidence may have related to the fact, as we now know, that neither Trump Jr nor McGahn testified.

Nonsense. If Mueller wanted testimony he would have gotten it. Not a single “witness” (in quotes because there was nothing to witness) was withheld.

 

[Maximus1]

But he wrote that he couldn’t and explained why. If you read the report that is obvious.
If he was an Independent counsel, like Ken Star, he could have brought charges and based that action upon the fact that the entire basis that charges cannot be brought is grounded on flimsy precedent and a mere department policy. ( THIS IS IN FACT ROUGHLY KEN STARS REAL OPINION).
But Mueller is a special counsel. He is not independant at all. He answers to his boss, Mr Barr as a subordinate.
Mr Barr decides the efficacy of the policy. MUELLER WAS BOUND AS A SUBORDINATE TO FOLLOW.
Trump’s political appointees alone determined Mueller could not bring charges REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE.
SO
In a way this OP has a point. We should have known with the GOP in charge, this was always a fixo for Trump in terms of determining the only possible outcome.
You have to wonder, after the scheme worked, why, within 14 days of Mueller’s testimony, would he embark on a quid pro quo with Ukraine to get dirt on Biden this time. Pretty arrogant! Ask yourself, “how could Pelosi not Impeach?” Wasn’t Ukraine a clear statement that a President does not have to follow the law? We will find out.

 

[JonNC]

But he wrote that he couldn’t and explained why. If you read the report that is obvious.

He could have. He could have challenged the opinion. He told Barr that it wasn’t the primary reason, something Barr testified to. He chose not to because he didn’t have evidence of a crime.

But Mueller is a special counsel. He is not independant at all. He answers to his boss, Mr Barr as a subordinate.
Mr Barr decides the efficacy of the policy. MUELLER WAS BOUND AS A SUBORDINATE TO FOLLOW.
Trump’s political appointees alone determined Mueller could not bring charges REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE.

He could have recommended challenging the opinion. He made no such recommendation. Unless you think he wasn’t even allowed to recommend a challenge?

In a way this OP has a point. We should have known with the GOP in charge, this was always a fixo for Trump in terms of determining the only possible outcome.

Simple nonsense. The “fix” was indicated by Strvok. An “insurance policy”.
It is still going on.

You have to wonder, after the scheme worked, why, within 14 days of Mueller’s testimony, would he embark on a quid pro quo with Ukraine to get dirt on Biden this time.

More nonsense. There was no quid pro quo, except Biden’s while he was VP, and the Democrat senators in 2018. Mueller’s testimony shows that he had no evidence of collusion, and the idea of obstruction is simply ludicrous.

 

[Maximus1]

He could have challenged the opinion? No he could not as a subordinate he was bound by it. ( Expressly written by him in the report).
" The fix" I spoke of was not the one you substituted. Nice trick.
You say," there was no quid pro quo." I debate whether it is worth pointing out the evidence AND ADMISSIONS OF HIS CHIEF OF STAFF AND TOP DIPLOMATS. . Clearly you answer my question indirectly. Trump engaged in a quid pro quo 14 days later because of enablers giving perception that he is impervious to accountability.
And
He wrote his unprecedented letter to Barr to protest representing Barr’s conclusions as his( his being Mueller’s from his report)

 

[JonNC]

He could have challenged the opinion? No he could not as a subordinate he was bound by it. ( Expressly written by him in the report).

What would they have done, thrown him in jail? Of course he could have challenged the opinion. There was nothing stopping him from recommending prosecution by challenging the opinion. It would have been up to Barr from there.

The fix" I spoke of was not the one you substituted. Nice trick.

Clinton and the DNC are the experts on fixes.

You say," there was no quid pro quo." I debate whether it is worth pointing out the evidence AND ADMISSIONS OF HIS CHIEF OF STAFF AND TOP DIPLOMATS. .

The chief of staff wasn’t even talking about Biden. That misrepresentation is ridiculous.
All of foreign aid policy is a quid pro quo, as well it should be.

Clearly you answer my question indirectly. Trump engaged in a quid pro quo 14 days later because of enablers giving perception that he is impervious to accountability.

I’m sure he’s done lots of quid pro quo’s. But there is simply zero evidence that there was one regarding Biden and his son, and that is the basis of the faux investigation triggered by the Schiff-coached whistleblower.

He wrote his unprecedented letter to Barr to protest representing Barr’s conclusions as his( his being Mueller’s from his report)

Mueller never disputed the facts that Barr presented. He protested the “tone”.

 

[PickyPicky]

Mueller never disputed the facts that Barr presented. He protested the “tone”

Mueller told Barr that the Justice Department’s summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions”

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/01/719004457/read-muellers-letter-expressing-concern-about-barr-s-summary-of-his-report?t=1572183020284

 

[dvdjs]

The process is not in keeping with precedent.

The idea of some binding precedent is made-up.

“Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry”
Chief Judge of the District Court for the District of Columbia Beryl Howell

There is, however, a Constitution and there are House rules. The inquiry is in keeping with both.

The hearings that Congress held. No one was talking about a special counsel.

So, in keeping with past “precedent” should we start with a Special Counsel investigation of Ukraine-gate? Perhaps a Special Investigator?

Presumption of innocence.

Srsly?
Presumption of innocence does not mean that an impeachment inquiry should not should not be held. It means that as trial the case will have to be proven to the satisfaction of the Senate.

If Mueller wanted testimony …

I am not sure why, e.g., Trump was not brought in to testify. We current efforts in the courts we may find out why. Everything else is sheer speculation.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Mueller never disputed the facts that Barr presented. He protested the “tone”

Mueller told Barr that the Justice Department’s summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions”

READ: Robert Mueller's Letter To William Barr On Special Counsel's Report : NPR

Thanks :

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions.

 

[JonNC]

The idea of some bindng precedent is made-up.
There is, however, a Constitution and there are House rules. The inquiry is in keeping with both.

Then we roll with the Schiff secret hearings.

So, in keeping with past “precedent” should we start with a Special Counsel investigation of Ukraine-gate? Perhaps a Special Investigator?

I absolutely agree. What went on in Ukraine during the last administration? What were the links between the VP and his son’s position at Burisma ? What activities were the Ukraine and the Clinton campaign involved in leading up to the 2016 election?

 

[JonNC]

I am not sure why, e.g., Trump was not brought in to testify. We current efforts in the courts we may find out why. Everything else is sheer speculation.

Mueller never called Trump Jr, apparently. Perhaps Mueller and his Democrat team didn’t think it important.

 

[dvdjs]

Then we roll with the Schiff secret hearings.

Yes. As Neapolitan noted, no lawyer has witnesssed tyestify publicly without a prior, private deposition. And thank you for recognizing that they are hearings, not a “Secret Trial”.

I absolutely agree.

You are indulging in the stuff of conspiracy theories.
What we are learning about Trump’s abuse of power is coming from the testimony of officials in his own administration. But you know this.

Perhaps Mueller and his Democrat team didn’t think it important.

As, I mentioned, that is speculation. Thankfully, with the Court ruling to sendf the materials to the House committees, we may get an answer that goes beyond making things up.

 

[JonNC]

Yes. As Neapolitan noted, no lawyer has witnesssed tyestify publicly without a prior, private deposition. And thank you for recognizing that they are hearings, not a “Secret Trial”.

Of course it isn’t a trial. It is a railroad job by a corrupt partisan.

As, I mentioned, that is speculation. Thankfully, with the Court ruling to sendf the materials to the House committees, we may get an answer that goes beyond making things up.

That’s why I said “perhaps”.

So far, it appears that the only one making things up is Schiff.

 

[dvdjs]

Of course it isn’t a trial.

The trial, if we get that far, happens in the Senate. Everyone should know that.
The suggestive thread tittle is nonsense.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Of course it isn’t a trial.

The trial, if we get that far, happens in the Senate. Everyone should know that.
The suggestive thread tittle is nonsense.

Misstated, that is true.

 

[PaulinVA]

Thank you for this. Thank you for expressing the fact that Mueller could have chosen not to follow the OLC recommendation. He could have recommended prosecution. He didn’t, not because he couldn’t, but because there was no crime to prosecute

Totally wrong.

We all know he said that since he was guided by the OLC recommendation, he made no prosecutorial decision. That is well known.

And Barr’s credibility is …questionable.

 

[JonNC]

Totally wrong.

We all know he said that since he was guided by the OLC recommendation, he made no prosecutorial decision. That is well known.

He had the option to recommend prosecution and challenge the OLC opinion. This is indisputable. Again, what would Barr have done had Mueller recommended a challenge to the opinion? Put Mueller in jail?
He could have recommended prosecution. He could have recommended prosecution after Trump leaves office.
Mueller had two options: indict or declination. He chose declination.

And Barr’s credibility is …questionable.

Barr did precisely the right thing. Since Mueller chose declination, no prosecution was the right choice.

 

[dvdjs]

Mueller chose declination

Where is that in the report?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Mueller chose declination

Where is that in the report?

He didn’t indict, therefore he chose not to indict. Those are the only two choices of a prosecutor.
Show me where he chose to indict.
Not there?
Then he chose declination.

 

[dvdjs]

He didn’t indict, therefore he chose not to indict.

That does not exhaust the logical possibilities, sorry.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

He didn’t indict, therefore he chose not to indict.

That does not exhaust the logical possibilities, sorry.

It exhausts the legal ones. A prosecutor has two choice, indict or declination.
Mueller chose declination.