Unamerican Secret Trial presided by Democrat Adam Schiff

[PaulinVA]

Mueller had two options: indict or declination. He chose declination.

Jon, you are spinning. Mueller did not make a decision . He said he didn’t make a decision because he was led by the OLC guidance. Because he felt led by the OLC guidance, he didn’t challenge the guidance. The lack of challenge does not say anything about what Mueller thought about guilt or innocence - it says that Mueller is a “company man” and took the OLC guidance on it’s face.

Yes, it would have been better for all involved if both Volume I and Volume II had indictment advice about the President. It didn’t.

I happen to agree that a sitting President should not be indicted. I don’t think the founding fathers wanted indictments, which is why they provided for removal through impeachment. I could be persuaded otherwise, though.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, you are spinning. Mueller did not make a decision .

He made a decision. He chose not to indict.

He said he didn’t make a decision because he was led by the OLC guidance. Because he felt led by the OLC guidance, he didn’t challenge the guidance.

He can hide behind that, but the fact is he chose not to indict. As I said, he could have challenged the OLC opinion. It isn’t statute. There is no Court precedent. He could have challenged. He didn’t. He chose declination.

es, it would have been better for all involved if both Volume I and Volume II had indictment advice about the President. It didn’t.

That’s because there was no crime. Hence his declination.

 

[dvdjs]

He made a decision

He made a decision to comply with the DoJ guidelines. And to leave it to Congress.

 

[PaulinVA]

He made a decision. He chose not to indict.

In Mueller’s opening statement that came later before the House Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to “correct the record” on his exchange with Lieu.

“That’s not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

Jon, from Mueller’s mouth. His words.

There is no Court precedent. He could have challenged. He didn’t. He chose declination.

You keep saying that, but that i not what Mueller said. He did not choose declination. He chose to not make a determination.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

He made a decision

He made a decision to comply with the DoJ guidelines. And to leave it to Congress.

He chose declination.

 

[JonNC]

In Mueller’s opening statement that came later before the House Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to “correct the record” on his exchange with Lieu.

“That’s not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

Jon, from Mueller’s mouth. His words.

There are two choices for a prosecutor. By not recommending prosecution, he chose declination. Barr merely enforced that choice. He can say all he wants he didn’t make a choice, but he did. Now, we can attribute this to either incompetence or the evidence, or both. We could even attribute this to a desire to leave it hanging on purpose in an attempt to damage Trump. I’m sure that would be Weissman’s choice, but I’m not sure about Mueller.

He did not choose declination. He chose to not make a determination.

When he chose not to indict, he chose declination. He had only those two choices.

 

[PaulinVA]

There are two choices for a prosecutor. By not recommending prosecution, he chose declination

Choice number 3 - in the case of the President, I did not make a decision because of OLC guidance.

He can say all he wants he didn’t make a choice, but he did. Now, we can attribute this to either incompetence or the evidence, or both. We could even attribute this to a desire to leave it hanging on purpose in an attempt to damage Trump.

Jon, you are disparaging a former Marine, a former FBI director, just to fit your narrative.

He TOLD US why he didn’t make a decision. It was not because of incompetence, it was not because of the evidence, and it wasn’t because he wanted to leave it hanging to damage Trump.

It was because of the OLC guidance.

I don’t think we are getting anywhere with this, so let’s give it a rest and let others chime in.

 

[JonNC]

Choice number 3 - in the case of the President, I did not make a decision because of OLC guidance.

Cop out. The sign of either incompetence or ulterior motive.

Jon, you are disparaging a former Marine, a former FBI director, just to fit your narrative.

I didn’t disparage anyone. I’m not the one claiming he failed to make the proper choice. I’m saying he did making the prosecutor’s choice. He chose declination. It is those who say he didn’t who are disparaging him. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Weissman, on the other hand, deserves the accusation.

 

[HarryStotle]

Maximus1:

The object is truth not farce

For those who have the facts and the law behind them, the object is truth.
For those who don’t the object is farce,

It is quite clear that the basis for this impeachment farce is a quid pro quo that did not occur (we have the actual phone call transcript), so just like the Mueller Special Counsel this most recent farce is destined to end in a complete whimper for the Democrats (recall that Schiff claimed to have hard evidence for Russian collusion and recall that the same individuals – @PaulinVA and @dvdjs among others – kept kicking the release of Mueller’s findings down the road until that farce was completely deflated.) The only possible reason for the Dems to carry on this farce is that they can control the flow of information by selectively leaking what are claimed to be important “facts” for as extended a period as possible in a desperate attempt to undermine Trump’s electability. They have nothing else left.

Their hope is that this distraction will continue without any real resolution until November 2020. They will be taken completely apart when the entire debacle is blown up by current investigations which will reveal the corrupt political reality the Dems are desperately trying to hide: Fusion GPS, Ukraine meddling and PFP by Biden, the Clinton server currently in the hands of the Ukrainian security firm Cloudstrike, FISA warrants, the role of Joseph Mifsud in Spygate, the setup of General Flynn, the role of the two James Bakers, corruption in the upper echelons of the FBI, DOJ and CIA, billions of dollars that “disappeared” in Ukraine, etc., etc., Much of it laid out in precise detail here:

What I cannot believe is that there are so many on CAF who refuse to even consider any evidence being brought forward on dozens of fronts that the Dems have been neck deep in unethical political dealings for at least a decade.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Thank you for this spot on assessment,I agree that no one opposed to Trump will even concede how corrupt the Dems have been and continue to be. I don’t get it at all.Must be a bad case of denial.

 

[Cathoholic]

PaulinVA . . .

I would think you would want this to the thorough and conclusive.

Well you and I can be
“thorough and conclusive buddies”
on Bidengate. And Hillarygate. And FISAgate.

So we’ll be good to go there at least.

 

[dvdjs]

He chose declination.

What you are saying is at odds with what is in the report.

Here is an article that among others, quotes from it and gets to the actual reality:

Mueller report suggests Congress should judge whether Trump obstructed justice

Special counsel Robert S.

www.latimes.com

The report indicated that Mueller decided earlier in his investigation that he would not make a specific decision about obstruction charges and would, instead, defer to lawmakers.

“We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes,” the report said. Because Justice Department policy holds that a sitting president can’t be subject to trial, an accusation of criminal conduct would put a president in limbo, under a cloud, but unable to clear himself, he wrote.

That problem doesn’t apply to congressional proceedings, Mueller wrote, and Congress has full power to judge the president’s conduct.

Even if a president exercised powers that came with his office, “Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,” he wrote.

Mueller did not express an opinion on whether the evidence would add up to an impeachable offense but noted that “the conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

These statements from the report are compatible with what I and @PaulinVA have been saying.

 

[dvdjs]

It is quite clear that the basis for this impeachment farce is a quid pro quo

We will have to see, in light of the ongoing testimony, what the articles of impeachment, if any, will be.
Until then, it is grossly premature to opine on the basis for the case.

 

[Cathoholic]

Maximus1 to Cathoholic . . .

Stop carrying water for Putin.

.

(Good grief. If I didn’t see this stuff, I wouldn’t believe it.)

Nyet.

 

[PaulinVA]

Well you and I can be
“thorough and conclusive buddies”
on Bidengate. And Hillarygate. And FISAgate.

So we’ll be good to go there at least.

Cathoholic,

I am all for investigating wrongdoing, no matter to whom it applies.

I am against using Biden, Hillary, and the FISA issue to confuse or derail the impeachment inquiry.

 

[Mulligan2]

As soon as I saw the headline for this thread, I knew that any corresponding “article” would be from Breitbart or some other discredited hyper-partisan outfit. It’s sad that a Catholic forum permits this type of unseemly propaganda.

 

[Cathoholic]

I am against using Biden, Hillary, and the FISA issue to confuse or derail the impeachment inquiry.

I am against that too as far as the thread is concerned.

But. . . .

But I think this is PART of the reason for Trump’s impeachment.

They do not want the swamp . . . . drained.

 

[JonNC]

“We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes,” the report said.

And that is precisely the opposite of what has happened. You yourself repeat over and over the opposite.
If one reads the words here, it is clearly declination.

, “Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,”

But he doesn’t say that Trump made corrupt use of his power. He say “a” president’s, not “the” president’s.

Again, clear declination. If it is not declination, then it is either incompetence or holds an ulterior motive.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Actually this is THE reason for impeachment along with the strong potential for another SCOTUS appointees ntment under his watch

 

[dvdjs]

And that is precisely the opposite of what has happened.

The subject of the sentence was “we”. That does not exclude others, including Congress, which was specifically included.
The object of the sentence was “approach”. There was not an decision made on the basis of the evidence to decline prosecution, there was an approach that avoided of the very question - just an investigation to gather the facts.

It really isn’t that hard to understand what Mueller is clearly saying.

But he doesn’t say that Trump made corrupt use of his power.

No. It leaves that for Congress to evaluate.

Actually this is THE reason for impeachment

The reason that he is being investigated is for the recognized abuse of power.