Yay! Robert Mueller Has Submitted His Report

[Romana]

love the analogy but i think he's more Ferengi with the rules of acquisition..

He's more like this guy: Brunt, FCA

 

[Free]

Just posting this...

 

[Free]

Ken Starr: Mueller Report Might Not Be 'Written In A Fair And Balanced Way'

In an interview on Fox News, Starr said “the concern, that I think is a fair concern,” was: “Is the report going to be written in a fair and balanced way?”

Starr blamed Mueller’s “choice of staff.”

Yeah, few of them didn't bother looking into the blowjob angle.

 

[Free]

Also,

Maxing It Out for Trump

We’ve now gotten more details about about what we’ve basically already known or should have known: the fix is in. The goal here is to max out every avenue to protect the President from the contents of the Report. Bill Barr and his friends at the White House clearly do not care what anyone outside of Trump world thinks at this point. They are not even bothering to keep up appearances at the margins. A good and increasingly relevant question for Bill Barr at this point would be at what point the statutory powers of the Attorney General can amount to obstruction of justice if exercised with corrupt intent.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Not to spin conspiracy theories but how do we know the redacted report we will get today is the Meuller report?

 

[Chalice Yao]

Not to spin conspiracy theories but how do we know the redacted report we will get today is the Meuller report?

Do we even *need* a conspiracy like that at this point?
The fact that the people who are doing the redacting essentially are working with the people who were investigated makes, once again, RL worse than any conspiracy.

 

[Lianne Marten]

Page 187 (of the text, page 195 of the pdf) , about the Trump Tower meeting:

“On the facts here, the government would be unlikely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful.”

This just in. It's ok to break the law if you're too stupid to know what you're doing is illegal.

Oh and if you're rich and white and a Republican.

 

[Cindy Claveau]

Donald Trump on Mueller's appointment: 'This is the end of my presidency. I'm f-----d'

When former Attorney General Jeff Sessions told President Donald Trump that a special counsel had been appointed to conduct the Russia investigation, the president responded: “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.”

He also said "This is the worst thing that ever happened to me!" (Because everything's about him)

Yet there ensued almost 2 years of obstruction, obfuscation, denial and scheming to try to stonewall the investigation. Appointing Barr was the Queen's move. Now we're the ones who are fucked.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Sid]

I say that too all the time, when I'm innocent.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked."
See, I just did it again.

 

[Ryanna Enfield]

10 different instances of obstruction, but The Criminal-In-Chief was frustrated and angry, so nothing to see here!

 

[Innula Zenovka]

10 different instances of obstruction, but The Criminal-In-Chief was frustrated and angry, so nothing to see here!

I've seen people saying "look at the context," meaning that he seems to have spoken from frustration and anger rather than making a specific admission that Mueller would uncover criminal behaviour by Trump and his campaign, but that seems to me neither here nor there -- at least over here, whether the defendant intends to pervert the course of justice because he wants to conceal his criminal behaviour or for some other reason isn't particularly important (though it may become so at sentencing).

What matters is that he intends to pervert the course of justice, not why he wants to do it.

Isn't it the same with "obstructing" in the US?

 

[Ryanna Enfield]

So Mueller's report makes it clear that it is a question for Congress whether "I Don't Remember-In-Chief" should be charged with obstruction. I don't really see how intent could even be investigated by Mueller, when Trump was given essentially a take home test with questions to which he answered no less than 35 questions with, "I don't remember." Mueller even mentioned that his responses to the questions were insufficient. He also indicated it would take up too much time in the investigation to fight a subpoena with POTUS lawyers. So because he didn't testify in person, intent would be very difficult to prove, and his lawyers were and are very aware of that.

I wish I could answer your question, but IANAL. I want to say that intent shouldn't matter, but Trump's AG seemed to be making a case for Presidential Affluenza or something.

 

[Romana]

 

[danielravennest]

Page 187 (of the text, page 195 of the pdf) , about the Trump Tower meeting:

“On the facts here, the government would be unlikely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful.”

This just in. It's ok to break the law if you're too stupid to know what you're doing is illegal.

Many criminal statutes include words like "willfully" or "knowingly", requiring you to prove intent to convict. For example, murder requires intent, but a lesser crime, involuntary manslaughter, does not. Both involve killing someone. And the legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" for the jury in criminal cases. It is quite possible that in this case the "preponderance of the evidence " standard was met (more likely than not), but not beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases usually have the "preponderance" standard.

 

[danielravennest]

Trump was given essentially a take home test with questions to which he answered no less than 35 questions with, "I don't remember." Mueller even mentioned that his responses to the questions were insufficient.

If Donald suffers from CRS (Can't Remember Shit), then he's unfit for the office of president. I like presidents who remember who are our allies, and who are our enemies. And remember that the head of state of Puerto Rico is himself, because it is part of this country and they are US citizens.

 

[Lianne Marten]

Many criminal statutes include words like "willfully" or "knowingly", requiring you to prove intent to convict. For example, murder requires intent, but a lesser crime, involuntary manslaughter, does not. Both involve killing someone. And the legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" for the jury in criminal cases. It is quite possible that in this case the "preponderance of the evidence " standard was met (more likely than not), but not beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases usually have the "preponderance" standard.

Sure.

But those other things are still crimes. They weren't charged with anything.

Basically, crimes that rich white people are more likely to commit have a higher requirement for conviction.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Playing along that this was actually the report that Mueller produced (has anyone seen the chain of custody).

He was hamstrung by the fact it is JD policy not to indict a sitting president. All he could do was present the results of the investigation and let congress decide. How much you want to bet the stuff redacted says as much and gives some details donnie does not want out there?

 

[Victorianna Writer]

If Donald suffers from CRS (Can't Remember Shit), then he's unfit for the office of president. I like presidents who remember who are our allies, and who are our enemies. And remember that the head of state of Puerto Rico is himself, because it is part of this country and they are US citizens.

Maybe he doesn't know all of those countries that are US Territories that do belong to the US. That's my guess.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Sure.

But those other things are still crimes. They weren't charged with anything.

Basically, crimes that rich white people are more likely to commit have a higher requirement for conviction.

I think often enough it's less about how the crimes are defined, and more about how the are enforced in practice. On paper, there is a high standard of proof for most or all crimes, but you can often get a jury to convict a random poor person based on police claiming they seemed like the most likely suspect. It's also often much easier to intimidate poor people into taking a plea bargain even when they know they are innocent.

Meanwhile, prosecutors are still human beings who can be intimidated to take on a rich person or corporation with vast resources.