Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

I understand...but think, in impeachment, this would get explored in detail, by people well trained in turning things to their advantage. There are a great many aspects similar to this...one of the many reasons I don't know that the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' would ever be met (not that that necessarily applies here, although another good argument would be, given the implications, shouldn't it?).

You have several facets here.

1. The question as to whether you can obstruct justice when it was found you indeed didn't commit the crime you were being investigated for.
2. The question as to whether any of the actions actually constituted obstruction anyway (discussions about taking action...is that obstruction if action never taken?)
3. The further question as to whether even any of the discussed actions would have constituted obstruction
4. The question above.
5. Finally, your point about whether any of these, even if proven, constitute 'high crimes'.

I think its far from a slam dunk that in the final tally, even a conviction in the House would occur, particularly depending on how the political winds blew during the proceedings.

Politically, I wouldn't doubt that this would be spun by Republicans as desperate actions taken by a party that can't come up with another way to defeat Trump. That message would resonate to some degree I think, especially given that the majority of people are already against it.

I wonder how many Democrats in Congress (although this would go for Republicans too) could honestly answer they would vote for impeachment if all of the very same actions were undertaken by a Democratic President? If the true answer to that is yes...they should proceed. If the true answer to that is no, then they shouldn't. The purpose of impeachment is to remove a POTUS from office when he commits crimes egregious enough to warrant his dismissal regardless of which party he/she is from. This is why the Nixon impeachment was pending (and would have carried through) and the Clinton impeachment wasn't. If that isn't the true thoughts behind it, then this is just a further example of using the justice system to achieve political ends...Although that isn't quite so ominous when undertaken by a body that is inherently political...it's still an aspect to consider.

I would pose that question to people here: Would you be for/against impeachment if the parties were reversed? Can you even answer the question honestly?

I can't honestly answer myself. I haven't read the Mueller report, and I'd need to read it to answer. (that the same seems to apply to many members of Congress speaks volumes to my point, I think). From the anecdotes I've heard, though, I think my answer would be 'no'. Just as it was 'no' for Clinton...but 'yes' for Nixon. I haven't heard things that I think make removal of the POTUS imperative, and I'd rather Congress get back to the business of governing. Similarly, yes, Clinton lied..but he lied about sex. Bad behaviour? Certainly. Reason to remove a POTUS? No.

 

What evidence did they use to prove his guilt?

Consider the possibility that the transcript of the actual recording might contradict the evidence used to prove Flynn's guilt.

And this isn't Barr/Trump, it's Mueller's team withholding the information.

 

A few important points here while we entertain this theory.

Per NYT:

The judge said during that hearing that he found no fault with the conduct of the F.B.I. or prosecutors, and Mr. Flynn admitted that he knew at the time that agents questioned him that lying to the F.B.I. is a crime, and he once again acknowledged his guilt. Mr. Flynn also declined to challenge the circumstances surrounding the F.B.I. interview.


Also - keep in mind that, per this report, the White House reviewed this transcript in question back in 2017, and have used it to say that there was malfeasance from the FBI and Flynn might not actually have lied.

So if that is true, why isn’t the White House trying to over rule Muellers prosecutors (if we assume this is their decision not to release and not a decision from main Justice IE Barr) and get this released to the public to confirm their theory that he really didn’t lie?

Or maybe they will do that soon. I don’t know but if they don’t it kind of blows a hole in the theory that there was malfeasance from the FBI’s predicate of charging Flynn with lying. We’ll know here pretty quick because there’s no way the White House wouldn’t take the opportunity to clear their name in any way.

Lastly... and this is important to note always. This current administration lies... constantly! Their word is not to be taken seriously by the American people under any circumstance which is unfortunate.

 

dershowitz continues to embarrass himself carrying water for trump ("it is not too much of a stretch")... what does trump have on dershowitz (pictures from epsteins?)?

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ould-overrule-an-unconstitutional-impeachment

 

Havent been following this investigation with much vigor but get cliffnotes on most of it and the disparity between the report and the transcript is one of many smh moments involving this investigation. And before the haters disparage my existence, i have been critical of both sides throughout.

 

What does Barr's DoJ have to hide?

 

https://jonathanturley.org/2019/06/...ns-of-his-motivations-on-three-key-decisions/

 

If it was Trump with a (D) next to his name, that's a slam dunk I'd want him impeached. My severe distaste for him has very little to do with party. If it was Obama who was accused of what Trump is accused of, I might have a harder time of it. Part of that is how discordant it'd be. With Trump, that he'd obstruct seems totally in character with all the other loutish, abusive things he does. There is a lot of robustness there. Obama's done some cynical political stuff, but it really wouldn't sound like him to completely flaunt the rules. He might be lawyerly and weaselly about bending rules, but not just openly breaking them and daring someone to call him out (anticipating objections with examples where Obama purportedly did just that). That's a Trump move. Part of the reason why it is so easy to say a Democratic Trump would still be on my **** list is how much I don't appreciate this tactic.

 

Dowd on how Mueller manipulated the transcript for his report

 

Mueller NEVER said there was insufficient evidence for obstruction of justice. He laid out examples of potential obstruction of justice. He stated congress was the old option based on the position of Barr and the justice department that they would never indict a sitting President. He also went out of his way to say that no one, including the President is above prosecution and congress has a constitutional obligation to impeach if they believe the President obstructed Justice. He then last said possible charges against the President after he leaves office is possible but would offer no opinion.

 

Except Mueller laid out numerous examples of possible obstruction in part II of his report. He never said there was no evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

It’s a cool theory except it is well know that Robert Mueller is a Republican.

 

Ruby married and ****ed his cousin.

Nothing he does is surprising.

 

Omissions like this have Weissmann written all over them. I would not be surprised if they do not find several similar instances in the Mueller report where things were manipulated to make them look as bad as possible.

 

Pure speculation on your part.

Mueller signed off on the Mueller Report, so I see no reason to not let the buck stop at Muller's desk.

 

No doubt Mueller is the person ultimately responsible. He added Weissmann to his team fully knowing his dubious history so he is responsible for anything he did.