Planet Rugby Forum

4071 wrote:

Santa wrote:He doesn't seem to have an answer about the propriety of writing the report whilst having no intention of deciding whether or not to indict.

Of course, he did have the option to indict people who are not the president, so being unable to indict the president does not make the second part of the report somehow improper. After all, as Trump was attempting to obstruct justice there were a number of times when people who were not the president could have carried out his orders and - by doing so - obstructed the investigation. They would not have the benefit of the OLC recommendation and could have been indicted.

Right?

4071 wrote:

Santa wrote:He doesn't seem to have an answer about the propriety of writing the report whilst having no intention of deciding whether or not to indict.

Of course, he did have the option to indict people who are not the president, so being unable to indict the president does not make the second part of the report somehow improper. After all, as Trump was attempting to obstruct justice there were a number of times when people who were not the president could have carried out his orders and - by doing so - obstructed the investigation. They would not have the benefit of the OLC recommendation and could have been indicted.

Right?

Mr Mike wrote:

4071 wrote:

Santa wrote:He doesn't seem to have an answer about the propriety of writing the report whilst having no intention of deciding whether or not to indict.

Of course, he did have the option to indict people who are not the president, so being unable to indict the president does not make the second part of the report somehow improper. After all, as Trump was attempting to obstruct justice there were a number of times when people who were not the president could have carried out his orders and - by doing so - obstructed the investigation. They would not have the benefit of the OLC recommendation and could have been indicted.

Right?

Yes, again a point he made in the report on page 1 of section 2. It should also give people pause on some of the potential acts of obstruction until charges are brought against those other people. For example in connection with witness tampering, where there were individuals who would have been acting on any improper instructions without the benefit of immunity or OLC protection.

Santa wrote:

4071 wrote:

Santa wrote:He doesn't seem to have an answer about the propriety of writing the report whilst having no intention of deciding whether or not to indict.

Of course, he did have the option to indict people who are not the president, so being unable to indict the president does not make the second part of the report somehow improper. After all, as Trump was attempting to obstruct justice there were a number of times when people who were not the president could have carried out his orders and - by doing so - obstructed the investigation. They would not have the benefit of the OLC recommendation and could have been indicted.

Right?

The President? The person about whom he had no intention of deciding whether or not he would indict. Not other people, about whom he did intend to decide whether or not he would indict. Try reading the second part of the report. See who it is about.

While the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time.

Santa wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

4071 wrote:

Santa wrote:He doesn't seem to have an answer about the propriety of writing the report whilst having no intention of deciding whether or not to indict.

Of course, he did have the option to indict people who are not the president, so being unable to indict the president does not make the second part of the report somehow improper. After all, as Trump was attempting to obstruct justice there were a number of times when people who were not the president could have carried out his orders and - by doing so - obstructed the investigation. They would not have the benefit of the OLC recommendation and could have been indicted.

Right?

Yes, again a point he made in the report on page 1 of section 2. It should also give people pause on some of the potential acts of obstruction until charges are brought against those other people. For example in connection with witness tampering, where there were individuals who would have been acting on any improper instructions without the benefit of immunity or OLC protection.

Mr Mike there was only one person about whom he had no intention of deciding.

Mr Mike wrote:

Santa wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

4071 wrote:

Santa wrote:He doesn't seem to have an answer about the propriety of writing the report whilst having no intention of deciding whether or not to indict.

Of course, he did have the option to indict people who are not the president, so being unable to indict the president does not make the second part of the report somehow improper. After all, as Trump was attempting to obstruct justice there were a number of times when people who were not the president could have carried out his orders and - by doing so - obstructed the investigation. They would not have the benefit of the OLC recommendation and could have been indicted.

Right?

Yes, again a point he made in the report on page 1 of section 2. It should also give people pause on some of the potential acts of obstruction until charges are brought against those other people. For example in connection with witness tampering, where there were individuals who would have been acting on any improper instructions without the benefit of immunity or OLC protection.

Mr Mike there was only one person about whom he had no intention of deciding.

There was a clear and proper purpose for writing section 2 of the report, and they documented that correctly, even if I don’t agree with the decision to not make a prosecutorial recommendation. That reticence has simply resulted in a variation of the sort of “unfairness” he was trying to avoid and gives people license to misrepresent elements of the report. For example references to “10 acts of obstruction of justice” do not track Mueller’s own careful wording.

Although it is difficult to feel too much sympathy for this particular individual, there are real matters of principle and it would be unfortunate to see a repeat of this.

“Which DOJ policy or principal sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked Mueller, referring back to Mueller’s opening remarks in which he said the special counsel’s office was guided by Justice Department policies in its investigation.

When Mueller didn’t offer a clear answer, Ratcliffe pressed him to give an example of an instance of this other than the investigation of potential obstruction of justice by Trump.

“I cannot, but this is a unique situation,” Mueller said before Ratcliffe cut him off.

zt1903 wrote:Did I hear Mueller correctly when he said he was not familiar with the firm Fusion GPS?

Santa wrote:So this hasn't gone particularly well for the Democrats or Mueller.

Questions now, perhaps hinted at in earlier moments, about whether Mueller's involvement was light touch. Symbolic perhaps. Barr hinted as much when he said the Mueller letter was "snitty" and looked like it was written by a staff member. The Weissmann report perhaps.

"Did you actually totally exonerate the president?" Nadler asked.

"No," Mueller replied.

Santa wrote:

zt1903 wrote:Did I hear Mueller correctly when he said he was not familiar with the firm Fusion GPS?

Politico is saying that he didn't know aboutvthe Steele dossier.

zt1903 wrote:

Santa wrote:

zt1903 wrote:Did I hear Mueller correctly when he said he was not familiar with the firm Fusion GPS?

Politico is saying that he didn't know aboutvthe Steele dossier.

Say what?

On 30 occasions, Mueller asked House members from the two committees to repeat questions, according to a POLITICO tally from the hearing. He said he was unfamiliar with the so-called “Steele dossier” containing salacious allegations about Trump’s ties to Russia, as well as the predecessor to the special counsel regulations DOJ used for his appointment. He flubbed a question about his resume, misstating the president who had appointed him the United States attorney for Massachusetts.

After a lunch break, Mueller corrected an earlier answer in which he insinuated that his team may have charged Trump with obstruction of justice were it not for a DOJ policy that bars sitting presidents from indictment.

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

Santa wrote:

zt1903 wrote:

Santa wrote:

zt1903 wrote:Did I hear Mueller correctly when he said he was not familiar with the firm Fusion GPS?

Politico is saying that he didn't know aboutvthe Steele dossier.

Say what?

They said unfamiliar.

On 30 occasions, Mueller asked House members from the two committees to repeat questions, according to a POLITICO tally from the hearing. He said he was unfamiliar with the so-called “Steele dossier” containing salacious allegations about Trump’s ties to Russia, as well as the predecessor to the special counsel regulations DOJ used for his appointment. He flubbed a question about his resume, misstating the president who had appointed him the United States attorney for Massachusetts.

After a lunch break, Mueller corrected an earlier answer in which he insinuated that his team may have charged Trump with obstruction of justice were it not for a DOJ policy that bars sitting presidents from indictment.

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

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/ ... ng-1430317

My guess is that we are going to see a groundswell of support for impeachment after this. Both sides got some favorable tv clips out of it, but the substance overall was just devastating to the president.

Bowens wrote:Michael Moore is right about 90% of the time. Far more than most pundits.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MMFlint/stat ... 5284390912

Bindi wrote:Nothing's going to happen.

Bowens wrote:You should delete your entire shitty twitter feed and follow him. Things will improve overnight.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4

paddyor wrote:

Bowens wrote:You should delete your entire shitty twitter feed and follow him. Things will improve overnight.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4

My twitter feed is fine. Moore is just OTT on everything. What exactly is he angry/disappointed about?

Bindi wrote:Nothing's going to happen.

Chilli wrote:

Bindi wrote:Nothing's going to happen.

This.

Santa wrote:Somolia

Trump speaks before presidential seal doctored with symbols of Russia and golf

Image mysteriously displayed behind president at rightwing event features two-headed eagle clutching golf clubs

Slim 293 wrote:

Trump speaks before presidential seal doctored with symbols of Russia and golf

Image mysteriously displayed behind president at rightwing event features two-headed eagle clutching golf clubs

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ning-point

Slim 293 wrote:

Trump speaks before presidential seal doctored with symbols of Russia and golf

Image mysteriously displayed behind president at rightwing event features two-headed eagle clutching golf clubs

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ning-point

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE!