Ok, but conspiracy is right?
If the Mueller Report can’t prove POTUS is reasonably guilty of even obstruction and doesn’t appear to ask about conspiracy why would it bother concluding that while the report specifically does not implicate him, it does not exonerate him either.
Any investigation is that way, ‘we found no actionable evidence’. Why did they throw in the, ‘but who knows, he could’ve done it’?
The Mueller report can and does prove obstruction. He, mistakingly, left the judgement part to congress.
I think you’re misunderstanding what the report says.
Let’s break it down.
Conspiracy is a legal crime with very specific elements that must be met. They are:
You must have 2 or more persons who
intentionally
make an agreement
to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then
commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement.
Based on these elements, we know that the crime of conspiracy is a specific- intent crime. In other words, the government must prove that these 2 or more persons intentionally entered into an agreement to commit some criminal offense. Also, the overt act done in furtherance of the agreement must occur after the agreement has been reached.
The part Mueller failed to find was specific intent.
However, Mueller did find plenty of evidence of acceptance by the Trump campaign of help offered by the Russians, even in the absence of any specific, intentional agreement. If you read Volume 1 of the report, you’ll see it’s pretty bad.
As to the elements of obstruction of justice:
Mueller found ample evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct his investigation. In Volume 2 of his report, he lays out 10 specific instances of attempted obstruction. It’s important to note that the law does not distinguish between attempted or accomplished obstruction of justice. If you’re trying to impede a proceeding/investigation, then you’re obstructing. It does not matter if you succeed.
Additionally, there is no requirement that the underlying crime – in this case, conspiracy – must be found true in order for an obstruction of justice charge to attach. You will hear this garbage on Trump tee vee, but it simply is not true. A defendant/subject either worked to obstruct justice, or he/she didn’t.
What Mueller is saying in simplest terms:
Re conspiracy: He could not find the required element of intent such to charge Trump or his campaign members with conspiracy to defraud the United States of a fair and impartial election. However, there were many instances where the Trump campaign enjoyed and appreciated the help from the Russians. Further, they worked to get the Russians to do more.
Re obstruction: The only thing saving Trump’s ass from Mueller having brought obstruction charges is the standing DOJ policy that precludes charging a sitting president with a crime. But hey, Congress: Here’s a roadmap on how to impeach the motherfucker on the basis of his criminal actions. Oh, and by the way? If you can get him out of office by January 2021, you can charge him out of the gate with 10 counts of obstruction.
IANAL.
A lot of the Trump-defender talking points seem to be bleating about “presumption of innocence”, and how it’s scandalous that the Mueller Report felt they could get away with declaring Trump “not innocent” of obstruction.
Is it accurate to say that Mueller was not bound by the same constraints as a courtroom? That in terms of the investigation, there was no such thing as “innocent until proven guilty”?
WRT to conspiracy/collusion: my layman’s interpretation is that Russia said “Donnie, we’re doing everything we can (most of it illegal) to get you elected”…and Donnie said “Gee! Thanks!”
Stinks to high heaven, but it’s not a crime.
They wouldn’t. No way they are letting a wet brain motor mouth into the conspiracy. They wouldn’t say anything to suggest that he needed their help! Genius like him?
Mueller’s basic logic is that he has been given the explicit task to investigate and determine if, were the President not the President, he would generally be indicted by the DOJ. This follows from the direct text if the Special Counsel statutes.
This sort of decision making would follow from a) the facts available to the prosecutor, and b) the law as understood by the prosecutor.
As Mueller cannot act as a prosecutor against the President, all he can do is state what the facts are and what sort of law would be applied to determine whether those facts would fall under the heading of those laws.
If you read the facts and the laws as a reader and come to the conclusion that the President should be indicted, then that is not Mueller telling you that, it’s the facts of the matter and the relevant laws.
What they are doing is what they do best: Conflating 2 incomplete concepts of the law and pretending they’ve cobbled together a Frankenstein defense.
The first concept is absolute and cannot be challenged, at least not under the Barr DOJ: A president cannot be charged with a crime while he sits in the office of president. That means a presumption of innocence no longer applies in Trump’s current setting. It’s a moot point. However…
The second concept, and the one under which Mueller was bound, was to investigate on the basis of criminality. Do you see the inherent Catch-22 here? He must investigate whether or not crimes occurred, but he cannot charge the occupant of the Oval Office with a crime! (Mueller was simultaneously investigating the whole matter for counter-intelligence purposes, but let’s leave that aside as it is completely separate for purposes of what happens to Trump or his henchmen.)
Mueller made it clear that he could not find the crime of conspiracy because of the specific intent requirement. However, he all but screamed that if it weren’t for that DOJ policy, he’d be indicting on 10 counts of obstruction.
What Mueller decided to do with this impossible situation was what is customary and has happened in all other Special Counsel/Special Prosecutor investigations: He punted the issue of criminality to Congress.
Mueller starts with the very acceptable and traditional notion that no one is above the law, not even a president. But if a president cannot be charged while in office, then there must be some other way to address the criminality of a president when it occurs while he is in office. Hmmm… hmmm… what could it be?
Oh, yes. Impeachment.
It doesn’t make any difference. There wasn’t anybody waiting in the wings to step in and replace Archibald Cox when Nixon eliminated his position. And the America-hating fuckstick wasn’t going to be pressured into appointing a replacement the following week, the way Nixon was. Giuliani was talking out his ass.
The lawyer in this video makes the point that Mueller only had two findings available to him, basically:
Mueller Report: A Lawyer’s Analysis (Real Law Review)
“Accused” is not an option because Trump can’t be indicted and therefore wouldn’t be able to have his day in court to defend against the charges hanging over his head. If he’s Not Accused, he doesn’t need a day in court.
It looks like they went with Not not accused.
If he’s out of office by 2021, Trump might have some problems since the DOJ guidelines will no longer protect him.
Why is the statute-of-limitations clock running, in this situation in which an indictment is prohibited?
Why wouldn’t the clock stop, then resume ticking when the target is no longer President?
Because no one in the country or Congress ever thought we’d have a president so corrupt, together with a Republican Senate so corrupt they would fail to act, such that a specific law would be required to toll statutes of limitations until a president was out of office.
Republicans in office now are basically advertising that they are open for business to any hostile foreign government that wants to buy them. So go ahead- buy a senator!
Yes…This is all stated pretty clearly by Mueller in the Introduction to Volume II. Here are the most relevant parts:
So, in summary, they felt their only choices were either to exonerate him or to not exonerate him and lay out the evidence but not reach any prosecutorial conclusion on that evidence. The facts of the case ended up requiring them to do the latter.
This is the most damning statement in the entire thing -
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. ***
White male typing detected.
So, can we get George Soros to buy enough Senators to convict Trump on impeachment charges?
No way they accept filthy Democratic money! Republicans have some standards!
So we just have to filter it through Russia and the NRA. Then it’ll be okay.
Not buy, rent. Sort of like marrying vs. paying a whore.
The non-chargeability of a President does not derive from the Constitution or statute, but merely from DOJ policy. The arguments supporting non-chargeability are political and practical, not legal. IOW Mueller did not file charges *only *because his boss told him not to. There is no legal basis for stopping the clock, at least not until a court rules that way and the ruling holds up on appeal, presumably all the way to SCOTUS.