Mueller Report is Finished, Given to AG Barr

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Advertisement
Reserved for the report (if Barr or a member of Congress chooses to publish it)
 

SorcererMC

Well-Known Member
Barr's letter is saying that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute but does not exonerate Trump.

I don't know how but this investigation has managed to produce the best and worst outcome.

Ugh. It's not over.
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Barr's letter is saying that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute but does not exonerate Trump.

I don't know how but this investigation has managed to produce the best and worst outcome.

Ugh. It's not over.
Yes it exonerates Trump on collusion. As far as obstruction it doesn't. But what did he supposedly obstruct? An investigation into Russian collusion which never happened. What is clear is an investigation was opened into the Trump campaign by the Administration that was doing everything it could to elect his opponent. If you don't agree with those facts please tell me where I am wrong because it those are all facts.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
Barr's letter is saying that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute but does not exonerate Trump.
Weird. It’s almost like I’ve heard this before:

“As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”

Can’t quite place that... /s
 
Last edited:

SorcererMC

Well-Known Member
Yes it exonerates Trump on collusion. As far as obstruction it doesn't. But what did he supposedly obstruct? An investigation into Russian collusion which never happened. What is clear is an investigation was opened into the Trump campaign by the Administration that was doing everything it could to elect his opponent. If you don't agree with those facts please tell me where I am wrong because it those are all facts.
Firstly, there is no legal statute for collusion, so to say that 'he is exonerated on collusion' doesn't make sense.
Part 1: Here's what it says about conspiracy: "The investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election activities."
Note the phrase 'did not establish'. An investigation has to follow the trail of evidence. It means that whatever Mueller found, it didn't rise to the level of criminality for prosecution, ie proof that would meet the legal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Part 2: On Obstruction of Justice: Mueller decided not to make the prosecutorial judgment. SC did not make a determination one way or the other as to whether the conduct constituted obstruction. The report lays out the evidence without reaching a legal conclusion, leaving it to the AG. The report states: "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

AG Barr and Rosenstein concluded that "the evidence developed during the SC investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offence."...."Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct"...

I say it's the best and worst outcome because all of these decisions are going to be parsed and investigated. An impeachable offense isn't necessarily the same thing as a criminal offense.
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Firstly, there is no legal statute for collusion, so to say that 'he is exonerated on collusion' doesn't make sense.
Part 1: Here's what it says about conspiracy: "The investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election activities."
Note the phrase 'did not establish'. An investigation has to follow the trail of evidence. It means that whatever Mueller found, it didn't rise to the level of criminality for prosecution, ie proof that would meet the legal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Part 2: On Obstruction of Justice: Mueller decided not to make the prosecutorial judgment. SC did not make a determination one way or the other as to whether the conduct constituted obstruction. The report lays out the evidence without reaching a legal conclusion, leaving it to the AG. The report states: "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

AG Barr and Rosenstein concluded that "the evidence developed during the SC investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offence."...."Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct"...

I say it's the best and worst outcome because all of these decisions are going to be parsed and investigated. An impeachable offense isn't necessarily the same thing as a criminal offense.
I hope the Democrats go down the impeachment path. It will lead to the end of the party. Please do it. The country will accept the no collusion finding that CNN's reporting.
 

SorcererMC

Well-Known Member
I hope the Democrats go down the impeachment path. It will lead to the end of the party. Please do it. The country will accept the no collusion finding that CNN's reporting.
I agree Dems shouldn't impeach. But because of the legal nuance - people are still going to believe what they want, no matter what side they are on. The report will be released, to the extent possible, and cherry-picked to death.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
However, here in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Seeing there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he is innocent.

What you are prescribing to is that Trump did not prove his innocence. That is not the basis of law in the US. Guilt before innocence is what undid the Dems in the midterm, please keep it up.
 

SorcererMC

Well-Known Member
However, here in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Seeing there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he is innocent.
I'm referring to the evidentiary standards for burden of proof.
Criminal trial = proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil trial = preponderance of evidence standard.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
I'm referring to the evidentiary standards for burden of proof.
Criminal trial = proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil trial = preponderance of evidence standard.
358918


I know this doesn’t add to the discussion, but it fits too perfectly
 

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
I'd sworn off the politics forum, but seeing this report today did make me wonder how people were reacting!

Honestly, the Dems and those opposed to Trump more generally were stupid to pin so many hopes on this investigation finding something. The smart thing to have done would have been to just let it go on in the background and focus on all the ongoing political battles surrounding the administration's actions in the present. I don't like Trump at all, but even I got sick of this fixation on Russia and gleeful predictions of Trump and his family being marched out of the White House and off to jail. At best, their hope was to get him on obstructing an investigation into collusion with Russia which was very unlikely to have been shown to have even occurred. Imagine the public sentiment toward that!
 

SorcererMC

Well-Known Member
So what are you saying?

Mueller didnt have enough proof for 50% + 1 of a jury to find guilt in a civil trial?
No, that's not what I meant. I'm speaking more broadly. Mueller's prosecutorial declination would be based on the criminal standard. But when Congress reviews the report, their examination re: impeachment falls under a different standard. Keeping in mind that impeachment would be for behavior while in office.
An impeachable offense isn't necessarily the same thing as a criminal offense.
Hamilton described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust". (2015 CRS Report) pdf p. 10.

As Trump isn't exonerated on obstruction of justice, what is the nature of the conduct? While there isn't criminal conduct, is there still some evidence of conduct otherwise inappropriate for public office, eg abuse of power? That's a bigger question than what the Barr letter, or perhaps the Mueller investigation, can answer. So that's why I said it's not over; it still has to play out.
 
Last edited:

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
No, that's not what I meant. I'm speaking more broadly. Mueller's prosecutorial declination would be based on the criminal standard. But when Congress reviews the report, their examination re: impeachment falls under a different standard. Keeping in mind that impeachment would be for behavior while in office.

Hamilton described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust". (2015 CRS Report) pdf p. 10.

As Trump isn't exonerated on obstruction of justice, what is the nature of the conduct? While there isn't criminal conduct, is there still some evidence of conduct otherwise inappropriate for public office, eg abuse of power? That's a bigger question than what the Barr letter, or perhaps the Mueller investigation, can answer. So that's why I said it's not over; it still has to play out.
As defined by the United States Constitution, the impeachment and removal of a sitting president requires: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Obstruction of justice is a crime and thus is held to the standard of criminal law in ordinary proceedings. However, there is no burden of proof standard with regard to impeachment trials and it's up to each senator to determine what his/her burden of proof is.

When it comes to indicting however, the prosecutor merely has to demonstrate probable cause, a far lower standard than preponderance of the evidence. For obvious reasons, a prosecutor has a lower standard to indict than a grand jury has to convict.
 
Last edited:

seascape

Well-Known Member
As defined by the United States Constitution, the impeachment and removal of a sitting president requires: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Obstruction of justice is a crime and thus is held to the standard of criminal law in ordinary proceedings. However, there is no burden of proof standard with regard to impeachment trials and it's up to each senator to determine what his/her burden of proof is.

When it comes to indicting however, the prosecutor merely has to demonstrate probable cause, a far lower standard than preponderance of the evidence. For obvious reasons, a prosecutor has a lower standard to indict than a grand jury has to convict.
As I previously said, please please impeach Trump now that Mueller found no collusion. Impeach him on obstruction of justice for trying to end an investigation into something that never happened. I would love to see the Democrats do that. Clinton was at least guilty of a crime and lost his Attorneys license. All Trump is guilty of is being Trump. That may be enough for some but this country has no future if that is all that is needed for the majority.

Everyone knows that the Senate would never convict Trump. In fact all Trump has to do to win reelection is run commercial after commercial showing Democrats saying they have proof Trump colluded with Russia and that he was a puppet of Putin. The Democrats dug their own grave for 2020 and if they dig a little more they can finish the destruction of the Party of Kennedy and Truman.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
No, that's not what I meant. I'm speaking more broadly. Mueller's prosecutorial declination would be based on the criminal standard. But when Congress reviews the report, their examination re: impeachment falls under a different standard. Keeping in mind that impeachment would be for behavior while in office.

Hamilton described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust". (2015 CRS Report) pdf p. 10.

As Trump isn't exonerated on obstruction of justice, what is the nature of the conduct? While there isn't criminal conduct, is there still some evidence of conduct otherwise inappropriate for public office, eg abuse of power? That's a bigger question than what the Barr letter, or perhaps the Mueller investigation, can answer. So that's why I said it's not over; it still has to play out.
Now we are going to impeach on grounds of "other than criminal" offenses? I get the Dems do not like Trump, that is not grounds for impeachment
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom