News Mueller Day - Thursday 4.18.19

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Previous Congresses cannot bind the current one and no law can stop congress from carrying out its constitutional duties.

Evidently SCOTUS has ruled on this and it was unanimous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Grand_Jury_Clause

Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[15] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all. While court reporters usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979).[16][17] The dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Burger and Stewart but concurred with the Court's opinion as to the importance and rationale of grand jury secrecy. Writing for the Court, Justice Powell found that "if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily"; "witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly"; and "there also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors". Further, "persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury [should] not be held up to public ridicule".[16]
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,517
15,399
136
With regards to "collusion" the mueller report doesn't corroborate what the AG said. In fact mueller states that charges couldn't be brought because trump people lied or deleted relevant information and used encrypted apps that didn't store data. That is pretty far from "no collusion".
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,517
15,399
136
Evidently SCOTUS has ruled on this and it was unanimous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Grand_Jury_Clause

Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[15] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all. While court reporters usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979).[16][17] The dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Burger and Stewart but concurred with the Court's opinion as to the importance and rationale of grand jury secrecy. Writing for the Court, Justice Powell found that "if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily"; "witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly"; and "there also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors". Further, "persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury [should] not be held up to public ridicule".[16]

Grand jury information can and has been released before, the AG would need to ask the judge and it would be up to the judge to decide. Do you think this AG will be asking the judge to release this info anytime soon?

Lol I don't think so.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
With regards to "collusion" the mueller report doesn't corroborate what the AG said. In fact mueller states that charges couldn't be brought because trump people lied or deleted relevant information and used encrypted apps that didn't store data. That is pretty far from "no collusion".

I think it's pretty obvious that only the most blindly mindless partisans and Trump faithful would take Barr at 100% face value. Most likely situation is that while he's being technically honest about the report he's doing so in a misleading way that ignores any level of nuance in the report and skips to the conclusion without any of the context that makes the report valuable. The "fake but accurate" angle.
 
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,872
36,854
136
Barr's assertion of no obstruction does not comport with the contents of the report that I'm seeing. Like at all. In fact the report seems to identify a range of arguably/potentially obstructive behavior which, it appears, Mueller thinks Congress could address through its constitutional remedies.
 
Reactions: Bitek

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,496
50,625
136
Evidently SCOTUS has ruled on this and it was unanimous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Grand_Jury_Clause

Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[15] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all. While court reporters usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979).[16][17] The dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Burger and Stewart but concurred with the Court's opinion as to the importance and rationale of grand jury secrecy. Writing for the Court, Justice Powell found that "if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily"; "witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly"; and "there also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors". Further, "persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury [should] not be held up to public ridicule".[16]

That has nothing to do with Congress’s absolute right to grand jury testimony and all other relevant information the government possesses as it relates to impeachment. Nothing. Literally nothing can stand in its way.

Again, this isn’t a hard legal question. It would violate the constitution if a law prevented Congress from properly exercising its impeachment powers.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,187
13,432
146
Barr's assertion of no obstruction does not comport with the contents of the report that I'm seeing. Like at all. In fact the report seems to identify a range of arguably/potentially obstructive behavior which, it appears, Mueller thinks Congress could address through its constitutional remedies.
#pikachusurprise
 

Stryke1983

Member
Jan 1, 2016
176
268
136
So has the situation changed at all?

We know the Russians attempted to influence the election, as per every US intelligence agency.

We know high level members of the Trump administration and Trump campaign had various contacts with Russian operatives and we know that at least some of it was also about influencing the election, as per verbal and written statements from the culprits themselves and evidence from the intelligence agencies.

We know that Trump and various associates attempted to obstruct the course of justice and cover up those contacts, as per statements by Trump himself and repeated evidence of lying by him and his associates.

Yet somehow, despite a mountain of evidence, a lot of it straight from the mouths of the accused. They still don't have the evidence to go further with this? I don't believe Trump is an actual Russian agent. But the evidence shows multiple contacts that were , at best, inappropriate and, at worst, illegal. Even if you choose to ignore that. Trump has openly admitted to obstructing the course of justice. How is that not being acted upon?
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Grand jury information can and has been released before, the AG would need to ask the judge and it would be up to the judge to decide. Do you think this AG will be asking the judge to release this info anytime soon?

Lol I don't think so.

That's a different question and situation than what @fskimospy posed. I have zero doubts that if Congress decided to pass a law saying "don't share X information with us" that it would constitutional as they could repeal or amend that law if they changed their minds later on. Ultimately it seems the judicial branch would be the ultimate decision maker about whether it gets released and not Congress who seems per SCOTUS precedent to have limited to no inherent right to this information for separation of powers reasons. Perhaps that's a poor state of affairs, perhaps it should be changed, and perhaps it would create a Constitutional Crisis if Congress pushed back. But I think @fskimospy is a bit too cavalier in his assertions of legislative privilege to this information. Mind you I have no objection to it being released to them and think it should but as before that's a different argument than the one he's making.
 
Reactions: Xcobra
Jan 25, 2011
16,677
8,855
146
Barr's assertion of no obstruction does not comport with the contents of the report that I'm seeing. Like at all. In fact the report seems to identify a range of arguably/potentially obstructive behavior which, it appears, Mueller thinks Congress could address through its constitutional remedies.
Nor does Barr's assertion that Mueller did not intend to kick the obstruction decision to Congress. Mueller's words...

“We concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice”
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,517
15,399
136
So has the situation changed at all?

We know the Russians attempted to influence the election, as per every US intelligence agency.

We know high level members of the Trump administration and Trump campaign had various contacts with Russian operatives and we know that at least some of it was also about influencing the election, as per verbal and written statements from the culprits themselves and evidence from the intelligence agencies.

We know that Trump and various associates attempted to obstruct the course of justice and cover up those contacts, as per statements by Trump himself and repeated evidence of lying by him and his associates.

Yet somehow, despite a mountain of evidence, a lot of it straight from the mouths of the accused. They still don't have the evidence to go further with this? I don't believe Trump is an actual Russian agent. But the evidence shows multiple contacts that were , at best, inappropriate and, at worst, illegal. Even if you choose to ignore that. Trump has openly admitted to obstructing the course of justice. How is that not being acted upon?

Because a sitting president cannot be indicted according to Barr, the current AG. The investigation wasn't able to come to any complete/concrete conclusions because of the AG's interpretation of the law or because trump's people lied, deleted data, and used encrypted apps that didn't store data.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,187
13,432
146
So has the situation changed at all?

We know the Russians attempted to influence the election, as per every US intelligence agency.

We know high level members of the Trump administration and Trump campaign had various contacts with Russian operatives and we know that at least some of it was also about influencing the election, as per verbal and written statements from the culprits themselves and evidence from the intelligence agencies.

We know that Trump and various associates attempted to obstruct the course of justice and cover up those contacts, as per statements by Trump himself and repeated evidence of lying by him and his associates.

Yet somehow, despite a mountain of evidence, a lot of it straight from the mouths of the accused. They still don't have the evidence to go further with this? I don't believe Trump is an actual Russian agent. But the evidence shows multiple contacts that were , at best, inappropriate and, at worst, illegal. Even if you choose to ignore that. Trump has openly admitted to obstructing the course of justice. How is that not being acted upon?
There's plenty of justification for impeachment, as long as you aren't a die-hard anti-democrat. There's absolutely no reason, when looking at this from a 30k foot view, that Trump should not be impeached. At absolute bare minimum, obstruction of justice and profiting from the position of the presidency should be enough. Everything past that is just an callous disregard for checks and balances.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,496
50,625
136
That's a different question and situation than what @fskimospy posed. I have zero doubts that if Congress decided to pass a law saying "don't share X information with us" that it would constitutional as they could repeal or amend that law if they changed their minds later on. Ultimately it seems the judicial branch would be the ultimate decision maker about whether it gets released and not Congress who seems per SCOTUS precedent to have limited to no inherent right to this information for separation of powers reasons. Perhaps that's a poor state of affairs, perhaps it should be changed, and perhaps it would create a Constitutional Crisis if Congress pushed back. But I think @fskimospy is a bit too cavalier in his assertions of legislative privilege to this information. Mind you I have no objection to it being released to them and think it should but as before that's a different argument than the one he's making.

The argument is that Congress possesses all powers necessary and proper to carry out its constitutional duties and no law can change that.

This is similar to the line item veto. By your theory that would be constitutional because Congress could always take that power back. The courts ruled that congress unconstitutionally limited its own powers.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,187
13,432
146
Nor does Barr's assertion that Mueller did not intend to kick the obstruction decision to Congress. Mueller's words...
This is an important facet. As was stated many times, including by people here, it was expected that Mueller wouldn't specifically indict a sitting president, but would push the matter to Congress. Which he did. Barr's conclusion was erroneous at best, and intentionally false at worse.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,677
8,855
146
Stuck at work and reading slow but Jesus fuck this report is nothing like Barr tried to position it as. The shit is going to be flying huge in a few hours from both sides as they filter this.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,496
50,625
136
Think of the constitutional nightmare if I were wrong - the president could effectively veto congress’s Attempts to investigate him for impeachable offenses.

That’s begging for a dictatorship right there.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I have zero doubts that if Congress decided to pass a law saying "don't share X information with us" that it would constitutional as they could repeal or amend that law if they changed their minds later on.

That argument comes down to any law Congress passes is constitutional because Congress could change the law when it wanted to. That is pretty obviously wrong, as we have had lots of laws Congress passed be declared unconstitutional.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,910
9,167
136
Trump's reaction to the Special Counsel appointment (according to notes from Jody Hunt): "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'M FUCKED!"
 
Reactions: esquared

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,949
8,449
136
Barr's assertion of no obstruction does not comport with the contents of the report that I'm seeing. Like at all. In fact the report seems to identify a range of arguably/potentially obstructive behavior which, it appears, Mueller thinks Congress could address through its constitutional remedies.

Yeah...I just randomly opened pages 9-10 of the report. It is definately not an open and shut exoneration of Trump. The thrust is that there were numerous connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians, but that the people they interviewed, lied, deleted emails and pleaded the 5th such that it was impossible to get enough of a full picture of what was going on to charge anybody.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,677
8,855
146
If anyone wondered Trump's state of mind through all this, apparently when Mueller was appointed he told people it was "the end of my presidency". Not the statement of an innocent person.
 
Reactions: hal2kilo

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,910
9,167
136
Richard Painter: "The obstruction of justice section of the report references both impeachment and prosecution of the president after he leaves office. He's toast."

DOUBLE WHAMMY?

Edit: This might be the closest thing we get to confirmation that there are cases Mueller farmed out to district courts against Donald J. Trump (without seeing the redactions)
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,910
9,167
136
If anyone wondered Trump's state of mind through all this, apparently when Mueller was appointed he told people it was "the end of my presidency". Not the statement of an innocent person.
Really? I tend to react to good news with "I'M FUCKED!" all the time. Whatchu mean, that isn't a thing?
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,949
8,449
136
Report is live for those interested:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

It looks like Appendix C lists Mueller's famous written questions to Trump, and Trump's responses. That section appears to be entirely unredacted. Obviously, I haven't yet had time to read it in detail, but a quick glance indicates (surprise!) quite a lot of not recalling of times, persons or events.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,094
30,035
146
I 100% agree with you! I also think that even if we accept Barr's interpretation of Trump's intent it doesn't hold up. He's basically trying to argue that because Trump was mad about Mueller's investigation he was entitled to obstruct it. This is laughably false.

yes and this totally worked for Nixon when he got all angry and did all that obstruction.

Of course, I'll wait for Mitch and a few other respectable GOP senators that love their country to visit Trump this afternoon, after these true facts regarding many unquestionable counts of obstruction openly admitted by the AG, and like with Nixon, tell them that they can no longer defend him. I'm sure that will happen any day now.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |