45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 6)

[Byker28i]

Does this read the Mueller wanted to subpoena trump but the DOJ turned it down?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/muelle...

[Aphex]

[Old Man Fred]

Byker28i said:

Does this read the Mueller wanted to subpoena trump but the DOJ turned it down?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/muelle...

I don't really see the point of Trump being subpoena'd, it's not like he is going to own up and start telling the truth. Most people would know he is lying and the threat of a punishment for lying under oath would be nothing more than he is already going to get multiple times for various frauds that he has committed

[anonymous-user]

Byker28i said:

Does this read the Mueller wanted to subpoena trump but the DOJ turned it down?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/muelle...

Once the report is released we will find all sorts of festering st.

However, I won't matter as the headline is already set in stone.

[andy_s]

Dumb or intelligent? A certain degree of native cunning honed by a lifetime of sharp practise.

[NRS]

minimoog said:

NRS said:

And as part of their work it seems one of the reasons they didn't view it as obstruction was that there was no crime to cover up, as determined by there being no (direct Trump) collusion charge in the Russian Interference section. That perhaps suggests it might be been interpreted as obstruction if it was viewed there was a crime to hide.

The problem with that interpretation is it's essentially saying you can obstruct an investigation as much as you like and as long as it works you're home free.

That's why (to me) it's likely the thing to focus on more. The Russia direct link seems to be a dead end in terms of what is written. Whereas it seems like he might be close to, if not across the line, on obstruction. However 1 issue is that if there is no crime committed then why would someone's motivation be to obstruct it? As you said this could result in it being ok to hide your crimes and if you do it well enough you don't get charged on either. However in this case I'd guess Mueller would write that - seems likely to have committed crimes but no evidence. Whereas this seems to say more actively there was not any link.

But will need to see more when the report (or parts) comes out later to get more details.

[Countdown]

Old Man Fred said:

I don't really see the point of Trump being subpoena'd, it's not like he is going to own up and start telling the truth. Most people would know he is lying and the threat of a punishment for lying under oath would be nothing more than he is already going to get multiple times for various frauds that he has committed

IIRC his own lawyers said to Mueller that they wouldn't let him testify (speak to him) because he was guaranteed to incriminate himself. That's why they would only provide written answers to his questions.

That's how clever/stupid he is.

[Lazermilk]

minimoog said:

fido said:

So true. I notice it’s the same people who also tell me the EU have no power (or my favourite analogy from the contradictors - “it’s just like a town council”) even though we’ve spent two firkin’ years trying to get away from this supposedly powerless entity!

We've spent two years trying to persuade the wife we've just divorced to fk us. For some reason she's having none of it. Now off to the Brexit threads with your bks.

[Countdown]

Lazermilk said:

minimoog said:

fido said:

So true. I notice it’s the same people who also tell me the EU have no power (or my favourite analogy from the contradictors - “it’s just like a town council”) even though we’ve spent two firkin’ years trying to get away from this supposedly powerless entity!

We've spent two years trying to persuade the wife we've just divorced to fk us. For some reason she's having none of it. Now off to the Brexit threads with your bks.

[Lazermilk]

Was watching these Stephen Fry Brexit videos on youtube and the second one included quite a lot on Trump, so thought I would link it here too.

Brexit 2: May & Trump vs Truth, with Stephen Fry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fx9DdxiB3k

[Byker28i]

Countdown said:

Old Man Fred said:

I don't really see the point of Trump being subpoena'd, it's not like he is going to own up and start telling the truth. Most people would know he is lying and the threat of a punishment for lying under oath would be nothing more than he is already going to get multiple times for various frauds that he has committed

IIRC his own lawyers said to Mueller that they wouldn't let him testify (speak to him) because he was guaranteed to incriminate himself. That's why they would only provide written answers to his questions.

That's how clever/stupid he is.

To be fair he said a lot of things, (if we're talking Giuliani) but lets not forgt another of his lawyers (Cohemn) accused trump of orchestrating a felony plot to violate campaign finance laws to get elected.

[Byker28i]

The Washington Post have an interesting read as an opinion piece

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/25...

That is genuinely, if narrowly, exonerating for the president on the “collusion” question.

But even if you accept that to be the case, the following three things are also true:

Donald Trump got elected president in part due to a massive foreign attack on our democracy.
Even if Trump’s campaign didn’t collude with that act in a criminally chargeable manner, he committed extraordinary abuses of power to try to prevent a full accounting of that attack on our democracy from taking place.
Trump’s attorney general is in the process of preventing a real public airing of the full dimensions of both of the above points.

[charlie7777]

Here they come.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/hollywood-st...

[mygoldfishbowl]

[_dobbo_]

charlie7777 said:

Here they come.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/hollywood-st...

Why the rolleyes? Are celebrities not allowed an opinion? Is it only people who hide behind an anonymous login that are allowed to express their thoughts Charlie7777?

[Vanden Saab]

NRS said:

minimoog said:

NRS said:

And as part of their work it seems one of the reasons they didn't view it as obstruction was that there was no crime to cover up, as determined by there being no (direct Trump) collusion charge in the Russian Interference section. That perhaps suggests it might be been interpreted as obstruction if it was viewed there was a crime to hide.

The problem with that interpretation is it's essentially saying you can obstruct an investigation as much as you like and as long as it works you're home free.

That's why (to me) it's likely the thing to focus on more. The Russia direct link seems to be a dead end in terms of what is written. Whereas it seems like he might be close to, if not across the line, on obstruction. However 1 issue is that if there is no crime committed then why would someone's motivation be to obstruct it? As you said this could result in it being ok to hide your crimes and if you do it well enough you don't get charged on either. However in this case I'd guess Mueller would write that - seems likely to have committed crimes but no evidence. Whereas this seems to say more actively there was not any link.

But will need to see more when the report (or parts) comes out later to get more details.

I might have understood it wrong but is it not the case that there could only be obstruction if there was a crime and as there was no collusion therefore there could be no obstruction to that. I also assumed that he has not been totally cleared of obstruction as if other unrelated crimes are proved he could be found guilty of obstructing enquires on those.

[charlie7777]

_dobbo_ said:

charlie7777 said:

Here they come.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/hollywood-st...

Why the rolleyes? Are celebrities not allowed an opinion? Is it only people who hide behind an anonymous login that are allowed to express their thoughts Charlie7777?

Would it be better if I listed the car I drive?

[paulguitar]

mygoldfishbowl said:

It looks like Congress may be asking Mueller to testify, which seems a very sensible thing to do given Barr’s questionable letter wording yesterday, which appears more and more misleading as the letter is further dissected.

I think this is probably going to run for quite some time yet. In the meantime, I think there will be many, many photos and memes like this one going around on Twitter. To be fair, the orange conman’s supporters deserve some ‘fun’. I expect it is a genuine surprise to most trumpists that he was not found clearly guilty of something enormous, considering his past life history and the fact that he has been doing a daily impression for two years of someone who is very, very guilty of something.

There are lots of worrying issues concerning Barr and his son. Christ, the USA is tiring. I am here in the states 90% of my year and yet massively relieved to be British, despite all of the issues with the UK.

[minimoog]

Vanden Saab said:

I might have understood it wrong but is it not the case that there could only be obstruction if there was a crime and as there was no collusion therefore there could be no obstruction to that.

That's the position that Barr has taken, yes. As I said that leads to the possibility of someone committing a crime then successfully obstructing the investigation into it, such that the crime is never proven. Should that then mean the obstruction carries no consequences? Barr seems to think so.

[anonymous-user]

Interesting from Fox news of all people.

"Mueller did not exonerate Trump – Barr acted as judge and jury. Now Congress needs to do its job".

"Barr’s actions to try to exonerate Trump in this manner, without facts or evidence, is a disservice to our country, our democracy, and the American people."

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mueller-did-not-ex...