Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. @~thehung

    What a joke

    LOL Fox no. no, lets use our brains and actually read the FACTS, shall we? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III Submitted Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c) Washington, D.C. March 2019 INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I ... The report on our investigation consists of two volumes: Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel' s investigation of Russia' s interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions. Volume II addresses the President' s actions towards the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel' s investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations that guided that investigation. ... ... INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers."1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2 Second, 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.3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available. Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5 The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment 's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern."6 Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report' s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220. 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. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. ... ... [footnotes to Volume II] 1 A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 222, 260 (2000) (OLC Op.). 2 See U.S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President). 3 OLC Op. at 257 n.36 ("A grand jury could continue to gather evidence throughout the period of immunity"). 4 OLC Op. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment"). 1087 OLC applied such a balancing test in concluding that the President is not subject to criminal prosecution while in office, relying on many of the same precedents discussed in this section. See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 237-238, 244-245 (2000) (relying on, interalia, United States v. Nixon, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, and Clinton v. Jones, and quoting the legal standard from Administrator of General Services v. Nixon that is applied in the text). OLC recognized that "[t]he balancing analysis" it had initially relied on in finding that a sitting President is immune from prosecution had "been adopted as the appropriate mode of analysis by the Court." Id. at 244. 1091 A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official's conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. l, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC has recognized. A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment."). _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ yeah, from the first line of the introduction on, you can really tell he just wasnt influenced by "by the not indict a sitting president rule at all" /smfh
  3. Today
  4. chrisg

    What a joke

    Heh, It is not what Barr said, it's what he left out saying. You really should read the report not Barr's abbreviated Cliff Notes. As for access to the unredacted report I am pretty certain you do not understand. The report was commissioned by the Justice Department, under FOI any citizen or representative can request a copy and have the Department show just cause as to why there are redactions. That is not going to be justifiable under a cloak of "confidential" because too many people involved in the report in its totality would not meet that criteria. Strangely the very notification of the report possibly being "Confidential" in parts has been struck through. The redaction is nothing but a smokescreen and just why you would think any lies are blacked out is beyond me,.The report is in large measure about uncovering lies and its success in that regard is already measurable in the number of prosecutions it has generated, with very likely more to follow. Barr is in the end nothing but a Trump scapegoat, whether willingly or unwillingly is uncertain but he is not above the law, not close to as protected as the President is, by a large margin. The public interest is such that the full report WILL be released, what is going on is nothing but a delaying tactic. Expect then for Barr to disappear, under a cloud. Meanwhile the many other investigations into Trump will continue to add to the pile of evidence against his presidency. I said previously I never expected the Mueller report to bring Trump down, in that regard it has gone further than I anticipated and is a rich environment for follow-up investigation just as Mueller it is widely believed intended. What is interesting is that its very brief does not go to the real underlying questions. Those are: Why were the Russians interested in influencing the 2016 election in the first place, and to what extent did they succeed ? Some but I'd suspect by no means all of the latter has been answered and from the tone and content of the report that leaves questions to be answered that will dig closer and closer to House Trump culpability. The House is becoming ever more entangled in its history of lies and deceit. Time will tell. Cheers
  5. eveln

    Green Room non-Googleable Music Quiz Game.

    Ooo maybe PhR33X is havin' a for real Easter holiday ...
  6. SceptreCore

    AMD Zen

    They're ahead of Intel
  7. Its easy to see when they have only one wing, they just keep flying round in circles
  8. Waltish

    What a joke

    Facts are still facts either what Barr said will be supported by the contents of the report or it wont .
  9. Nich...

    What a joke

    Is this the first time you're reading political coverage, and you're surprised that in the political sphere, often it's about staying on-message moreso than the truth?
  10. Waltish

    What a joke

    Naddler wont get his untrdacted version . Barr has already said a select few with security clearence from both sides of the house will get to see a version that is unredacted except for the grand jury material. Barr was under no legal compulsion to release the Mueller report at all, he released it his discretion. No unredacted public version will be made available, any redacted material that gets reported will be lies or leaked classified material or a combination of both. Heaven help the leakers of this one if they are caught.
  11. Interesting that they're going for the low power versions of higher powered CPUs. I have low powered i3 and i5 CPUs here but I dont see the point with i9s unless you can switch to low power mode.
  12. Yesterday
  13. chrisg

    What a joke

    Any redacted document is Swiss cheese. I've read it, dry, boring but under the surface lots of carefully barbed inference. The message that comes out is that Mueller and his team have crafted a report that cannot be challenged but leaves a lot of questions to be explored. It's a very circumspect document that I find rather clever in that regard, evidenced by the way Barr can put spin on it but also lots of gems for the Dems to go dig out. Mueller is playing to the reality, the Dems do not control Senate, if they did they'd be calling for impeachment right now, to turn loose the hounds but as things stand in the power balance that would be a weakening waste of time. Similar did in fact happen during Watergate, the real difference is the Trump camp have cleared out the people they do not trust to sing their song inside the WH, but they seem to have forgotten those people can still talk and have disturbing things to say. The Reps are crowing a lot of bravado but under the surface I'd suggest they are very, very worried. Wait for more shoes to drop, death by a thousand cuts. Cheers
  14. fliptopia

    What a joke

    It's quite possible that Barr is reading what he wants to see in this reports and then giving it the best possible spin, knowing that Trump supporters will want to see the same thing when they read the report and help them stay onside by colouring it from the start. People on the left will do the same of course. Seeing the most damning bits and picking up on those, giving full attention to those bits. In the end we've all got assumptions a out what it might say and it's playing out exactly like that in comments everywhere I've seen. Having said that, I don't have any real plans to read the document itself. I'm doubt I'll be reading that much for a game I have no effect over. If it were a politician I could vote for it might be different. But then again I might find my curiosity will get the better of me. Maybe we'll see who does trying to sell spin and maybe once something happens/doesn't happen we'll blame something/someone else for buying into spin and taking the document the wrong way and not understanding context or some such thing... Personally I'm giving more weight to internationally owned sources due to them likely having a lest vested interest in what happens in America. I'm sure you'll feel they may be part of a globalist agenda though so I know it won't be how you will find a trustworthy source.
  15. Waltish

    What a joke

    Incredible... what Barr said about the report is easily verified or discredited by the report itself, which is being made public. Why would he lie then release proof of the lie, hmmm he wouldnt. Time will show who/whom twisted the truth. The scales of justice are about to rebalance.
  16. UkkiahWagg

    Building a database

    Ok, also check database solutions by https://www.enteros.com/solutions/, building a database from scratch sucks. I got used to ready solutions, Enteros offers quite good ones.
  17. Cybes

    What a joke

    Look, regardless of the side of the divide you're on (on ANY issue, not just politics - and especially not just this case), citing the guy suspected of twisting the truth, and as reported by a source known for bias, is NOT the way to get to truth. The redacted report is freely available online; why don't you try reading it for yourself? I think, if you do, you will see that even based on the material Barr left *in* the document released he's being exceedingly misleading - if not outright lying. For example, he restates multiple times Trump's favourite "no collusion" mantra,, and he's technically correct - because the charge was not collusion it was conspiracy. Now, in daily use, those are almost interchangeable terms, but they're very different from a legal perspective. I don't care if you have a different opinion than me. I do care if your opinion is based on bullshit.
  18. chrisg

    What a joke

    I think not Walt. The Guardian, Kimmo's favorite source, gives the more balanced post mortem on the report and what challenges now face America. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/19/mueller-report-bad-guys-play-dirty-trump-democrats-duty Up to them, if they don't pick up the gun then they deserve Trump... It's very far from over. Cheers
  19. Waltish

    What a joke

    I like Dr Steve Turley, I like what he say and also how he says it
  20. chrisg

    What a joke

    I don't as a rule Nich, the link was sent to me. I always find it amusing however that The Atlantic is housed in The Watergate The way I read the report Walt Mueller was rather non-committal about the DoJ edict that a President should not be indicted, the tone is more along the lines of his laying groundwork for impeachment. It is a sensible situation to have the President protected from civil criminal prosecution, to avoid distraction in the job. Probably just as well for Trump, he and his businesses have spent an extraordinary amount of time in court. Makes you wonder if he didn't run for President to get a break https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump I really do not know how you or any sensible person can take Barr's attempt at a Whitewash for the White House seriously. He's a Trump appointed spin merchant, pure and simple. Cheers
  21. Lower power coffee lakes ... including i9-9900t with 8 cores using 35W! Yes, they are lower clocked than the usual coffee lakes. https://hothardware.com/news/intel-core-i9-9900tcpu-leads-9th-gen-coffee-lake-refresh-lineup
  22. Nich...

    What a joke

    I thought you didn't do social media?
  23. Waltish

    What a joke

    Mueller did not make it clear that he was heavily influenced by the not indict a sitting president rule at all, in fact he strongly emphasised the opposite and that the rule played no part at all in his decision. Why keep getting supposed facts from the lieing looney left. Here lets hear the facts before they are respun into a web of lies.
  24. chrisg

    What a joke

    Hmm, I generally find The Atlantic to be a fairly even-handed paper, this is, from what of the report I've read so far, a good analysis of what is between the lines of the report, laid out in careful language: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/muellers-damning-portrait-of-trump/587521/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral An interesting insight into what emanates from the Oval Office... Cheers
  25. LOL - right wing? You are so far from the truth you're in another galaxy. However, once anyone pigeon holes someone into a 'left' or 'right' category, you've lost all credibility with me. The world is not black and white, champ. Perhaps to you it is, but it's all grey to me. Idiot.
  26. chrisg

    how crap is this government ?

    PA gets it from a pipeline from the Murray, used to be bloody horrible water, better now. My bro is having thoughts about his own desal plant - he's right on the Gulf. I THINK he's joking.. . Cheers
  27. Jeruselem

    how crap is this government ?

    And SA gets the leftovers of the rivers from Vic, NSW and Qld.
  28. Last week
  29. fliptopia

    What a joke

    I was reading this this morning https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/mueller-report-examined-10-potential-obstruction-of-justice-episodes-by-trump-a-g-barr-20190419-p51fjm.html "Mueller did not recommend that Trump be charged with obstruction of justice but emphasised that he was not clearing him of committing a crime. "The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment," Mueller’s report states. "At the same time, 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."" "Mueller makes clear he was heavily influenced by Justice Department guidelines stating that a sitting president should not be indicted; he also states it would be a distracting burden for a president to face prosecution while in office." That last bit seems to say what he really wants to say but can't within the scope of what he is tasked to do.
  1. Load more activity
×