Let's get something straight about the Mueller Report...

[Pototan]

...It did not exonerate Trump.

The report was split into two parts. In part one, the report outlined that because of the lack of cooperation by witnesses encouraged by the Trump administration, they could not prove collusion "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In part two, the report detailed all the obstruction of justice by the administration and Trump, himself.

As a result, AG Barr came up with one of the most novel of judicial theories in summarizing the Report.

"You can't charge obstruction without first proving the underlying charge".

What fucking nonsense. The whole purpose of a criminal obstructing justice is to prevent the investigators from obtaining the evidence to prove a charge. In other words, AG Barr says that no charges can be brought against a subject if they successfully obstruct justice.

And the morons bought it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Excellent OP. . . . . nt

[Escurumbele]

2. That report must be made public, I am hoping that when the investigations are completed on

the stolen documents and January 6, 2021, that the DOJ will make the FULL report public.

[Autumn]

20. It won't happen while Garland is in charge. nt

[emulatorloo]

23. Inside information? Please share.

[Autumn]

26. If I have inside information I will start out my post with that. Otherwise it's my opinion,

based on past history I have seen. IMO if Garland was going to release the Mueller report he would have done so. Is that explanation good enough for you?

[emulatorloo]

27. I understand. I assumed you might know something because your statement was authoritative sounding/

I thought you might know something. I thought maybe I had missed some investigative reporting or something.

Thanks for your reply, I really do appreciate it and do appreciate your posts.

[Autumn]

29. Garland knows full well the shit Trump and Barr have done. If he were going to release it he

would have done so by now. He is protecting the institution, of which he is a big part. By doing that he is protecting Trump and Barr, with all his appearances on TV and Trump with his media control and Republicans to control the narrative.

[Evolve Dammit]

43. Not disagreeing. Protecting the "Institution."

[ShazzieB]

57. I guess that's why he appointed Jack Smith to conduct a thorough investigation of Trump.

And put together a case against him. To protect the institution.

Sure, that makes sense.

[Autumn]

59. Makes sense to me. That was the first thing that should have been done. Everybody knew Barr lied.

YMOV

[republianmushroom]

47. believe you to be correct.

[Escurumbele]

3. "And the morons bought it."..What can you expect? They bought that a dead man, Hugo Chavez

verified and instructed on the Dominion voting machines to assure trump votes would be switched to Biden.

I got yesterday, from a republican friend, the video of Sidney Powell telling the lie about Hugo Chavez and Dominion, even though Powell and her lawyers went public admitting it was a lie, some people still believe it.

[Joinfortmill]

4. History will not be good to Bill Barr.

[wryter2000]

7. And he's still out there

Spewing his BS. The only good thing Trump did for us was to ruin several monsters like him. He’ll never be AG again.

[czarjak]

9. Bill Barr was not good to history.

Of course he thought he was bringing about “God’s will”. Lying for The Lord always has Heavenly Rewards.

[DENVERPOPS]

36. All of these MFers

may be done with history, but history ain't through with them..................

[NullTuples]

48. "God's law over Man's law" is not a good worldview for an Attorney General of the USA

[Autumn]

30. History was not good to him after Iran Contra. Then he was resurrected and allowed to

crawl out from under his rock. When the powerful need him he is there. Until he dies.

[Evolve Dammit]

44. Excellent point about Iran Contra. I had forgotten his slime went back that far.

[Johonny]

61. He got to cover up Iran contra and Russian interference in our elections

Yet he freely goes on TV to tell us legal opinions to this day. History will ask why we allowed that.

[Martin Eden]

6. The fact that the US AG can make such a ludicrous assertion and retain his job

Is an indictment against our government officials.

Barr acted more like the personal attorney for an utterly corrupt POtuS than a servant of the people. He finally resigned when he encountered an ethical line even he wouldn't cross, but that does not absolve him of previous conduct.

[LittleGirl]

11. Exactly! Great summary. nt

[former9thward]

40. Then why didn't Garland prosecute?

[Martin Eden]

42. Prosecute Barr? For what specific crime?

Making that ludicrous assertion is not a criminal offense, as far as I know.

[former9thward]

56. The complaint is that Barr did not prosecute Trump.

Garland could have done it for the crime that Barr did not. Why didn't he?

[Martin Eden]

58. Which crime -- obstruction in the Mueller investigation?

That could be a more difficult case to prove than the more serious crimes for which Garland enlisted the services of Jack Smith.

[former9thward]

62. Maybe so but this entire thread is about the Mueller Report and Barr not prosecuting Trump

for obstruction. If those criticisms are valid then Garland should have done it.

[NullTuples]

49. Perhaps because then the GOP would prosecute him if they regain control. They might anyway...

[KPN]

8. Great reminder. We've been entirely off the rails ever since.

Prior accountability failures were merely wrong turns in comparison.

[RocRizzo55]

18. Things have been heading

Off the rails since the days of Ronnie Ran Raygun. He started this crap. This is its natural ending point.

[Meowmee]

10. Agree

[FailureToCommunicate]

12. Important reminder. Thanks.

Our media - television at least- has the memory of a goldfish.

[gab13by13]

13. Your summary is incomplete

Mueller indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people, many of Trump's allies, and 3 companies.

Mueller laid out the evidence to indict "individual one" what DA Bragg is doing right now. Mueller laid out evidence to indict trump for 10 obstruction of justice crimes, from Andrew Weissman's lips, who was on the team. Mueller did not indict trump for individual one or for the 10 obstruction of justice crimes because Trump was a sitting president, he would have indicted Trump.

No one to this day has given me a good reason why Merrick Garland passed on indicting Trump after Trump left office.
I cannot understand why people here bash Robert Mueller who was constrained by Bill Barr but criticize me when I ask the questions why did Merrick Garland not indict Trump for the evidence provided by Mueller, and why did Merrick Garland fail to investigate Trump and his inner circle for 12 to 18 months after the J6 insurrection?

Just think if Garland had indicted "individual one" a much easier case to prove based on federal law, we could have had a Trump trial before the 2024 election, now we will not. Thank you Alvin Bragg for picking up the ball that Garland dropped.

[Pototan]

21. I agree with you

Merrick Garland has been a disappointment to me. His demeanor is best fitted for a judge, not a prosecutor.

I believe Garland would have been a very good SCJ but has proven to be a less than mediocre AG.

Doug Jones would have been a better pick.

[msfiddlestix]

22. Thank you for laying out the exceedingly important backdrop of the entire fiasco

Thinking about the agonizing and dangerous time line with Manhattan's trial proceedings to come, and listening to Andrew Wiesman's point reminding viewers this is going to proceed quite slowly, likely past the 2024 elections.. prompted me to remember how long it took to prosecute Michael Cohen for his role in the case set to go to trial now. I don't quite recall the exact time line, but oit sure seems like it all happened fairly quickly. I believe he was sentenced to serve time in the approximate year he was initially investigated and charged.

if memory serves, in 2017/2018? And he cooperated. He plead guilty which I understand makes a difference. But still from investigation to incarceration was pretty damn quick comparatively.

One of the main reason why I had been so frustrated with this DOJ at the onset of this administration, was the notion that Trump would be running for POTUS again and the politicization would greatly impede prosecutors ability to proceed. And now it looks like the 2024 presidential elections will be an epic nightmare for our country.

I can't get my head around what appears to be quite obvious is going to be in the very near future, all because why?

.

[FakeNoose]

28. I'm guessing that Garland and Biden had a private agreement between them

I'm guessing that Biden made clear that whatever charges that would be made against Chump "in the future" would not happen until after the 2022 mid-term election. Other than that, Garland could do exactly as he wished. If that's the case, Garland agreed to it and accepted the nomination as the Attorney General.

So now here we are. It's 2023 and the barn doors are wide open.

[Evolve Dammit]

45. So what happened to the first SDNY Grand Jury that was dismissed and evidence returned? And two US

Attorneys resigned? MSM sort of didn't report that....

[Botany]

14. Barr and Rosenstein ran a game on Mueller

Rosenstein told Mueller he was limited to looking @ Trump and Russia and when Mueller
turned up real dirt on Trump and Russia Barr shut it down with his rule that you can't indict
a sitting President. Mueller did show 10 solid obstruction of justice charges against Trump
but Garland choose not to go after those charges.

We need to see the whole unredacted Mueller Report.

[gab13by13]

16. It would be nice to see it but

I am repeating what a member of Mueller's team is saying, who helped write the report, Andrew Weissmann.

Weissmann was upset a couple of days ago when he asked the question, why didn't Merrick Garland indict Trump for obstruction of justice? I don't need to see the report to understand that the evidence was there and Garland shit canned the indictment.

[Botany]

17. And every obstruction charge had to do with covering up the Trump/Russia connections

n/t

[Prairie_Seagull]

15. The republicans are knocking down guard rails at the state (of some states) level as we speek.

Serious overreach and is dangerous to our form of government. We can lay this too at the feet of tfg. This needs to have electoral consequences. Can we put the genie back in the bottle? It is looking like we are going to seriously try. If past is prologue Muller taught us hoping for the best is not a good tactic.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Something else folks need to get straight about the Meuller report:

It didn’t provide a road map for a “slam dunk” prosecution of Trump for obstruction.

Out of 14 potential obstruction charges, only 4 potentially met all three legal requirements for conviction on obstruction.

And then Bill Barr worked his magic to taint any future prosecution.

[Hortensis]

24. On this subject, 60 Minutes reported that it exonerated tRump --

the report had just come out, and Scott Pelley read off that bald-faced, one-sentence announcement as truth at the very top of the house, without comment, before the first segment started.

There's currently that other thread about MT Greene's interview, which I haven't seen. The "exoneration" segment was the last we've watched, though we'd already seen evidence the show was serving the Republicans.

[MineralMan]

25. Something else to get straight about it: It's OLD NEWS!

It's not going to play in any of the DOJ's plans. So, it's time to look forward, rather than backwards.

Just my opinion, you know...

[Autumn]

31. That's the problem. When Barr was appointed Iran Contra and Barr's other cover-ups were

OLD NEWS too. THATS why he was appointed, they used to call him Cover up General Barr. Moving on is a big problem in this country.

[MineralMan]

33. But, this is now, and that was then.

We're not going to go back and deal with the past. I don't think we're going to repeat that past, either.

I'm just saying that we need to focus on now, rather than the past. You might disagree.

[Autumn]

34. Right. This is now, and that was then, and THAT is what gave us Trump and his Republicans NOW.

No accountability. And that IS what we need to deal with now. No we aren't going to repeat that past now because Biden would never appoint a cover up master. However, in the next republican administration all bets are off.

[PufPuf23]

32. Barr exhibits across decades to be a corrupt fixer that spouts

nonsense that covers and obscures crime prosecution at critical points in recent USA history.

These crimes are so major most people fail grasp the impact; the MSM and many supposed elected of hired leaders further occlude the criminal events. Bet Barr has constructed a trail of plausible deniability to cover his ass and has instructed others in the techniques.

[ancianita]

35. Mueller PROVED obstruction. Barr REFUSED TO PROSECUTE.

Could this DOJ still prosecute? I don't see why not.

[former9thward]

38. They could have.

Not now. The time limits have run.

[ancianita]

41. I see. Then what I want to know is how are there statutes of limitation on felonies.

Especially those that endanger the nation.

[former9thward]

37. Let's get something straight.

If your theory were true Garland could have charged it. No, the time limits had not run.

[Merrill]

39. Let's take a look .........

7 Articles of Impeachment
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/20/what-are-trump-articles-of-impeachment

[republianmushroom]

46. like this posting

and the statutes of limitation was let to run out.

Let’s assume, then, that the obstructionist conduct started in February 2017 and ended in January 2019.

The statute of limitations for obstruction of justice is 5 years.

Using the earliest date of the conduct described in the Mueller Report, President Trump would need to be indicted by February 14, 2022.

Using the latest date of the conduct described in the Mueller Report (January 18, 2019), an indictment would need to be filed by January 18, 2024.

If President Trump loses the next election, then he’ll no longer be President on January 20, 2021 (at 12:01 pm).
https://grandjurytarget.com/2019/04/24/does-the-statute-of-limitations-prevent-indicting-president-trump-after-he-leaves-office/

[RANDYWILDMAN]

50. Kabuki theater for sure, Barr was fixer the whole time

F- anybody who said Barr was acceptable and reasonable in any way shape or form.

[onecaliberal]

51. We've never seen the entire mueller report so I don't know where that is coming from.

[Pototan]

54. I don't know what "that" refers to

but my information comes from the Executive Summary.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

[onecaliberal]

55. The un-redacted full report has not been released.

Whatever the cons are saying is always bullshit.

[Wounded Bear]

52. K & R...for truth...nt

[elleng]

53. Thanks, and Welcome.

[BSdetect]

60. k&r

[gldstwmn]

63. Also Trump's case in NY was one of the ones originally farmed out by Mueller.

Barr might have tried to paper over the obstruction but the other cases still exist and so does the evidence. I wonder if we'll ever get to read the report?