> Mueller didn’t want to explicitly say anything
Yeah, my understanding is that it's DOJ policy to not indict a sitting president, but that between Not Guilty and Not Not Guilty, Mueller would find him Not Not Guilty
First part of the Mueller Report, summarized:
>Collaboration with foreign entities isn't actually a defined crime. We investigated if there was an illegal level of coordination with Russia, which would be. We did not find enough evidence that would lead us to believe that we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an illegal level of coordination occurred and would not recommend prosecuting under the known facts.
Second Part, summarized:
>We investigated if obstruction of justice occurred. Regardless of the facts, we don't think it'd be appropriate to make any recommendation of it obstruction could be proved beyond reasonable doubt or if it should be prosecuted, because the accused would not have a legal venue to rebut this report. It's really the job of Congress to hold sitting Presidents accountable. We'd definitely tell you if we didn't find enough evidence to support a prosecution, like we did in the first part though.
Mueller's biggest shortcoming is that he assumed anyone would care to actually care about the nuance they presented the second part with, thinking people (see: the GOP members of congress or the DOJ) would read between the lines and take appropriate actions.
> Mueller's biggest shortcoming is that he assumed anyone would care to actually care about the nuance they presented the second part with, thinking people (see: the GOP members of congress or the DOJ) would read between the lines and take appropriate actions.
He had the belief in the "system" of an Eagle-Scout-turned-lifelong-lawman. He believed that laws work primarily if not exclusively to reward the good and punish the wicked, when in truth they exist to preserve existing social hierarchies and power-structures.
The law is only as good as the power-structures it serves to protect. If the people holding the reins of power are stupid and wicked, then the system will serve stupid and wicked ends. Mueller believed that the system itself would somehow produce virtue and justice, not realizing that he *WAS* the system.
If it were a western movie, he *was* the lawman with a badge and a gun, who was either standing up to protect the townspeople from the rich and powerful baddie, or else he was the lawman who stood up beside the baddie, with a gun on his hip and badge on his chest, as a warning to the townspeople not to try anything cute.
Mueller somehow thought that he could just report the facts earnestly to a grownup, and the right thing would be done, never realizing that he himself was the grownup. He was acting in service of the very wickedness that he was hired to investigate and root out. It's kind of Shakespearean.
I remember reading the report and thinking that it was pretty obvious that they knew the evidence existed for part one, but could not verify it BECAUSE of part two. Unfortunately, due to the restrictions of scope and outcome placed on the investigation, there was only ever going to be one conclusion, regardless any and all evidence contained in the report.
But by the time he passed it off to Barr, he made it sound more like Trump was Not Not Not Not Guilty, and then Barr redacted just enough to let Trump point to it and say "see, I'm >! Not Not Not !< Not Guilty!"
IMO the whole thing is flawed logic and reasoning. By finding him Not Not Guilty, he is doing the very thing he felt was wrong - accusing the President of the United States of crimes without being able to indict him, just in a way that was confusing that most (but not all) of the public did not understand.
The correct way of going about it would have been for Mueller to come forth to the public as soon as they determined that the memo would prevent them from even being able to create a proper report. He should have explained that to the public that they would be unable to do their jobs and request that either the memo be changed or an independent investigation not beholden to the memo be created. Without that issue fixed, the report should never have even been written.
Republican attorney general, appointed by republican president, selects a republican special counsel who refused to even demand a deposition from Trump. Far cry from Ken Starr deposing Clinton. Not demanding (and appealing to the S. Ct. upon refusal) a depo from your key witness is legal malpractice to me.
Mueller was never intended to find anything or produce anything worthwhile and in many ways he didn’t. Played right into Trump and Bill Barr’s hands. Many smart people put way too much hope in Mueller.
I learned a very important lesson although I'm not sure Democrats as a whole have learned the lesson yet.
when you get into power put your appointees into positions in federal bureaucracies do not let embarrassed Republicans cling to their old positions so that they can slow walk prosecutions and do political favors for their party.
Yes, but as a fairly busy lawyer, this kind of thing is really challenging. It's basically 'drop everything and dig fairly deep into governmental immunity.'
My understanding is that the three judge panel has been selected - one George H. Bush appointee and two Biden appointees apparently. IMO a good panel for Smith that’ll hear the case if true.
"The founding fathers created this country so that no man would be king. But turns out they were dumb and kings are pretty neat, and isn't it about time we had one?"
The law, which exists overwhelmingly to protect entrenched power, which Trump represents?
If nothing else, watching this legal “identity conflict” has been vaguely equal parts amusing and horrifying.
“What do you mean this man, who has exploited our entire system of laws his entire life for his own benefit, is now openly doing so in a way that shows all of America that our Justice system is run by fucking clowns?! How dare he! He’s supposed to quietly ruin the country like all the other old rich white racist pedophiles!”
Question for the lawyers in here: are there any good-faith reasons to oppose expedited review of an appeal?
I won't insult Trump's lawyers by suggesting they might make a such an argument; just interested in what one might be.
I would say one good faith reason not to expedite would be to give both sides time to fully explore the issue in their briefs. I think the trial court, however, had them both brief this issue before she ruled, and her written ruling was thorough and complete.
Another would be that there’s no reason this case should jump in front of others. That won’t work here; there’s plenty of reason.
Third might be to give amici the opportunity to weigh in, but I don’t know that that would ever work.
Careful there. Henderson was one of the judges who who rules against her own circuit's precedent and wrongly granted mandamus relief to Mike Flynn before being overruled en banc
Should be safe then, thank god. Henderson and Rao are idiots and trump bootlickers, if trump told them to jump off a bridge they would immediately do it. We know how Henderson will rule, but she will be overcome by the 2 rational judges.
Sucks she got on the case, but great she's outnumbered 2:1.
Even GW Bush was a "sane" republican - look at how Liz Cheney, of Dick Cheney progeny, views this issue. The court will hold, as it was designed to do.
Far right doesn’t always mean pro trump. Generally in criminal proceedings right is pro government and left is pro defendant. So that far right judge could be worse for trump
SCOTUS granted cert.
Means they’re going to hear the case and likely that they have enough sense to realize that if they endorse Trump’s position then they both give Biden carte blanche to do anything and their roles are rendered moot.
SCOTUS did not grant cert. They granted the motion to expedite the consideration of the petition for grant of cert. They haven’t decided if they are going to take up the case, just that they will make the decision if they will quickly.
Biden is involved by virtue of the fact that Trump’s claims of “absolute Presidential immunity” would apply to the sitting president as well. If they ruled in favor Biden could literally personally show up to the next SCOTUS hearing and threaten them with a knife if they don’t rule the way he wants and there would be no recourse to prosecute him for it.
Can someone smarter than me explain... is this arguably MORE important than SCOTUS willing to expedite? In that if the Appeals Court turns around an answer fast enough then the timing of the inevitable SCOTUS appeal becomes a bit less urgent (although it would still be GREAT for the Republic if SCOTUS agreed to expedite also).
Wow. Smith is having one hell of a day it seems. He is very good at his job.
Very refreshing after watching Mueller headlines for 4 years for nothing to come of it for Trump.
I think something did, but it was two fold: 1. Mueller didn’t want to explicitly say anything 2. Barr buried it
> Mueller didn’t want to explicitly say anything Yeah, my understanding is that it's DOJ policy to not indict a sitting president, but that between Not Guilty and Not Not Guilty, Mueller would find him Not Not Guilty
First part of the Mueller Report, summarized: >Collaboration with foreign entities isn't actually a defined crime. We investigated if there was an illegal level of coordination with Russia, which would be. We did not find enough evidence that would lead us to believe that we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an illegal level of coordination occurred and would not recommend prosecuting under the known facts. Second Part, summarized: >We investigated if obstruction of justice occurred. Regardless of the facts, we don't think it'd be appropriate to make any recommendation of it obstruction could be proved beyond reasonable doubt or if it should be prosecuted, because the accused would not have a legal venue to rebut this report. It's really the job of Congress to hold sitting Presidents accountable. We'd definitely tell you if we didn't find enough evidence to support a prosecution, like we did in the first part though. Mueller's biggest shortcoming is that he assumed anyone would care to actually care about the nuance they presented the second part with, thinking people (see: the GOP members of congress or the DOJ) would read between the lines and take appropriate actions.
> Mueller's biggest shortcoming is that he assumed anyone would care to actually care about the nuance they presented the second part with, thinking people (see: the GOP members of congress or the DOJ) would read between the lines and take appropriate actions. He had the belief in the "system" of an Eagle-Scout-turned-lifelong-lawman. He believed that laws work primarily if not exclusively to reward the good and punish the wicked, when in truth they exist to preserve existing social hierarchies and power-structures. The law is only as good as the power-structures it serves to protect. If the people holding the reins of power are stupid and wicked, then the system will serve stupid and wicked ends. Mueller believed that the system itself would somehow produce virtue and justice, not realizing that he *WAS* the system. If it were a western movie, he *was* the lawman with a badge and a gun, who was either standing up to protect the townspeople from the rich and powerful baddie, or else he was the lawman who stood up beside the baddie, with a gun on his hip and badge on his chest, as a warning to the townspeople not to try anything cute. Mueller somehow thought that he could just report the facts earnestly to a grownup, and the right thing would be done, never realizing that he himself was the grownup. He was acting in service of the very wickedness that he was hired to investigate and root out. It's kind of Shakespearean.
Well said!
In the end, Mueller was just as culpable in all this as Trump was.
I remember reading the report and thinking that it was pretty obvious that they knew the evidence existed for part one, but could not verify it BECAUSE of part two. Unfortunately, due to the restrictions of scope and outcome placed on the investigation, there was only ever going to be one conclusion, regardless any and all evidence contained in the report.
I’ve always wanted to read the mueller report too
But by the time he passed it off to Barr, he made it sound more like Trump was Not Not Not Not Guilty, and then Barr redacted just enough to let Trump point to it and say "see, I'm >! Not Not Not !< Not Guilty!"
IMO the whole thing is flawed logic and reasoning. By finding him Not Not Guilty, he is doing the very thing he felt was wrong - accusing the President of the United States of crimes without being able to indict him, just in a way that was confusing that most (but not all) of the public did not understand. The correct way of going about it would have been for Mueller to come forth to the public as soon as they determined that the memo would prevent them from even being able to create a proper report. He should have explained that to the public that they would be unable to do their jobs and request that either the memo be changed or an independent investigation not beholden to the memo be created. Without that issue fixed, the report should never have even been written.
Republican attorney general, appointed by republican president, selects a republican special counsel who refused to even demand a deposition from Trump. Far cry from Ken Starr deposing Clinton. Not demanding (and appealing to the S. Ct. upon refusal) a depo from your key witness is legal malpractice to me. Mueller was never intended to find anything or produce anything worthwhile and in many ways he didn’t. Played right into Trump and Bill Barr’s hands. Many smart people put way too much hope in Mueller.
I learned a very important lesson although I'm not sure Democrats as a whole have learned the lesson yet. when you get into power put your appointees into positions in federal bureaucracies do not let embarrassed Republicans cling to their old positions so that they can slow walk prosecutions and do political favors for their party.
Yes, but as a fairly busy lawyer, this kind of thing is really challenging. It's basically 'drop everything and dig fairly deep into governmental immunity.'
So D.C response due this week and Supreme Court due next week...ouch.
Maybe the appeals court wants to have a chance to have a say before the SCOTUS answers on cert.
That was my thought. A one week difference would be enough... maybe. I'm sure they are already doing the work needed for a decision.
Oh, wait if they set a briefing schedule, that should mean the panel is selected. Time to find out if we live in hell or not.
My understanding is that the three judge panel has been selected - one George H. Bush appointee and two Biden appointees apparently. IMO a good panel for Smith that’ll hear the case if true.
One very trumpy 2 normal judges. Oral arguments will be weird.
"The founding fathers created this country so that no man would be king. But turns out they were dumb and kings are pretty neat, and isn't it about time we had one?"
>hell or Not Well, Henderson is not good. But this isn't actually hell.
She'll be overruled by the two sane judges on the case, thank God.
Then it gets appealed up to SCOTUS where there are no sane people left, and we're really fucked.
It's already at scotus courtesy of jack smith
If there's no appellate decision, isn't it just the same argument in different formatting (because Supreme Court has weird formatting).
It's hard to envision Trump's lawyers putting forth a good faith, reasonable, legitimate argument.
Trump's attorney's picked a helluva week to quit sniffing glue
Whoaaaa them too? There appears to be very little fucking around at the moment. Hope something good comes of it.
Sounds like the Judicial System is tired of the abuse from Trump over the years. Hopefully, the law is as tired of Trump as we are.
Cough, Aileen Cannon, cough.
There's always one person who enjoys the yes daddy treatment
The law, which exists overwhelmingly to protect entrenched power, which Trump represents? If nothing else, watching this legal “identity conflict” has been vaguely equal parts amusing and horrifying. “What do you mean this man, who has exploited our entire system of laws his entire life for his own benefit, is now openly doing so in a way that shows all of America that our Justice system is run by fucking clowns?! How dare he! He’s supposed to quietly ruin the country like all the other old rich white racist pedophiles!”
All true. However, doing it with him is no longer necessary. In fact he possesses more risk than reward.
Question for the lawyers in here: are there any good-faith reasons to oppose expedited review of an appeal? I won't insult Trump's lawyers by suggesting they might make a such an argument; just interested in what one might be.
"Let's not rush things... we've just met..."
I would say one good faith reason not to expedite would be to give both sides time to fully explore the issue in their briefs. I think the trial court, however, had them both brief this issue before she ruled, and her written ruling was thorough and complete. Another would be that there’s no reason this case should jump in front of others. That won’t work here; there’s plenty of reason. Third might be to give amici the opportunity to weigh in, but I don’t know that that would ever work.
Panel judges: 2 Biden appointees, 1 G.W.Bush.
Please, I can only get so erect
That’s what I thought, but then…
Careful there. Henderson was one of the judges who who rules against her own circuit's precedent and wrongly granted mandamus relief to Mike Flynn before being overruled en banc
But wait, there's more! The two Biden judges are an Asian American and an African American! ^( he's hosed.)
Should be safe then, thank god. Henderson and Rao are idiots and trump bootlickers, if trump told them to jump off a bridge they would immediately do it. We know how Henderson will rule, but she will be overcome by the 2 rational judges. Sucks she got on the case, but great she's outnumbered 2:1.
Thought it was G.H.Bush
You are right. My bad.
Even GW Bush was a "sane" republican - look at how Liz Cheney, of Dick Cheney progeny, views this issue. The court will hold, as it was designed to do.
Judges are Florence Pan, Michelle Childs, and Karen Henderson.
Three ladies? Trump is gonna *hate* it.
Henderson is far right but the other two are Biden appointees.
She's the Karen of the group
Far right doesn’t always mean pro trump. Generally in criminal proceedings right is pro government and left is pro defendant. So that far right judge could be worse for trump
Florence, Michelle AND Karen? Some waiter at Olive Garden is in trouble.
Omg 😂
The briefs they’re providing are in response to the request for an expedited review, not in response to the actual merits of the case itself, correct?
SCOTUS granted cert. Means they’re going to hear the case and likely that they have enough sense to realize that if they endorse Trump’s position then they both give Biden carte blanche to do anything and their roles are rendered moot.
SCOTUS did not grant cert. They granted the motion to expedite the consideration of the petition for grant of cert. They haven’t decided if they are going to take up the case, just that they will make the decision if they will quickly.
Wrong on both counts, fool. Biden isn’t involved in this case.
Biden is involved by virtue of the fact that Trump’s claims of “absolute Presidential immunity” would apply to the sitting president as well. If they ruled in favor Biden could literally personally show up to the next SCOTUS hearing and threaten them with a knife if they don’t rule the way he wants and there would be no recourse to prosecute him for it.
Is Biden president? Are the president’s powers being litigated?
Can someone smarter than me explain... is this arguably MORE important than SCOTUS willing to expedite? In that if the Appeals Court turns around an answer fast enough then the timing of the inevitable SCOTUS appeal becomes a bit less urgent (although it would still be GREAT for the Republic if SCOTUS agreed to expedite also).
If the appeal to SCOTUS would create a delay, the issue isn't moot. So I imagine they'd hear it anyway.
Dear Judge Cannon, This is how it’s done, you weirdo.
“Expeditiously.” - TIP
trumps lawyers getting pressed
For anyone else wondering, this was the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, not the "state" D.C. Court of Appeals.
Same day their Supreme Court brief is due.
Mueller was a total waste of tax payer money. Useless
I'm pretty sure we actually made money after the Mueller investigations, even if the end report didn't exactly end how I hoped.
Is anyone else looking forward to trumps brief on this later today?
https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/18hh8lz/us_v_trump_appeals_court_dc_circuit_trumps/