2/ The 2nd picture above shows that Mueller's team decided not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgement, but I believe 1 of their statements about why is very important, and telling. I found the following on page 213 out of 448.
3/ "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."
4/ My interpretation of that is Mueller's team decided they would not accuse Trump of a federal crime even if they had enough evidence because of: 1) The burden. 2) We have non-federal criminal accusation ways of dealing with such conduct, like impeachment.
5 / In other words, I believe this is a big clue that Mueller and team were saying it is up to Congress to decide whether Trump obstructed justice (until Trump is out of office), and here is evidence we want Congress to use.
6/ Seems like Barr took that and decided since Mueller wouldn't make a federal criminal accusation against Trump, Barr would step in and basically say, "This is over." If Mueller's team meant what I think, of course that would infuriate them.
7/ Remember when people were accusing Mueller of being indecisive? If Barr had properly summarized the report that would not have happened. Barr showed me that he is either incompetent, or corrupt (or both). This tweet from April 4th is telling:
8/ Now we have much of the report and we see that Barr could have provided whole pages of explanations and summaries that first weekend without needing to redact anything. And we can see that Mueller wasn't indecisive. He provided his decision. We just needed his words.
9/ Refusing to overstep your role is not indecisive. It is a sign of integrity. Mueller knew that the constitution spelled out Congress as the decision makers for removing a President. Mueller showed integrity and Barr showed a lack of integrity, from what I've seen so far.
10/ I should include another statement in Mueller's report that I see getting more play, and which can be seen as supporting the quoted statement in tweet #3 above. This one is on page 220 out of 448.
11/ "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."
12/ Human beings are visual creatures, and based on this report I would like to see Mueller testify to the House on video ASAP. Imagine the news (and us) having a quick clip of Mueller affirming that Congress should make the call on obstruction (supporting impeachment hearings).
13/ Here is the footnote that goes with the statement from the report in tweet #3 above. I wonder if right now Mueller is wondering how slow we are and whether he needs to draw us a map. If he had written, "Congress, do your jobs" Barr would have probably redacted it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@danielsgoldman I hope people know that this isn’t the first time that Trump has tried to overturn a lawful election through revolution. He did it in 2012, but failed to get anybody killed that time. This time he did get people killed.
That time the “lie” was that Romney won the popular vote:
🔹“We should have a revolution in this country!”
🔹“Let’s fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice!”
🔹“revolution!”
🔹“We should march on Washington and stop this travesty.”
Sick that Republican Senators will help Trump do more.
@danielsgoldman 3/ How many coup attempts is too many for a Democrat? How many coup attempts is too many for a Republican?
Trump has already tried 2 coup attempts (the 1st failing because he couldn’t get it off the ground). How many coup attempts before there should be consequences?
1/ I would love it if the Democratic prosecutors for Trump’s impeachment trial went full bore on offense right out of the gate with something like:
2/ “We will be presenting our case to you, the American people. Technically the jury is in this room, but when this is over you are likely to see that the majority of the Republican Senators here are spineless people who don’t care if Trump is guilty.”
3/ “You, the American people, will get to see the evidence showing that Trump is guilty. If the Republican Senators choose to ignore the evidence and vote to acquit Trump because that is what they would do no matter what, you get to be their jury when they run for re-election.”
A group of rich businessmen are driving through the desert when they happen upon a man dying of thirst.
Some want to leave the man, some want to take him with them and nurse him back to health. but the majority agrees to give him 3 bottles of water.
2/ When the thirsty man hears he is getting 3 bottles of water, and sees them, he knows it isn’t enough, but he is so looking forward to that water, as he had thought he was going to die any minute.
3/ Then 1 rich businessmen decides to upstage the others. He tells the thirsty man that he will get 10 bottles of water, not 3.
2/ @JonathanTurley then took that and decided to make a whole thread attacking @PreetBharara based on Turley cutting off the “reasonable conclusion” and replacing it with his own “now clear”:
3/ Notice that in his 2nd tweet in his thread Professor Turley relies on his apparent lie in his first tweet to do it again, falsely claiming that @PreetBharara declared “Period” with no room for doubt. Clearly not true:
(THREAD) I see that Trumpsters still don’t understand how the OLC memo saying presidents cannot be indicted was relevant to the Mueller Report, or they fake that they don’t understand. I think the report was clear about this for part 2.
1/ Paraphrasing, the explanation in the Mueller Report comes down to:
“If we determine there clearly was no crime we will say so. If there was a crime, we will not say that, because the OLC memo means that we will not determine there was a crime, regardless of evidence.”
2/ That does not contradict Mueller explaining that he was not saying that, but for the OLC memo, they would say Trump committed a crime. The OLC memo created a barrier, such that they would not say Trump committed a crime, even if the evidence was overwhelming.
@SunshineNikki4@RickkidtchThoer 92/ Another example of the kind of people Trump has to get support from. @pax4pax responded (but not directly) to a tweet I made mentioning that there was a quid pro quo by Trump's team, by claiming that this was not reality. I responded here:
93/ That response from me included a pic of Trump ogling a minor child. @pax4pax claims to be a Christian, and they criticize people, yet @pax4pax decided that they wanted to defend Trump's pedophilic actions. That is above my response here:
@pax4pax 94/ Later @pax4pax claimed to be a Constitutionalist, even as they do whatever they can for a guy who falsely claims that article 2 allows him to do whatever he wants. @pax4pax tried similar, claiming that Trump did nothing wrong because he makes policy: