Russia Investigation Heating Up

[Neveragain]

This is literally the political equivalent of sitting in the third inning of a baseball game and saying that anyone who said the opposing team was going to win is an idiot because they haven't won yet.

I also never said that he would be impeached. I said that he clearly colluded with Russia.

[Tisket]

This is literally the political equivalent of sitting in the third inning of a baseball game and saying that anyone who said the opposing team was going to win is an idiot because they haven't won yet.

Clearly you have not spent time in the stands of a typical baseball game.

Or maybe that's just the drunken louts that typically surround our seats.

Hmm.

[time4fun]

I find myself wondering about the significance of the reports that Mueller is purportedly planning on writing: one on the obstruction case and one on the collusion case.

There are some legitimate outstanding questions here:

Why TWO reports at different times? DoJ guidelines only require one report:

At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

The guidelines don't call for Mueller's team to submit separate reports for both the obstruction investigation and the collusion investigation. Likewise, the report need only go to the AG (in this case, Deputy AG). They aren't automatically made public- Rosenstein would have to make that decision (though that is in his rights by statute). Now obviously there are very good reasons to make the findings public- regardless of what they are.


It does seem like Mueller has come to the conclusion that he cannot indict a sitting President- otherwise there's arguably no point in early reports. The Special Counsel statute is actually oddly ambiguous about this. According to the statute, Mueller is bound by all DoJ guidelines, statutes, decisions, etc- which means he's bound by the current DoJ opinion that sitting Presidents are immune to criminal indictment. The statute does, however, allow for the AG (Rosenstein in this case) to waive this requirement in extraordinary situations. But it's unclear if Rosenstein would actually have the authority to change this particular guideline (and also that he or Mueller would even want to).

With that in mind, there seem to be two likely possibilities for Mueller's reasoning behind issuing two reports:

1) He believes Trump is innocent of obstruction AND collusion: Since this is an election year he wants to take that piece of the equation out of voters' minds so his investigation isn't impacting their decisions.
This is reasonable, but it also seems very risky to exonerate the President on obstruction before Mueller has finished the Collusion investigation. The fact that he is planning on issuing two reports at different dates- AND that they're still issuing subpoenas and questioning witnesses in an ever-widening pattern- suggests there's quite a bit more work to do on the collusion probe. And it would be extremely confusing to the electorate to give a report declaring Trump innocent in obstruction and then risk having to give a second report later saying he's guilty of something much more serious- especially in an election year. Also, giving him a clean report would risk Trump and his allies feeling emboldened to shut the investigation down before he finished the collusion piece.

2) He believes Trump is guilty of obstruction AND likely collusion: Not only is he certain there's a strong case to make in the obstruction side of things, but he's genuinely concerned that Trump will become increasingly bold and impulsive in his actions and will shut the investigation down.
He's concerned because he has strong evidence that the Trump campaign (and Trump himself) colluded with the Russian government to throw the election, and if Trump is allowed to shut the investigation down- he doesn't trust that Congress will hold him accountable (or ever get ahold of the evidence they would need). Issuing a report laying out a serious pattern of obstruction of justice by POTUS would make it impossible for Trump to shut the collusion investigation down- fully insulating Mueller and his team from political pressure and allowing them to finish the most serious part of the investigation. And candidly, if Mueller didn't strongly suspect Trump of having colluded with the Russians, it's unlikely he would be mounting this extraordinary pressure on Manafort right now.

This feels less risky than the first option. If Trump is guilty of obstruction, it wouldn't be jarring to the electorate to later determine that suspicions aside- Trump isn't guilty in any criminal sense of colluding with Russia. And it's the safest route for the investigation if he believes there is serious wrongdoing.

[time4fun]

Clearly you have not spent time in the stands of a typical baseball game.

Or maybe that's just the drunken louts that typically surround our seats.

Hmm.

Ugh my boyfriend drags me to games fairly regularly actually.

And no, it's not just the ones around your seats =/

[Gelston]

Clearly you have not spent time in the stands of a typical baseball game.

Or maybe that's just the drunken louts that typically surround our seats.

Hmm.

You people in your cheap seats. Suites ftw.

[Tisket]

You people in your cheap seats. Suites ftw.

We only rent a suite when attending Silvertip hockey games.

[Gelston]

We only rent a suite when attending Silvertip hockey games.

They are actually pretty great at Ranger Ballpark. $160-180 but it opens like 2 hours prior to the game and you get free food.

[Parkbandit]

I find myself wondering about the significance of the reports that Mueller is purportedly planning on writing: one on the obstruction case and one on the collusion case.

There are some legitimate outstanding questions here:

Why TWO reports at different times? DoJ guidelines only require one report:


The guidelines don't call for Mueller's team to submit separate reports for both the obstruction investigation and the collusion investigation. Likewise, the report need only go to the AG (in this case, Deputy AG). They aren't automatically made public- Rosenstein would have to make that decision (though that is in his rights by statute). Now obviously there are very good reasons to make the findings public- regardless of what they are.


It does seem like Mueller has come to the conclusion that he cannot indict a sitting President- otherwise there's arguably no point in early reports. The Special Counsel statute is actually oddly ambiguous about this. According to the statute, Mueller is bound by all DoJ guidelines, statutes, decisions, etc- which means he's bound by the current DoJ opinion that sitting Presidents are immune to criminal indictment. The statute does, however, allow for the AG (Rosenstein in this case) to waive this requirement in extraordinary situations. But it's unclear if Rosenstein would actually have the authority to change this particular guideline (and also that he or Mueller would even want to).

With that in mind, there seem to be two likely possibilities for Mueller's reasoning behind issuing two reports:

1) He believes Trump is innocent of obstruction AND collusion: Since this is an election year he wants to take that piece of the equation out of voters' minds so his investigation isn't impacting their decisions.
This is reasonable, but it also seems very risky to exonerate the President on obstruction before Mueller has finished the Collusion investigation. The fact that he is planning on issuing two reports at different dates- AND that they're still issuing subpoenas and questioning witnesses in an ever-widening pattern- suggests there's quite a bit more work to do on the collusion probe. And it would be extremely confusing to the electorate to give a report declaring Trump innocent in obstruction and then risk having to give a second report later saying he's guilty of something much more serious- especially in an election year. Also, giving him a clean report would risk Trump and his allies feeling emboldened to shut the investigation down before he finished the collusion piece.

2) He believes Trump is guilty of obstruction AND likely collusion: Not only is he certain there's a strong case to make in the obstruction side of things, but he's genuinely concerned that Trump will become increasingly bold and impulsive in his actions and will shut the investigation down.
He's concerned because he has strong evidence that the Trump campaign (and Trump himself) colluded with the Russian government to throw the election, and if Trump is allowed to shut the investigation down- he doesn't trust that Congress will hold him accountable (or ever get ahold of the evidence they would need). Issuing a report laying out a serious pattern of obstruction of justice by POTUS would make it impossible for Trump to shut the collusion investigation down- fully insulating Mueller and his team from political pressure and allowing them to finish the most serious part of the investigation. And candidly, if Mueller didn't strongly suspect Trump of having colluded with the Russians, it's unlikely he would be mounting this extraordinary pressure on Manafort right now.

This feels less risky than the first option. If Trump is guilty of obstruction, it wouldn't be jarring to the electorate to later determine that suspicions aside- Trump isn't guilty in any criminal sense of colluding with Russia. And it's the safest route for the investigation if he believes there is serious wrongdoing.

[Parkbandit]

Ugh my boyfriend drags me to games fairly regularly actually.

And no, it's not just the ones around your seats =/

[Methais]

"Tell us again?" Erm, I don't recall saying "you should take me seriously." I said: Methais can't back up his positions. And you can't. And demonstrating that you can't, and PB can't, and Wrathbringer can't -- is the "laughing and entertainment."

That's just your response to being told no one takes you seriously. You might as well just say "JUST ARGUE WITH ME GUYS COME ON YOU HAVE TOOOOOO!!!!!!" You seem to have a problem with not being taken seriously. Tell us why we're wrong for that.

Or another way to phrase your response would be: