Mueller Report: A Lawyer’s Analysis (Real Law Review)

Mueller Report: A Lawyer’s Analysis (Real Law Review)

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments


– This video was made
possible by Tab For A Cause. Raise money for charity
just by opening tabs which you were going to do
anyway, link in the description. The Mueller Report is finally out, and in it, Mr. Mueller
created a one-way street that could not have found the
president committed a crime, but it could have found him innocent. And unless you understand
this legal framework, you won’t understand the
Mueller Report at all. Hey Legal Eagles, today we are talking about the Mueller Report. I’m going to try to
explain the legal framework that Mueller and his team created and based their conclusions on, because frankly, it colors
absolutely everything in the report itself. Mueller starts the report by setting some legal ground rules. This decision changes the course of the entire investigation. Mueller starts by noting that there is an Office of Legal Counsel or OLC opinion, and a DoJ policy not to
indict a sitting president. In fact, I covered this
entire issue on a video about whether a sitting
president can, in fact, be indicted based on current
Supreme Court precedent, which I’ll link down below. Mueller’s view is not an unreasonable one. This very issue has never been tested by the Supreme Court,
and there are, in fact, contrary OLC opinions and differing views on the constitutional limits of indicting a sitting president. So, starting with the
premise that a president cannot, in fact, be indicted
by the Department of Justice, Mueller says that his hands are tied because of quote fairness concerns. Specifically, Mueller says that the power of the government to accuse someone of committing a crime has to be balanced by constitutional protections, including the right of the accused to a quote neutral adjudicatory forum so that the accused, if
they are in fact accused of a crime by the government,
can clear their name. Now, it is absolutely
100% true that things like due process, a right to a
speedy trial, a right to a jury, a right to face your accusers, it’s all incredibly important and enshrined in the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights. But because Mueller accepts
that he cannot indict the president and put the
president through a formal trial, the president would not
have those protections. In other words, the
president would not be able to potentially clear
his name through a trial and the other mechanisms
that we normally give to the accused. So, given those two premises,
that because Mr. Mueller cannot indict the president
and because the president cannot clear his name,
that it would be wrong to come to a formal conclusion that the president broke the law. Mueller notes that these
considerations disappear when the president is not in office, because when the president leaves office, he is available to be accused and indicted of any crimes that he may have committed. In other words, Mueller
is leaving it to Congress to impeach, for the president to resign, or for the president
simply to leave office for the normal mechanisms of the judicial process to kick in. On the other hand, because
the same fairness concerns don’t exist with respect to
finding someone innocent, in other words, no one is
going to dispute the fact that you have found them
innocent and try and challenge that finding,
Mr. Mueller finds that he can come to the conclusion that the president was
innocent or that the evidence did not amount to an indictable offense. So based on the rules that Mueller set up, there was no way that Mr.
Mueller could have found President Trump committed any crime. This is a standard that
does not exist anywhere else in criminal law or, frankly, in politics. Now, that’s not to say
that this standard is wrong or was improper, this is a
standard that may have to exist based on the idiosyncrasies
of the Executive Branch and the interplay between
the separation of powers between the president and Congress. But at the end of the
day, Mr. Mueller created a one-way street. The Mueller investigation could have found the president innocent,
but it could not ever have found him guilty. As one of you Legal Eagles
pointed out on Twitter, so in oversimplified terms,
they were allowed to rule not guilty, or not not guilty, and they ruled not not guilty. And that’s basically right. Mueller states in the report that quote “Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, “we are unable to reach that judgment,” that judgment being that
the president is innocent. So, given this legal framework, we might ask, what’s the point
of the Mueller investigation. Mueller decided to tie his
hands in the first instance. I don’t know if in fact this
is constitutionally mandated, I don’t think anyone does,
it’s never been tested in the Supreme Court, but
it’s a very safe position. It puts the ball in the court
of the political institutions, namely Congress and the judiciary. And it’s hard to argue that in a world where institutions are being eroded, norms are being destroyed
and powers are simply being claimed by various parts
of the government by fiat, that this isn’t a good
decision on a political level. Mueller is clearly putting the ball in the court of Congress, and by proxy, the American people to make the decision on this particular case. On the other hand, a
lot of people are going to look at this decision
and call it an abdication of the power that was
specifically delegated to the special counsel. That we created these rules in the wake of Watergate and eventually the
Clinton impeachment hearings specifically to deal
with these types of cases that are the hard cases. And if it’s not the special
prosecutor that’s going to deal with them, then who is? These are difficult
questions and those are reasonable positions
to take on both sides. But according to Mr. Mueller himself, because the investigation definitively could not conclude that the
President of the United States obstructed justice and colluded, the purpose of the
investigation was to quote “preserve the evidence
when memories were fresh “and documentary
materials were available.” So effectively, Mueller
viewed his investigation as one to gather the
evidence, to preserve it, and to give it to the
powers that are going to be responsible for
actually making a decision. Now, I wanna be careful here, I don’t view the Mueller Report as
an impeachment referral as some people have suggested. Mr. Mueller clearly
contemplates, and even states, that Congress has an oversight
role of the Executive. And in fact, Mueller states that Congress can punish the president for his actions. That is in fact one of
its constitutional duties. So for better or worse,
I think that we can view Mr. Mueller as the
quintessential institutionalist and we can view the Mueller Report as the safest institutional play that the special counsel
could have issued. So given that this was an
evidence gathering mission, let’s examine the evidentiary findings. In a prior video about the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report, I
asked the question whether this was a case where there
was, in fact, no evidence, or whether this was a case where there was a lot of evidence but not enough to meet the beyond a
reasonable doubt standard. Well, this report is worse than that. With respect to collusion and conspiracy, the Mueller Report finds
that there was actually quite a lot of evidence,
including a string of incredibly damning situations, but looking at that
holistically wasn’t enough to be able to charge the
president with the crime of conspiracy to collude with the Russians as that is defined in the Mueller Report. However, with respect to
obstruction of justice, it’s a whole different ballgame. The Mueller Report finds numerous places where Mr. Mueller
probably found obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt, for example, in one passage, Mueller says quote “Our investigation found multiple acts “by the President that were capable “of exerting undue influence
over law enforcement “investigations carried out
through one-on-one meetings “in which he sought to
use his official power “outside of his usual channels.” And in other places,
Mr. Mueller found quote substantial evidence of
obstruction of justice. And in one of the most damning passages, Mr. Mueller states that “The president’s efforts to
influence the investigation “were mostly unsuccessful,
but that is largely because “the persons who surrounded the president “declined to carry out his orders “or accede to his requests.” It’s hard to read these sections and not come to the
conclusion that Mr. Mueller thought President Trump
committed obstruction of justice but only refrained from saying so based on the legal
framework that he created at the start of this investigation. Because obstruction of justice includes not only obstruction itself
but attempted obstruction, in the same way that
firing a gun at someone is attempted murder, even
if the bullet is defective and doesn’t, in fact, fire. Mr. Mueller lays out 10
instances of possible obstruction, analyzes
them, and mostly comes to the conclusion that given those facts and the relevant law that the situations can give rise to obstruction of justice. Here in this visual representation, we can see one commentator color coded all of the different
elements of obstruction and compared that to the 10 instances of potential obstruction by
the Trump administration. And you can see that most
of the elements are met for most of the potential instances. But at the same time,
Mr. Mueller does not give a standard by which we can
measure his conclusions. For example, Mr. Mueller does not say that we are certain
beyond a reasonable doubt that this is an overt act as required by obstruction of
justice or we are certain beyond a reasonable
doubt that the president had the corrupt motive required
for obstruction of justice. But remember, based on
the rules that he created, he could not come to that conclusion. Instead, he leaves it
to Congress, and to us. If this video leaves you wanting to make some positive change in this
world, you’re not alone. I’d recommend Tab for a Cause, which lets you raise money
for the charity of your choice just by opening up new
tabs in your browser. Tab for a Cause is a
Google Chrome extension that allows you to pick a charity, and then every time you open up a new tab, instead of it being blank,
it displays a couple of ads and the money you generate
is donated to your charity. There is no charge to you, and it actually does some good for this world. Tab for a Cause users have raised hundreds of thousands
of dollars for charity. It is the easiest possible way to do some good in this world. So click on the link in the description to download the extension,
and do some good by doing what you were going to do anyway. Surfing the internet. Do you agree with Mr. Mueller’s framework? Do you agree with my analysis? Leave your objections in the comments and check out my other
Real Law Reviews over here where I talk about whether
a sitting president can be indicted and a
bunch of other topics, where I’ll see you in court.

100 thoughts on “Mueller Report: A Lawyer’s Analysis (Real Law Review)

  • LegalEagle Post author

    If learning about foreign interference and obstruction of justice gets you down, help give to charity: https://tab.gladly.io/legaleagle

  • Erin Tuncan Post author

    I really appreciate the well explained breakdown and most of all the explanation of the CONTEXT of the findings.

  • Steve Ricig Post author

    After the special counsel's statement today, the press is FINALLY catching up to the excellent analysis in this video. Aged very well!

  • Professional Hermit Post author

    That framework comes dangerously close to presumption of guilt by setting his burden of proof to show innocence. By definition, innocence is the absence of guilt. Proving the absence of something is usually considered unfairly difficult to impossible.

  • Myballsitchsomethingfierce Post author

    I hate the term obstruction of justice it has been used and abused to ruin the lives of many regular Americans. Look up the videos of people refusing to speak to the police and are immediately arrested and sent to prison most of the time the chargers are dropped later on.

  • Robert Beste Post author

    I wonder if there is another motivation at play here. By not accusing or indicting Trump of a crime, he is effectively removing the President's ability to pardon himself of said crime before he leaves office. I'm not certain if it is clear whether a President CAN even pardon himself. I don't believe that has been tested in court. But I don't believe there is any law stating he CAN'T and I wouldn't put it past him to try.

    Is there any validity to this?

  • Jason Smith Post author

    Desperately need you to review his comments this week and Barr's follow-up commentary

  • mick cv Post author

    Yeah never understood the arguement that you can’t obstruct justice if there was no crime to obstruct. If that was the case you’re basically saying you can always not allow law enforcement to investigate you if you’re innocent. So if a cop is investigating murder you can run away from them and there’s no obstruction

  • car car Post author

    Wow. You really put a subtle left spin on that. You sound like Muller's personal civil attorney the way you're shining that angled light on the report

  • vladviking Post author

    I call BS and a total waste of 40 million dollars.

  • Chris Seguin Post author

    Since when is it the job of the investigator to prove innocence?!?
    Your entire premise is based on Mueller being able to say "not guilty" when that's not the role of an investigation.
    You sound like a partisan hack, trying to score viewers off of ignorant Trump haters.

  • Jimmy Diamond Post author

    I thought Mueller was there to establish if there were grounds for a case not to ascertain the guilt or innocence
    According to AG Barr he had the authority to come to a conclusion It is irrelevant whether a case could go to court , that's why he was appointed , to investigate , he wants to change the presumption that your guilty until proven innocent , the fact that he prevaricated and left it to Roseinsteen and Barr who after reading the report rightly in my eyes said there was no case to answer .I listened to Professor Alan Dershowitz a libertarian lawyer and he left Mueller without a name
    From a fairness aspect I found it astounding that Muellers team could be seen by outside eyes as been biased , with one being kicked off the team for derogatory emails and another attending Hillary Clintons party and numerous being Democratic supporters
    Look at why this investigation was started , Comey by his own admission leaking classified documents to start an investigation the man who was fired by Roseinsteen , remember Comey is Muellers friend work associate and and if that's not a conflict of interest nothing is
    Reading into I think the special council was set up as part of the plan to destabilise Trumps government
    I'm not an American and I'm not for or against Trump but when I see how the intelligence services are alleged to have made up intelligence against Trump his team and associates that worries me and that innocent people may have been spied on on the basis of made up information really worries me because it could be you or I who could get abused next , just because they hated Trump doesn't justify trampling over people's rights

  • Cnn is Fakenews Post author

    In a case with prosecutorial misconduct like where they preform ILLEGAL searches and Plant or Fabricate evidence I am pretty sure any judge would dismiss all charges with prejudice because that is not justice, is it?

  • Knightmare 2028 Post author

    I subscribed.
    Here's my analysis:
    Nothing. Burger. 🍔.

  • Derek Slade Post author

    If it was punishable, it should have been brought forth and carried out. Plain and simple, this was Democrat treachery and possible treasonous behavior, and Mueller has made a total idiot out of himself in recent statements a few days ago where he essentially admitted that he had NO reason for doing this investigation, whatsoever. He revealed his bias against Trump, and this whole thing is looking terrible for both he, the Special Counsel, and the Democratic Party.

  • heisocean344 Post author

    If the outcome of the investigation- as you stated- could have only ever been a conclusion of "not guilty" or "not not guilty", then I once again have to ask what the point was. My understanding of criminal investigation is that it's the job of the investigator to PROVE guilt or at least justify a trial. As a universal rule, across all disciplines, it's widely accepted that proving a negative is nearly impossible if not actually Impossible. So, if completely EXONERATING the president was off the table due to widely accepted universal rules regarding proving negatives, then the only possible outcome of the investigation could be "not not guilty".
    Which leads me to conclude that this lengthy, costly investigation was only ever initiated to further divide people along political lines.

  • Jim Valliere Post author

    This guys can't be a real lawyer, He doesn't understand that there has be a underlying crime that is being concealed in order for there to be obstruction. Also the President is head of the Executive branch. He can fire anyone he wants for any reason or no reason at all. The only thing President Trump is guilty of is standing up against the swamp and winning.

  • David J Gill Post author

    The news media utterly failed to accurately summarize and present the facts of the report to the public. But Mueller also failed to provide a summary of the report that made the facts plain without interpretation.

  • Nick von Liphart Post author

    Funny, I dont like the report because pg 50 states that they never looked at the DNC or DCCC servers, which means they have tainted evidence, if any at all since it was all provided by crowdstrike. The description of the social media campaign defies the reality of the numbers, and is merely asserted to have been the work of the GRU. It further relies on the laughable jan 2017 intelligence assessment which cites the existence of RT as a major factor in the influence campaign. Again, no hard underlying documentation. No whisper of addressing the forensic work of Bill Binney over at VIPS. How am I to take the report seriously if it is not serious about the truth itself?

  • Mike Clement Post author

    Quick question… if Mueller had found evidence to support the accusations of conspiracy and obstruction could he not have filed a sealed indictment to be opened and actioned after the President left office? That way he could have circumvented the OLC policy regarding indicting a sitting President.

  • Daishilegendary Post author

    Would like a super in depth review of this whole situation…

  • M K Post author

    "Like shooting a gun at someone". There was no gun, moron.

  • stephen b Post author

    Bunch of drivel. Execrable drivel.

  • David Green Post author

    He created those rules on purpose. That's the insurance policy to get the president out of office. The question I have is did they create these rules before starting the obstruction case? Great video!

  • Tim S Post author

    This analysis is faulty but I would guess that our idiotic legal system allows this garbage.

  • Roger Hardy Post author

    As you said, there was no evidence of collusion with Russia by ANYONE in the Trump administration. That was the ONLY investigatory authority Mueller had. Since there was NO crime, there can be no obstruction of justice. This is just a Mueller and a Democrat temper tantrum

  • David Howard Post author

    "Idiosyncrasies".. Says the liberal lawyer trying to prove a negative. Nice try.

  • David Howard Post author

    You also failed to mention that No Other American was found to conspire. None.

  • Steven Corbo Post author

    You could have said that there was enough evidence to indict or there wasn't instead he put spin on it

  • Steven Corbo Post author

    I don't necessarily agree with your analysis

  • Don Murphy Post author

    Something doesn't sound right.

    Trump asked someone to do something but since they didn't or told him no it was a bad idea, it's still a crime as if it happened?

    I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like bs to me. So you're actually saying if Bob tells Moe "hey let's hold up a liquor store" and More says "dude that's illegal and we shouldn't do that" Bob is still going to jail for thinking it?

    Sorry don't believe it. Just because Trump said "let's do this or let's fore this guy" and his staff told him it's a bad idea you shouldn't, he's still charged with doing it even though it didn't happen? What kind of backwards Chinese bull is that? Since when can we throw people I'm jail for wrong think without any actual crime being committed? Where is that a law?

  • dixiesecularskeptic Post author

    Objection- Justice is slow, but often persistent. However, we tend not to prosecute political rivals. How will this affect a possible future indictment of a crime like obstruction?

  • Pete Anthan Post author

    You said that Mueller didn’t find Trump innocent, which he is presumed to be. So he doesn’t believe Trump is not guilty but can’t indict him for want of a legal path forward from there. Nonetheless, the publicizing of his report is a sort of back door indictment in the court of public opinion, tried on cable news and Twitter until Congress gets around to it.

  • jroar123 Post author

    Sorry but you go way too far in the weeds for a non-lawyer type average YouTube viewer.

  • Michael verhoef Post author

    The only issue is that Mueller's report was on the Russian interference in the 2016 election. They confirmed that Russia did in fact do things to influence the election. However the report stated explicitly that no American, not just Trump, but no American citizen willfully collaborated with the Russians in their efforts to influence with the 2016 election.

  • J Hadley Post author

    If he can't find a crime, then he hasn't obstructed justice….. and some of the lists of obstruction were just outright false. Like firing Comey- a lot of this shit is turning around on the democrats as the investigation is also turning on them…. and they're trying to stop that themselves….

  • J Hadley Post author

    Also don't forget, it was Mueller who funnelled the Iraq wmd conspiracy too…. you have to look at the practises of these men…. much of the Mueller report also is just opinion and connection….. Mueller has been pressed and had to give a legal response which was different…. Which is a key reason he doesn't want a testimony because he doesn't want to have to legally contradict himself either

  • J Hadley Post author

    Also, you said candidly that Trump couldn't prove innocence….. it doesn't work that way, you should know as a lawyer, you have to prove guilt…. hence why Trump hasn't been charged with anything…. Mueller can clearly state if Trump committed a crime but he didn't…. and if he didn't commit a crime then it is stupid to say he obstructed justice

  • Peter Holdridge Post author

    Hack fraud

  • Jay Atwood Post author

    Nice to hear a clear voice! Love the 3 piece suits.

  • Jay Atwood Post author

    Are you ever wearing pants in your videos? I mean… no-one would ever know.

  • tommy g Post author

    The whole bit about trump being unprosecutable as president is irrelevant because barr asked mueller directly if he would indict if trump wasn't president and he said no

  • tommy g Post author

    But he didn't think trump committed obstruction which is why he passed the ball to the ag. Along with there being no underlying crime or intent

  • tommy g Post author

    Wow this is some leftist nonsense

  • Darren A Post author

    You failed to point out that if any action fell within the purview of Presidential power, like firing someone, then it could not be construed as obstruction which many, if not all, of the detailed episodes fell within.

  • Vakhtang Kelbakiani Post author

    Wait a second, so… Guilty until proven innocent?

  • Liquid Knives Post author

    There was no Trump Russia proven collusion in the findings.

  • Trisha Auer Post author

    The problem with how Mueller chose to handle this is he has public criticism from the AG stating expressly that Mueller acted outside of the DoJ rules and norms, he didn't ever inquire into the truthfulness of the evidence he used in making these decisions…the Stelle dossier and multiple news outlet reports/he just ruled that these reports were true because they were reported. What he did do is make possible a counter intelligence operation into the origins and accuracy of the information he used. On the obstruction side we see purposeful selective editing of Dowd's voicemail when on further investigation of the entire voicemail it is made obvious that the obstruction claim is provably false. I also find it interesting that the OLC opinion used to claim no charge of obstruction could be made was never mentioned in the conspiracy charge. It is fun to watch the dems demand they be exposed. I'm in the very few that believe Mueller is not for the dems, but watch this play out and see. He gave nothing to the House that wasn't already available, set up the groundwork for multiple investigations that are currently taking place, used his TV time to read his report, refused questions from the lib press, on and on…I like Mueller much more now than I did 2 years ago.

  • James Endicott Post author

    I'm new to your channel. Like with any other factual channel, I've been wondering how accurate it is. I don't know much about most areas of the law so I haven't been able to asses that, until now. Your summary of the Mueller report concurs with what I've heard other respected legal analysts say on the topic without sensationalizing or spinning. You also clearly have been following the media coverage because you spent so much of your time emphasizing the part most people seem to be struggling with.

    I liked your page before based on volume of recommendations but now I'm a fan because I know that I can trust your analysis even when I'm out of my depth.

  • DH FG Post author

    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

  • K. F. Post author

    What are you looking at to your right? Seems to be scripted beyond your comfort.

  • John Schmidt Post author

    Objection, my understanding was that Trump was not found innocent of obstruction, but he was found innocent of collusion to the extent that the investigation could verify. In other words of course you can't prove a negative, but the investigation failed to find convincing evidence of collusion. Everyone speaking about the report including Mueller himself made a point that the conclusion was different on these two issues. By your own explanation, if the Mueller investigation was only setting out to prove innocence and it made a distinction between the two legal questions it's pretty clear Trump is effectively innocent of collusion, given the information the investigation has.

  • DeusExAstra Post author

    No one is above the law… unless you're the President, in which case you can do whatever you want and not be held responsible in a court of law. Or even by Congress, as long as the spineless idiots decide that it's in their best interest to keep you in power.

    Broken system, what broken system?

  • Footstepsinchina Post author

    Mueller's job was to create a crime, its what he is known for. The entire investigation went against DOJ policy. No crime was was known to have occurred for him to investigate. His task was to find one. This is called a "Witch Hunt". Mueller has history of creating obstruction crimes. He was a willing participant in a conspiracy. He was smart enough not to bury himself with his report. He did his best to create an obstruction crime (obstructing a crime that never existed)., but was unwilling to commit treason alone. He is well aware of the fraudulent roots of the entire investigation and knows he could only go so far without becoming the target of Barr's investigation(which he knew was already underway).

  • kodofile Post author

    Then that is one of the stupidiest idea that we have seen, why waste millions and millions of dollars, with several arrests on the people that were not the target and use governments people in trying to walk on a place that have a dead end

  • jwill5crew941 Post author

    This is so Stupid…he foumd him NOT GUILTY #TRUMP2020

  • Ronald Poppell Post author

    You know what, I was wrong about the Muller report

  • Nate Post author

    Legal Eagle definitely has a slight left leaning bias, Viva Frei summed it up much better in my opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFXRrcRrgpQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR14nogmMkUAMPgICkmXPD5WCShtTsuHZOzARX_aegzFrkOuqxk-cQU8_aw

  • Garry Moss Post author

    Objection, Your Honor: Argumentative (I threw that in just for fun). You and Mueller are attorneys, so it seems you should both understand that there is no such thing as finding someone innocent in the law. For Mueller to say in his statements that Donald Trump can't be exonerated (found innocent) is nothing more than paltering that has no teeth, except in its ability to fool people who can't see through what he's saying or those who are anxious to come to the conclusion that Donald Trump must be guilty, which begs the question about the extent to which they are projecting their own thinking. His evidences of obstruction are nothing more than arguments by innuendo based on legal actions taken by the President.

  • Strawpenny Productions Post author

    Important to note. Trump could have fired Mueller any time he wanted to and it would not be criminal. Trump leads the executive, the DOJ is in the executive. Mueller worked for the DOJ. This is not rocket science, which is why, I’m sure, you are not a rocket scientist. In other words, he could fire Mueller if he wanted to. You could argue his reasoning but it is well known that he believed Mueller to be biased, which as we see now, is most certainly the case. So, even if he HAD fired Mueller that would not have been obstruction. Unless, you know, with your obviously vast Constitutional knowledge, you find the part that says the executive must be separate from the DOJ (the DOJ that does not exist in the Constitution)

  • Larry T Post author

    This is only half the review! 400+ pages of endictable material and 4 pages of endictable attorney general!

  • hogheadv2 Post author

    Question then. Is having a "Kill List!" …Murder, attempted murder, Intent to do great bodily harm up to and including murder? Pick any 5-6-789…. other sorted "Off day" moves from inside the beltway. Same report change the name….

  • Derek Dunlap Post author

    Thank you for this breakdown. I read the full report the day it was first released and I ended up with more questions than answers. Thank you for answering many of the questions I had😊

  • Dwain Dibley Post author

    One cannot obstruct what is not being pursued and Mueller was not pursuing justice, he was pursuing President Trump. By the way, a lawyer's perspective is not necessarily a legal perspective, your argument here explaining Mueller's perspective, is a case in point.

  • ShellyAndJohn Courtade Post author

    Question:
    Can there in fact be obstruction of justice if there was no preceding crime? No preceding crime being defined as either there was no crime in fact, or there was not enough evidence to lead to a finding that a crime occurred.

  • Menachem Salomon Post author

    I've heard the term "reasonable doubt" thrown around in regards to Mueller. Isn't reasonable doubt the jurors' standard, while the prosecutorial standard, like that of a grand jury, "preponderance of the evidence", i.e. just over 50%?

  • Ryan O'Boyle Post author

    Amazing and really excellently presented! Can you do Steven Avery making a murder?

  • Kevin White Post author

    I object. If evidence were found that suggested the president or the Trump campaign committed conspiracy or any other wrongdoing, it would not be outside Muller's ability or responsibility to report that finding, even if the president can not be arrested, indicted, or put on trial for the act. It is the responsibility of Congress to act on any such finding which is a bit different than for any other citizen who would be subject to the judicial system. It didn't seem to be that difficult to present evidence of Clinton's activities and subsequent lies in the attempt to cover them up, even without the ability to put the former president on trial for it. In the case of Trump, as far as I can tell there was no evidence of his campaign colluding with Russia in the first place, so why was a years long investigation launched to find such evidence? They only thing they ever had was an accusation because the Democratic party couldn't believe Trump could win without some kind of underhanded activity, any evidence of which did not exist. The investigation should have been focused more on Russian or other foreign interference in our electoral process and if that turned up evidence of conspiracy with Trump or other Americans then you would have something.
    As far as obstruction of Justice goes, in not sure it could even apply to this investigation. Because, as Muller states, they president can not be indicted for anything he might find in the course of the investigation, it is taking place outside the judiciary system and therefore I ask: Can justice be obstructed if the investigation takes place outside of and can not lead to the justice system? I'm not sure if there are Congressional laws in place to handle this specific case, but there needs to be as it is Congress that would ultimately decide on any action taken against the president based on any wrongdoing found.

  • bob rankin Post author

    sorry I do not like lawyers there just above a skunk mueller proved it by his fake report against trump he did not get the job cry baby

  • itbepoetry Post author

    4:24: "What's the point of the Mueller investigation"?

    To investigate potential crimes related to the 2016 election involving Russians, and, vaguely, to investigate any potential crimes discovered via the former investigation.

    The primary investigation returned, in Mueller's words, insufficient evidence of any crime involving the Trump campaign.

    You don't mention this core result in your video "Mueller Report: A Lawyer Analysis."

    Conclusion: you're a simple lib hack.

    [Mueller's objective was to investigate

    "(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and
    individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

    (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

    (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) ["process crimes"–correct?].]

  • Brad Deal Post author

    The commenter failed to include the recently disclosed FOIA documents that indicate the entire Mueller investigation was based on a defective warrant. How is it possible to obstruct an illegal investigation? In fact, if the President knew the investigation was illegal he would have a duty to obstruct the investigation to protect the nation. In addition the bias that is present through the report is ignored. The question that must be asked is if the Mueller report was an attempt to find a crime, any crime by which the President could be removed from office?

  • James Volk Post author

    Goddamn Pelosi is enabling Trump by not impeaching, even if Trump is not removed, impeachment will show our democracy, our laws, cannot be abused

  • Rhodie van der merwe Post author

    Trump to comey . Why are you investigating a rumor… nek minute obstructionist… but i asked why? i mean if you want to go ahead but just means your useless and wasteing everyones time seems like you were just spying on me with a copied warrent froma 2013 case and i can see rhe white out marking where you put my name?…
    Obstructionist…..
    Obstructing
    Stop obructing me.
    Im not your going to investigate anyway arnt you?
    Obstruction
    Obstruction
    Obstruction
    Um ok? Guess ill never see anyone in court anyway as you wasted 2 years of everyones time and money
    Obstructionist
    Your obstructive
    Your being a big obstructionist 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

  • Rhodie van der merwe Post author

    https://youtu.be/XOoHy_7IYRw
    Ahh when people analyse muellers summarys of reports . To bad there are many more examples of his opinion that have never ever ever matched evidence …
    But hey omitance by this guy as he has many followers hopeing they as his jury believe he is commenting on the 1000000 page report and not another fake ass mueller summary….
    Naw so cute you guys

  • Andrew Chisholm Post author

    Okay, first of all, that suit is awesome. That’s all I have to offer. Thx.

  • Jaydoggy531 Post author

    Thank you for this video. Reading various excerpts made me feel sick. I coild easily join the chorus of people who claim "I'm not a conservative or liberal BUT…." … but it means nothing. I don't believe our president committed conspiracy with another nation. I do believe he committed obstruction. But I don't think it's because he's loyal to an outside influence… but I also don't believe he's loyal to America. He's loyal to himself, and no one and nothing else. He cares about his name. If it benefits or hurts our nation in the process, it's a secondary consequence of him trying to serve his ego. When he obstructed justice, it was because he wanted to preserve himself, but not to protect Russia (but also, not to protect America, either).

  • Mittens FastPaw Post author

    This is beyond wrong that we cannot press charger on a sitting president and remove him for something like treason. Yet the way the law was foolishly setup you can be forced to rule innocent. What utter trash our highest system of law is.

  • Los Time Post author

    5:01 If you honestly think that the American people have any say in what their government does, you aren't paying very close attention to the state of things. I would point you to this study by Princeton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig&fbclid=IwAR2C5ObA18bQH3aYVLemRPO68OA8VPllLoAHRIG_pCzYx3RNaB7aAbX7ts8

  • Musices Post author

    8:27 Excactly! which is why he set the limitation in the first place.
    He later stated that he wouldn't have indighted without the limitation.
    Seems he wanted the report to leave suspishion of guilt. That thing he explicitly said it shouldn't do.

  • colkestrel Post author

    Explain something to me out of the first few minutes of your video. If a president can't be indited, even to the point of not stating the logical outcome of the investigation. then what is the point of the investigation? Using your logic the entire thing was a waste of taxpayer money from the start.

  • colkestrel Post author

    "Because the investigation could not definitively conclude that the president of the United States obstructed justice" Did you listen to yourself? In this country you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. You have to be PROVEN guilty BEYOND a shadow of a doubt. Hence the Mueller report show Trump is not guilty. I knew I should have been a lawyer.

  • Kevin Lee Post author

    OBJECTION: Mueller was never properly confirmed by Congress since he's a Principal Officer with the DoJ. There's no one in history that I'm aware of that ever exorcised the level of power and authority that this extra-Constitutional Mueller did. EVER. All Principal Officers MUST be confirmed by Congress and only Inferior Officers can be hired and appointed within the DoJ without confirmation. Clearly, based on the power and authority Mueller commands he's clearly NOT an Inferior Officer and Rosensten violated the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution. He's supposed to go through a conformation process through the Senate and that did not take place. He was "appointed" by Rod Rosenstein when Sessions recused himself. Mueller never went through the proper confirmation, therefore the whole investigation is unlawful and unConstituional.

    Regarding Volume 2 of this "report", I've heard from other lawyers that any practicing lawyer that wrote something akin to what Volume 2 was in this report would have been immediately disbarred. Mueller doesn't have the authority to determine "guilty" or "not guilty" anyway. He's an investigative prosecutor not a judge or jury.

    Thoughts on that?

    My opinion is that the whole thing is a set up to remove a sitting President through political means and was done on the taxpayer dime. This may go down in US history as one of the largest scandals ever.

  • Hexi Post author

    By those standards, every single person in public office should be prosecuted for obstruction. The entire system is built around back-channel politicking and favors. Clintons destroying evidence that they were subpoenad to present to the authorities? Bill Clintons meeting with the ATTORNEY-GENERAL that then magically decided not to prosecute Hillary? Oh, yeah, I'm sure there was no shady shit going at all, no sir.

  • Musices Post author

    Didn't Mueller change the legal standard to avoid clearing Trumps name.
    In another case when the legal standard isn't changed he would be considered not guilty if the evidence wasn't good enough like now. But now Mueller tries to reverse the guilt, guilty until proven inocent.

  • lakodamon Post author

    AMICUS CURIAE – "So what's the point then?"

    The most likely point would be to LOOK like a criminal investigation, without having to introduce the characteristics of one.

    Or to avoid saying "I got squat" (thus setting fire to his credibility), or saying "I got that blob of marmalade on toast" (thus setting fire to his job).

    Point is, Mueller's just a dyed-in-the-wool company man who's been pulling our pisser this whole time… wether you were hoping for an accusation or an exoneration, he still left you holding your local daily in one hand and your cock in the other.

  • George Helwig Post author

    Objection. Mainly on the grounds I'm not astute enough in the ways of law to comprehend it all.

    I am very happy, however, to have a friend who is a lawyer and who is willing to help answer some of my questions without fee, and also for your channel to help me wrap my head around some of these concepts.

  • Alex Ard-Kelly Post author

    I am very surprised the news outlets with an anti-trump bias haven't seemed to hammer this point at all, and that the Dems in today's meeting didn't cover this in a way that made for a far-more coherent justification of those in the impeachment camp.

  • A Williams Post author

    8:26 Well, wanting to do something and actually doing it is a big difference, don't you think? I can want to speed all day long but if my car only goes the speed limit I'm never going to break the speed limit law. Do you have examples of people being charged with attempted obstruction of justice? Would be interested to see it.

  • Carrow Post author

    Okay….What about all the unredacted stuff? We are only seeing half the picture…and arguably the least damaging stuff.

  • Carrow Post author

    Sounds like Dems are arguing for access to redacted evidence since the Mueller hearing. How does this change things?

  • Musices Post author

    OBJECTION! It wasen't in his purview to exonerate the president!

  • Sarah Post author

    I swear I have been screaming this the entire time: WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT PUTTING THIS IN THE HANDS OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS OF TODAY?! We have disinformation campaigns ALL over the place and an ENTIRE CORRUPT administration that is on Trumps defense INCLUDING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE BASICALLY THE ENTIRE SENATE WHAT THE HELL?!!!!

  • Sarah Post author

    Ugh this is so infuriating in so many levels!!!!

  • bimmer4011 Post author

    The investigators can only provide evidence and summary notes and their opinions are irrelevant to the investigation as with all other investigators. It's up to the courts to prosecute given the evidence provided by the investigators.
    The report proves that Russians did participate in media spoofs, and no evidence was presented of obstruction.
    Would love to see it go to trial and watch the lawyers try their damndest to prosecute and lose because the rule of law will defeat the prosecutors.
    As far as meeting minimum standards for a legal document, it fell short of the mark. Any attorney worthy of litigation before a court wouldn't touch that case with a 10' clown pole because they know it doesn't pass muster.
    I feel sorry for the poor shmo they get to try and take it forward. Good luck!

  • Todd Johnson Post author

    I would like the see a breakdown of the allegations one by one. How can one be guilty of obstruction of justice for a crime (Russian collusion) that did not happen?

  • Azathoth43 Post author

    Hey, small point, you left out the part where Mueller investigated the Steele dossier. Seeing as it was the only evidence used to suggest collusion it will be very interesting to hear what Mueller dug up during investigating it.

  • Scott Hix Post author

    In other words he saw what was happening to Comey and said I want a job for 2 years and not do anything.

  • Michael Totton Post author

    Objection, no transcripts available even with closed captions

  • Dorothy G. Tyas Post author

    Here's who created a crime or two or three—ad nauseum! ✔💡✔

    https://youtu.be/DTJrCcpKAsE

  • Thunder Post author

    Name one prosecutor who has ever found a defendant "innocent" in any case in the history of the United states ? A defendant is found guilty or not guilty. A defendant is assumed to be innocent and it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *