Mueller described Trump's exercise of power as "corrupt"

1. 81

   Don Wposted 4 years ago

   I'm continuing to digest parts of the Mueller report. In one section Mueller says that Trump's exercise of power is "corrupt".
   
   "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" (my emphasis)(1).
   
   No ambiguity. No wiggle room. No room for "interpretation". The Special Counsel plainly characterizes Trump's exercise of power as corrupt.
   
   I haven't seen this widely reported, but I think it's an extraordinary statement from a Special Counsel about a sitting president. This is the report that some are suggesting "exonerates" him.
   
   (1) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … g-page-383 (vol 2, p/8)

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If I say Mueller is "corrupt" does it mean anything?  Would it mean something if the President of the United States said it?
      
      Trump has been called just about every evil name in the book - that Mueller makes such a statement means nothing at all when placed on top of all the others.  Just more political grandstanding.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         What does "corrupt" mean? Here you go:
         
         "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain."

         replyreport
      2. 81

         Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         If I say Mueller is "corrupt" does it mean anything?
         
         If . . .
         
         you were appointed Special Counsel; had just completed a two-year investigation into the matter; had taken hundreds of hours of sworn testimony as part of the investigation; had sifted through thousands of pages of documentary evidence, text messages, emails and other electronic records relevant to the investigation; had demonstrated that you were capable of conducting a fair and balanced investigation, even in the face of obstruction and repeated attacks by the president of the United States; and had indicted and convicted officials as part of the investigation you are now reporting on . . .
         
         . . . then yes it would mean something.

         replyreport
   2. 77

      DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Please read that whole paragraph...and not just the last line.
      
      The full paragraph is this:
      
      “ Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of “corrupt” official action does not diminish the President’s ability to exercise Article II powers. For example, the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing a personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. 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.”
      
      This paragraph is an explanation of what definitions and criteria the team used to evaluate the evidence they collected. It is not a conclusion of evidence, but rather what regulations they used to grade their evidence. And a generic break down of how the checks and balances within our government works.
       
      -M

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I think the purpose of the section is clear from the title, and I think the Special Counsel was clear about not reporting conclusions.
         
         Nevertheless, in his statement about checks and balances, the Special Counsel describes the president's exercise of power as corrupt.
         
         In the same passage there is distinction between the hypothetical and the specific:
         
         "Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through use of his Article II powers"(my emphasis)(1)
         
         And in the passage immediately before, another clear example of a hypothetical:
         
         "Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice"(2)
         
         Contrast that with:
         
         "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"(3)
         
         This is not a hypothetical. I suppose someone could argue it's an oversight that was not picked up during drafting, but I think the likelihood of that is low. You're right, it's not an explicit conclusion. Mueller explicitly states his team will not draw such conclusions, and clearly had no intention of falling into the trap of reneging on that commitment.
         
         Essentially Mueller is saying that although he is not permitted to address the president's "corrupt" behavior through any legal mechanism available to him, Congress certainly can.
         
         This is why it's important for Muellar to testify. A simple question would settle the issue of whether, in his opinion, there is sufficient evidence for obstruction or any other corrupt behavior, assuming he will be permitted/willing to testify and assuming he will be permitted/willing to answer candidly.
         
         (1) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … g-page-383
         (2) ibid
         (3) ibid

         replyreport
         1. 77

            DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I edited my original comment. Also, I have a hard copy of the report.
            
            -M

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               "I edited my original comment"
               
               Ditto my original reply.

               replyreport
         2. 88

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I have a curious thought that I should probably let go, but ...
            
            "This is why it's important for Muellar to testify. A simple question would settle the issue of whether, in his opinion, there is sufficient evidence for obstruction or any other corrupt behavior, assuming he will be permitted/willing to testify and assuming he will be permitted/willing to answer candidly."
            
            Given Mueller's efforts to not answer that question in the report - for the valid reasons explained, Do you think he would give a conclusive answer in hearing testimony?
            
            I suspect he would not. And that thought has nothing to do with any bias or evasiveness or personal opinion, (Mueller's).
            
            I think he would answer in some diplomatic fashion that would equate to, "My answer is in the report."
            
            Obviously, I could be wrong, but, just as you state, I think that many folks are hanging their hopes on getting Mueller to answer that "simple question." I don't think that he will. I respect Mueller's efforts and conclusions, and I don't think he will abrogate the responsibility he seems to have taken so seriously by offering a simple conclusive answer in a hearing.
            
            However, if he does, I can only see one possible answer, (once the OLC, (Office of Legal Counsel) bar is pushed aside), and that would be for the Committee to recommend Impeachment proceedings. Now wouldn't that put the Democrats in a 'pickle'.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               "Do you think he would give a conclusive answer in hearing testimony?"
               
               That's the question that caused be to include the caveat "assuming he will be permitted/willing to testify and assuming he will be permitted/willing to answer candidly".
               
               I don't know is the simple answer. But I these answers will see the light of day at some point in the future. Perhaps when the inevitable book comes out, but almost certainly when the film is released. Tom Hanks might be good for the role of Mueller.

               replyreport