Robert Mueller All But Calls For Impeachment
Well, Bob Mueller spoke today, for about 8 minutes. While no one will be real happy with the brief remarks he made, one thing was crystal clear. He believes that the report did not exonerate Donald Trump, and the matter needs to be taken up by Congress.
There is no other way to interpret what he said in his relatively short comments.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
By the way , Mueller did not say there was no collusion. What he said today , exactly, was that there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy to charge a crime. That is not "no collusion".
Insufficient evidence? Heir Mueller had 2 years, unlimited resources, and investigated anything and everything Trump. He indicted several members of the Trump administration and campaign; but not one of them had anything to do with collusion with the Russians. If he couldn't find enough evidence that means it doesn't exist.
At this point I give up. Please call your Democratic rep in the House and start impeachment proceedings. Keep the pressure on them, they must follow through. Let's get this shit show on the road already. No need for the Dems to endlessly investigate and drag out a prolonged smear campaign against Trump, and anyone associated with Trump until election day. This will be purely along political lines; and get no further than the House. Maybe impeaching Trump in the House will bring closure for the left finally.
The claim is a falsehood. It just meant that the evidence was too well hidden, or the lies obscured too much of the truth.
Hey! We agree on something!
Like was done with Hillary? Again we agree!!
Because even if there was a smoking gun, eye witnesses, and signed confessions, Senate Republicans will still deny wrongdoing and continue to allow Trump to shred the Constitution.
Sorry, if you are not implicated by evidence in a criminal matter, you are cleared. That’s our system. Correct?
BS. The Dems in the House will not have near the power Mueller had. This will be a political impeachment only. After the Dems didn't impeach Bill Clinton for perjury, this will just be icing on the cake or their hypocrisy.
Read the rest of it. Not even close.
Comey and Hillary sycophants in the FBI had no intention of ever prosecuting Hillary. Neither did Lynch. Hillary should be thanking god there was no special prosecutor assigned. She wouldn't have gotten off so lightly. Instead of Comey handing out immunity like it was candy, those around her would have found out what it was like to be yanked in from of a Grand Jury and forced to testify. Having their entire lives investigated for any illegality that could be further used against them. After that was over the Republican controlled House and Senate would have taken their shots at her. Using the Dems logic of insufficient evidence meaning they just didn't search hard enough.
Because even after a two year investigation with unlimited resources and the full power of the US government behind it; an elite team full of Hillary and Obama sycophants with just one goal of getting Trump at all costs; and special council that used any means necessary to coerce testimony- they still couldn't come up with shit. With the way Trump abuses the system it must be damn difficult for them to admit it. So difficult in fact that Mueller cannot even admit it.
Not that it will matter. The left will never admit there is nothing there. Trump is a "legal" political criminal. Just like every other politician at the federal level. He is just better at abusing the system than the rest of them. So by all means keep looking for that non existing smoking gun. Keep trying to coerce confessions from anyone near Trump. The left will never admit they have been outsmarted by a better political criminal than they could ever hope to be; they will just "continue to shred the Constitution" in a vain effort to try get Trump at all costs.
So get it over with. Stop wasting tax payer money. Impeach Trump in the House purely for political reasons. The left needs to get this out of their system. Maybe then they can work on getting the crazies out of their exploding clown car of candidates; working on a platform doesn't cater to their extremists; and get back to work. The border issues are still there to solve. Infrastructure is way past due for an overhaul (Not that the Dems will ever come up with a way to pay for it. Nor either party agree on what needs take top priority- electrical grids- or roads and bridges). The tax code still favors the rich- but of course neither side will ever do anything. Both want the tax code to favor themselves, and those on the rich that give them campaign money.
You're right, impeachment would be a waste of time as the senate will shut it down.
Then 35 million or so of tax payer money was WASTED ?
Wasted? Hell NO! (I don't recall any problems with Benghazi, which actually did produce nothing.)
Details in link below, read them.
And none were "Our President" Donald J. Trump or Family.
"Wasted? Hell NO! (I don't recall any problems with Benghazi, which actually did produce nothing.)"
HELL YES !
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi Again ?
'Then 35 million or so of tax payer money was WASTED ?'
That was 25 million which Manafort's seized assets paid for.
Why does the chump Rump and his supporters keep inflating the amount the investigation to more than it was? The turd Rump said 40 million.
May of 2017 up to September 2018.
"We're still waiting on the final report for the last six months of the investigation, but based on the total costs outlined in the first three reports — $6.8 million, $10 million, and $8.5 million — the entire investigation could cost somewhere between $32 million and $35 million. "
Dude, we had so many years of fruitless Benghazi its still ringing in our heads. Next time don't do it and we won't remind you all.
Didn't "Ring" in my head. Knowing there were 4 dead Americans for NO REASON....was enough for me. How it happened really didn't matter.....did it ! After all, it was just "Politicians" that made the non-decision that got them killed, and I didn't vote for them. "Politicians" are immune, except to being voted out of office !
There was a lot more to it than that as I am sure you know. From the man going to the consulate when it wasn't the most secure, to lack of funding and congress not giving said funding.
What....they didn't pay the gas station attendant yet ?
"Funding" Issues is NOT a defense for what was allowed to happen.
Perhaps you should review the plea agreements for Flynn, Papadopoulos and Cohen.
Mueller found plenty of evidence of 'collusion'. READ Volume I.
Conversely, if you ARE implicated by evidence in a criminal matter you are indicted. That's our system, UNLESS you hold the office of the President of the United States. That was true for Nixon and Clinton and now for Trump. It's up to the Congress to investigate now.
I never said it was a defence, I am pointing out, it is not all black and white like you are trying to say. There were several factors in play that led to what happened.
Blame can be put in several corners, not just one.
Dog do! Cooperation should be considered an unlimited resource. However, Trump demanded that no one in his circle, political or personal, cooperate with the investigation. The folks that followed his demand are awaiting trial, awaiting sentencing, or are in prison. That speaks volumes...not only in regard to evidence, but also in regard to what kind of a man Trump is.
There was only "One" Factor. "LACK OF URGENCY" !
They had to wait for the "Video" to play out and then make sure they rewound it before turning it in. Wouldn't want a "Fee" charged so they'd be over budget !
The really sad thing about all of this is the glaring obvious.
That Russia was involved in trying to sway the election and are going to do it again the next election.
All the while we are fixated on internal investigations and ignoring a real threat.
Six years from now the desire for investigating Trump will be over.
Sis years from now the investigations will be long over.
Your problem is that this collusion thing isn't going to be what impeachment is about. It's about the crimes of obstruction as described in part II if the report. Mueller basically said in the report and now directly from his mouth--here's out to impeach the Scumbag.
I don't think you understand what those agreements actually say.
You should read them again.
I'm sorry to have to correct you, but the authorities said there was no lack of funding.
SoS Hillary Clinton was asleep at the switch, help should have been sent.
You should have probably paid attention to the hearings.
State Department officials testified under oath that budget issues did not keep State from providing better security.
It actually seized 40 million in assets, so it MADE money for the US government, (aside from locking up some members of trumps crime family).
Is asshat one or two words?
1) Not sure why you are still beating this dead horse after 9 fucking investigations. Your wet dream of locking her up FAILED, let it go.
2) Amb. Stevens was warned NOT to go to Benghazi because security couldn't be guaranteed, (because the republican congress denied requests for more security). Steven opted to go anyway, so as tragic as it is, it was his decision to go, knowing the risks.
3) What exactly do YOU think Hillary should have done? ANY help would have been at least 8 hours away and by the time she was notified, steven's and party were already dead.
Again, 9 investigations, all 9 were republican led, found nothing, zip, zilch, nada. At worst was the email server, which oddly enough Kushner and Ivanka BOTH use, but the right doesn't care about that. And the email server? Weird that those 33k emails suddenly showed up in Russia just three days after trump asked russia, on live, national tv, to get them.
You want to keep making comparrisons between trump/russia and Hillary/Benghazi? OK!
Benghazi = 9 investigations over 5 years costing nearly 250 million dollars, 2 FBI email server investigations and an 11 hour LIVE TV, under oath interrogation.
Result? No charges. No guilty pleas. No indictments. No prison sentences.
Trump/Russia = One investigation, 2 years costing 35 million, (but seized 40 million in assets), trump never testified in any way under oath because he is a coward and a pussy.
Result? Robert Mueller's investigation netted 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5 prison sentences.
Now here is the softball question for you Greg... Which one is the witch hunt and hoax? Hint: It's not Benghazi.
You're wrong.
Been there, done that. You should try it.
Oh and READ the Mueller report too:
Then once in office, Trump et al DENIED it ever happened.
Sure sounds like secret coordination to me.
In truth, it's a Logan act violation. But hey, Flynn got off easy...
IF you think the indictments contain evidence of those three colluding with Russia to interfere with the election, you either don't understand English or are spectacularly dishonest.
You should read what I originally replied to and stop moving the goal posts.
I'm glad we agree there was no collusion by the three you mentioned to interfered with the election (you know, the point of Mueller's investigation).
Since we agree that those three did not collude with Russia with regards to the 2016 election, what illegal acts did those three commit with Russians that justify your claim of collusion and what did they collude about?
SoS Hillary Clinton was asleep at the switch, help should have been sent
We don't. BTFW, you've moved the goal posts AGAIN.
Your comments are disingenuous and no longer worthy of reply. Move on.
Then show the collusion to interfere with the election..
Different standards. Mueller had to strive for criminal level of guilt (beyond a shadow of doubt), the House doesn't have to go for that level. You're comparing apples to bicycles.
It's not nice to call life long Republicans sycophants just because you don't like the results.
After 8 House investigations and an FBI investigation, all clearing her, I don't think she was worried. FYI, she even testified before them, something Trump was too afraid to do.
Another person proud of the fact that they never read the report. You know how foolish it makes you look to make such false statements?
Another lie. Manafort seizure turned the investigation into a profit.
Too bad Trump walked out of the meeting after 3 minutes.
Were you sleeping during Trump's 1.5 trillion dollar tax give away to the wealthy?
I don't have to Sean and I'll tell you why. I was replying to Ronin who said:
Nothing about interference in that statement Sean. Nothing about the election either. So STOP asking me to address YOUR ever changing versions.
All three of the people I mentioned colluded with the Russians. I'd also add Manafort to the list. The evidence is in the report.
Odd to me when you call the Dem candidates pieces of shit when most of them are rather diplomatic.
Yet you would never once say that about trump, who is an actual piece of shit.
Hate to break the news to you but China has long term plans that don't involve an eight year or less president.
I can always tell when people watch fox news.
The jackass Tucker is trying to push that Russian interference is minimal and dismissive.
Sad and sick really.
Uh huh. Don't tell me, you think only trump can lead the way
Too funny.
You mean the Benghazi investigation that was obstructed by Obama every step of the way? No special prosecutor, just a Select Committee from the House.
Oh, and Obama refused to answer the Select Committee's questions. Funny how the left supported him in that; but railed against Trump even thinking about not testifying to Mueller.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-benghazi-obama-224813
If you can't tell the difference between a House Special Committee; and a special prosecutor, there is no point in discussing anything with you. It also will prove that anything the Democrats do in the House will not have near the power or authority to investigate that Mueller had at his disposal. Since Congress cannot bring criminal charges against anyone.
So that is the reason why there were no criminal charges in Benghazi. Congress doesn't have the power to bring them; and an Obama DOJ (Holder or Lynch) would never bring charges on anything a Republican Congress found.
There it is
Over roughly the same time period , US taxpayers have spent over $100 million on Trump's golfing habit.
If you don't mind the now over $100M costs to taxpayers for Shtibag's golfing or the complete wast of several times that much each time Shitbag goes overseas and accomplishes less than nothing (other than finding a way to give KJU a diplomatic blow job) then we'll continue to ignore the whining about the cost of the Mueller report which is beginning to look the the bargain of the century for what it tells us about Shitbag's crimes.
What would he have left then?
Congress has the power to open impeachment hearings to get to the truth. And if there had been criminal wrongdoing in Benghazi there would have been fallout. Benghazi was a tragedy, not a crime. Not even remotely like what is going on now, but we do all remember the multiple committees that investigated for years and found no malfeasance. Gop couldn't even come up with anything. And if they had, they would have taken it to the max. But they couldn't, nothing was there. Lynch is not and never was Barr. He considers his job as a Trump protector, not a USA protector. From your link
You and john should do an "Article" on that.
For now, I'll stick with this "Mueller" thingy we're supposed to be talking about !
So your evidence of collusion to interfere with the election is a post election conversation where an incoming administration official asks Russia to protect our ally?
That's just sad. Did you just post this without reading it? Or do you think because it contains the words Russia and Flynn, it proves collusion to interfere with the election?
So you are going to continue to post strawman fallacies?
I already asked you to STOP asking me to address YOUR ever changing versions of the comment I originally replied to.
BTW, Sean, what ally are you claiming that Flynn asked Russia to protect?
Can't read? I said the impeachment in the House will be along political lines only. They will not be able to get more, or better, evidence. They can investigate until Trump is out of office and it won't make a damn bit of difference. It is nothing more than a continuation of a smear job at this point.
Strozk & Page are Republicans? Now you really are getting absurd. Seems you missed all of their emails fawning over Hillary, and worrying about how their investigation was affecting her election chances. Also, above all else bashing Trump and talking about their plans to stop him.
Where did I ever say she was worried? I said she had nothing to worry about since the FBI and DOJ had no intention of ever indicting her; regardless of the evidence. So what if she did testify before the FBI- according to Lisa Page's testimony to Congress Clinton was allowed aides (that had already testified several times to the FBI themselves on the issue) to be present, in an effort to limit the FBI questioning/access.
Do you know how foolish you look when you misread, and misquote, the Mueller report? Take off your TDDS glasses.
Wow, so it is ok to illegally spy on a US citizen, or political opponent, so long as you can turn a profit from it? Oh, and since you still can't read my full posts correctly. I said "stop wasting tax payer money" or do you think the Democrats' multiple investigations in the House aren't costing tax payers anything? Please tell us!
Too bad Pelosi wasn't there to discuss infrastructure to start with. She was there to tweek Trump on the Mueller investigation. Of course this is just like her grand plan for the border to increase security. She talked a great game to the press; but when it came time for the House to submit their budget- not one dime was allocated. How did she expect to implement all of those grand plans with no money!
From her own web site no less.
I am sure you were upset about US taxpayers spending money on Obama's golfing habit; and shoot arounds with college and pro basketball teams?
ALL impeachments are along political lines. The difference this time is that Senate Republicans under McConnell have already shown that they would block impeachment EVEN IF IT IS JUSTIFIED.
You're lying again.
Strozk & Page exchanged texts that were just as dismissive of both Hillary and Bernie. Your claim that they were opposed to only Trump is ingenuous at best and an out right obfuscation at worst.
Says the person that refuses to read anything passed Barr's "summary".
Of course not. TOO BAD THAT DID NOT OCCUR! If you have evidence that it did, you should call Nunes immediately since he could not find any during his investigation.
I'll let you explain how you know this. Since they never had time to start any discussion prior to Trump walking out.
Your cut and paste is talking about Trump's stupid wall, not infrastructure. You do understand the difference between the 2, don't you???
Funny thing is I went to about at least a half dozen or more political fact checking sites to check politifact's bias and the majority found politifact to be blatantly leftist biased. So your quotes on politifact commentary can hardly be considered fair or non biased can they?
I don't know about Ender, but I find that very interesting. Please give me a list of the sites you checked so I can read what they said about Politifact.
You said at least half a dozen, so just 6 sites are fine. Thanks.
According to fox news, every other source is bias....
Don't know where you look but the bias checker most used for this site list them in the least bias category.
A quick look on my end and what I could find calling them bias was the national review, some offshoot of the heritage foundation and some Libertarian podcaster.
And 2 days now with him refusing to provide a simple list, [deleted] But hey, he can still provide the list so I can look for myself.
You want to call me a liar, I do not really give a rat's behind. Do your own homework!
Well, it's not OK with me. You can't call a member a liar. You can say a comment is a lie. One is about the person and the other is about the comment.
You are correct, I apologize, I phrased it wrong. I meant to state that the comment he made appeared to be untruthful, but it came out as directed at him personally.
All you need do is support your assertion. You have the burden of proof.
There is no reason for him to say this if he does not believe impeachment is merited.
Cop Out !
He and his crew could have "Recommended" ANYTHING to congress....without breaking his "Cop Out" statement !
I said it before....and I'll say it again …… Ken Starr at least had Balls.....Mueller and his team don't !
Mueller wasn't under the same rules as Starr.
I don't know if all those dares to impeach Trump are going to pan out like republicans want. But I do think we are about to move into a new phase of history. Congress really has no choice but to do their constitutional duty. Mueller made that clear.
And Yet, Starr gave us a verdict !
"Congress really has no choice but to do their constitutional duty."
Congress ALWAYS has a "Choice". Congress is all about "Politics", not rule of law, when it comes to looking at themselves !
Read my first sentence, FFS.
Robert Mueller, in first public remarks, says charging Trump was 'not an option we could consider'
BULLSHIT !
That's what he was "Hired" to do !
FIND INFO AND MAKE A FUCKING DECISION !
FFS...… Nothing stopped Mueller from giving a True life "Conclusion" to what he found or making a recommendation in his report !
"Special counsels are unique in that they are not subject to “day-to-day supervision” by the DOJ. They are also “free to structure the investigation as he or she wishes and to exercise independent prosecutorial discretion to decide whether charges should be brought.” Special counsels are also vested “within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.”
Whoa there, somebody's triggered. Lol.
I'm in a " Safe " Space" right now.
NO THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO!
We sincerely hope they do so. It will fail and thus assure Trump's reelection.
Not sure what the impeachment will be about, since no evidence has emerged pointing to any wrong-doing or criminal activities on Trump's part.
Not true, as Mueller himself said today, but by the time congress is through all the evidence of team Trump connections with Russia and obstruction to impede the investigation, America will know the truth. At least if they want to, I don't expect Trumpers to lift the veil.
'Whoa there, somebody's triggered. Lol.'
True dat!
Every reputable news station has verified that essentially wrongdoing has been committed by the turd but it's not up to Mueller to 'FIND INFO AND MAKE A FUCKING DECISION'
What was he hired to do then ?
mmmm...seems we have heard this type of talk before.
What his report said was,
*The IRA is the Internet Research Agency that carried out the Russian interference.
It also says,
To me, it is unconscionable that Americans everywhere aren't expressing sighs of relief and happiness over the good news that our president was elected legitimately and that the man himself and the people around him weren't working with people who would attack our system this way. (unless you are prepared to suggest and then prove that this president and his people - routinely characterized as incompetent boobs - somehow managed to outwit everyone in the special counsel's investigation)
You don't have to like Trump or even support him, but in light of the findings, it's long past time to drop this Russian collusion nonsense. Continuing to go after him at this point seems to me the behavior of power-hungry politicians and their supporters who care more about power and control than they do about justice and integrity.
They didn't outwit anyone, there just isn't enough evidence to bring a charge of conspiracy.
In Volume I, Mueller documented multiple instances of 'collusion' by Trump minions. It isn't 'nonsense'.
Or it's elected officials that swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and who have a duty to conduct oversight and investigate the actions and policies of the Executive branch.
Neither is it criminal. Like I said: move on.
Which has not been violated. Move on.
Which have all been entirely legal or we would have heard otherwise. Move on.
Bullshit is bullshit no matter who is saying it. The Constitution declares that impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" not vague shit like "cleansing" or "collusion." That's what elections are for.
Which are defined by each person in Congress.
So . . . make it up as you go. Great. Go with that. See what that does for the country.
I didn't make up shit.
It is a well known legal position that the definition of 'high crimes' is whatever the hell the Congress says it is.
And obstruction.
So why haven't Democrats moved to impeach?
1. It will never get through the senate.
2. If Dems move to impeach they will spend the next year and a half on this and ultimately not accomplish any of their own goals.
3. If in fact trump were impeached we end up with Putz for president and he'll just pardon trump.
I think impeachment is an unknown. While it is highly likely (95% ?) that the Senate would not convict, even that would likely somewhat depend on what the evidence was. I would be against impeachment based solely on what is known now of just the obstruction of justice. That would fail. But if other criminal behavior was revealed in an impeachment investigation , along the lines of tax crimes or other financial crimes, it might be worth proceeding to impeachment.
I think it is too much of an assumption to presume that impeachment would help Trump in the election. There is just as good of chance that revelations about him will end up nauseating more than enough voters to defeat him.
Actually, if the House acts, the Senate is compelled to take the case.
Democrats in general have been saying getting rid of Trump is a main goal. If Democrats are unwilling to impeach, then they should stop talking about it.
If by the juvenile term "Putz", you mean VP Pence, then yes, he could certainly pardon Trump if he chooses.
But, gee, so many Democrats have been talking all about how many state investigations are going on and will bring Trump down, so no pardon applies to anything a state may indict Trump for.
What secret evidence do you think Mueller missed? If he's going to be impeached, its going to be based on what Mueller found. I was just reading an article by Byron York that summed it up pretty well:
"It's not unusual to hear House Democrats vow to "get to the bottom" of the Trump-Russia matter — as if the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, with 500 witnesses, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search-and-seizure warrants, and nearly 300 records of electronic communications, was somehow unable to fully probe allegations that the Trump campaign and Russia conspired to fix the 2016 election.
What really concerns Democrats is that Mueller's investigation , conducted with law enforcement powers that Congress does not have, failed to establish any Trump-Russia conspiracy or coordination. And in doing so, Mueller exposed the fatal flaw of the Trump-Russia matter: It was driven entirely by the conspiracy/coordination allegation, which turned out to be false...
As that was happening, Mueller was trying and failing to establish that collusion ever occurred. From interviews with various players in the investigation, it now seems clear that by the end of 2017 Mueller knew that he could not establish conspiracy or coordination. That part of his investigation effectively ended when 2017 did.
Yet Mueller continued his probe for more than a year, mostly focusing on obstruction allegations. Collusion as a topic of investigation might have been dead and gone by that time, but the fact that the Mueller investigation was still going on kept the collusion narrative alive. And that fed the public perception that events Mueller secretly knew were not part of a collusion scheme were still in some way suspicious.
The collusion narrative became so entrenched in the minds of some commentators that even when the Mueller report was made public, with its repeated statements that "the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities," some simply would not accept the verdict.
So now Democrats are promising to carry on, to find that thing — collusion — that Mueller could not find
pat said that it would never get THROUGH the Senate, not that it wouldn't get TO the Senate.
And?
Why?
Why should he be given the chance?
But gee, the Federal trials would be sweet to read...the state prosecutions will be the cherry on top...
collusion:
secret or illegal cooperation
Already showed you there was secret cooperation.
I know what she wrote. It most certainly will get through the Senate. The Senate must vote on it.
Now, if you mean that the Senate won't rubberstamp something the House sends it, then you are, of course, correct.
It shows a real lack of integrity and an unwillingness to do the right thing, which can't help the Democratic Party.
I didn't say he should. It was a possibility brought up by a poster.
So impeach, indict, whatever you need to do to make it happen. Democrats talking about it sure ain't getting it done.
What's the big hold-up now?
Nonsense. The reason obstruction of justice was added to Mueller's investigatory plate is because when done by a president it involves extraordinary abuse of presidential power. There is no question that it is an impeachable offense with or without "collusion" being present, although there is serious doubt that the Republicans in the Senate would vote that way.
Oh for Pete's sake. I wasn't trying to say you personally made up anything. I said "make it up as you go." It's a common phrase meaning there is no standard by which people can abide or from which they can expect consistency.
I was saying that if Congress is going to decide that "high crimes and misdemeanors" can be applied to any situation where they want to defeat the president politically, then that is, de facto, "making it up as you go."
Yes, I'm well acquainted with it. However, in actual practice, Congress has taken the matter of impeachment very seriously - and the words "high crimes and misdemeanors" very literally - and only sought or threatened impeachment when an actual law was broken.
If they got to it right away and had a compliant Senate, they could get it done quickly. But they won't even try because they know the Senate would never convict. Actually, I think it wouldn't even be a close vote. The Senate is supposed to be the more "deliberative body" - aka "the grownups." I think in this case, that would actually show.
I believe the House would have to present an overwhelming case to convince even many of the Democratic senators of Trump's guilt and I don't think they can present such a case.
'Move on.
Once congress has done their job of investigating all of the wrongdoings by the turd 'president' and his corrupt cabinet, we will move on.
Tacos! Do yourself a favor and download the Mueller Report. It is a difficult read, but, clearly demonstrates how corrupt Trump and his Family of thieves are.
When the Chief Executive, the Attorney General and most of the Republicans in Congress are CORRUPTED, it, is very difficult to weave a straight path through the Swamp!
It must be done!
It's as "Clear' as Mueller told us it was.
NOT VERY !
No, thanks.
I have.
If it's so clear, where are the indictments? Where are even the recommendations to pursue further investigation or action against them? The answer is they aren't there. They haven't happened. So, these things you claim are so "clear," clearly aren't.
Well gee Tex, I can't mean that they'd rubberstamp it because the Senate MUST conduct a TRIAL, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and then vote to acquit or convict.
So you must think that impeachment is the right thing. Otherwise, your posit would demand that somehow, someone, censor every elected Democrat that wants to talk about impeachment. That can't help democracy.
The NYSD. They are methodical. The Stone trial is coming soon so the fun will start soon enough.
'Make it up as THEY go' would have been more clear.
Yet in instances of impeachment, at least one of the articles of impeachment have been actions that are NOT crimes. Lying to Americans isn't a crime. Making speeches disparaging Congress isn't a crime. Bringing disgrace on the office isn't a crime.
Based on the Mueller report, all the Congress needs do is get ONE of the 10+ instances of obstruction of justice to stick.
They're in Volume II. Didn't you understand what Mueller said yesterday?
BTW, any ongoing litigation was redacted, much of which is alleged to be against Stone. Who will he throw under the bus?
There are other state's investigations going on too. Will Trump.org survive?
Which of the obstruction allegations don't you understand. Maybe if we review it together it will help.
Sean, if you get pulled over for speeding and the cop also notices you are drunk....can the cop arrest you for being drunk? Yes.
Also, look up the special counsels mandate, it was incredibly broad.
“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime, we would have said so,” said Mueller, adding, “Charging the president with a crime is not an option we could consider.”
He also didn't state the President committed a crime either; which there is nothing stopping him.
The chicken shit purposely left it open so Democrats could use it politically. Or is everyone on the left suddenly forgetting their claims that the Mueller report "would be the end of Trump"? Now it is just the beginning of endless investigations in the House into things that Mueller already investigated.
The House does not have nearly the power or authority that Mueller did; which they are already finding out.
Then you should easily be able to post what laws he broke, what crimes he committed.
I notice you left those pertinent facts out.
Done and redone and then done again. Quit pretending you haven't been show the facts multiple times.
When will you stop pretending you have proven anything?
If what you say is true, then Democrats have all they need to impeach. No need for any more investigations or anything--just impeach based on what you say is proof.
What the hell is the Democratic hold up NOW?
The problem is that the Executive Branch, The Attorney General, and most REPUBLICANS in Congress are CORRUPT!
Ken Starr wrote a report in which he said Bill Clinton was guilty 11 times. Mueller couldn't find a way to use the word once. Now he's explaining what it could mean. Mueller had all the power of the US government and all the investigators who hated Trump, yet he could not find guilt. He won't testify in front of Republicans nor we he answer questions from the media.
A despicable coward!
He is a coward with no backbone to stand behind what he wrote in his report.
Mueller had a different set of rules. (Thanks to Ken Starr)
Have we forgotten how are justice system works? It is very simple...
a. a crime is committed
b. an investigation is done to determine if there is probable cause for an arrest.
c. charges are filed against perp for a.) committing a crime
d. prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp is guilty.
None of this applies to Trump after 2 years of unlimited resources and using our best intelligence agencies to do so.
Done, over. Get over it. Quite with the TDS shit that is fucking up our country.
ALL of this sounds like something from someone who did not read the report , or even good summaries of it, and did not see or read the transcript of what Mueller said today. Your b, c, and d points are irrelevant to the conclusion. Mueller says from the beginning that he could not arrest or charge Trump. And he said that he would not even openly state that he thought Trump was guilty because if he did that Trump would not have a venue to defend himself.
Mueller said, in the report and today that there is a prescribed venue for dealing with the misdeeds of a president, the clear allusion was that is in Congress and impeachment.
It's Rump and his corrupt self and his corrupt cabinet who are fucking things up dear
Mueller should have laid out any evidence from his report that Trump had committed collusion or obstruction as Comey did for Hillary and then stated that Trump was a blithering idiot so no charges would be forthcoming.
[deleted]
It is kind of cute in a third-grade sort of way to deliberately misspell the President's name.
That way, the world knows that Trump isn't their President!
LOL!
Did you not hear Mueller tell the country yesterday that the "justice system" is not where crimes committed by a sitting president can be prosecuted. That's Congress's job.
Do you know that Congress members are not prosecutors?
Did you hear Mueller lay out his evidence of any crime committed by Trump?
And sitting Presidents can be charged and arrested for a crime, it is not a law or mandatory to not convict, only a policy.
Impeachment proceedings are not the same as prosecutorial proceedings, which you and many others fail to understand.
Yea, because the right wing ALWAYS spelled, "Obama", correctly, right? Now you're going to complain when people take shots at trump? Com'on man...really?
I dunno, 8 years and counting and many on the right still can't spell, "Obama".
I know how to spell it and use it correctly ALL of the time.
WTF does that have to do with calling Trump some asinine name?
Highly doubtful
Starr was appointed by the COURT, not the DOJ.
Secondly, Starr reported to CONGRESS, not the DOJ or the AG. Starr NEVER had to inform the AG of a damn thing and didn't have to submit to the DOJ for funding.
Thirdly, Starr submitted his report to CONGRESS, not the DOJ or the AG and it included ALL of the underlying evidence.
Sheesh if you're going to demand Mueller give the same kind of report as Starr the LEAST you can do is recognize the DIFFERENCE in their circumstances.
If you don't mind me adding to all that trivia - it was congressman Jerry Nadler, back in 1998, who argued that it would be “unfair” to release Starr’s complete report because it contained “salacious” material and unverified testimony.
I think we got it squared away now
All of that 'trivia' was based directly on your comment. Well done.
Oh how I love when y'all make statements that contain one word 'quotes' out of context. /s
Yes, now the Special Counsel is under the AG and that's working out GREAT! /s
Don't like it? Who made that change?
It's worked just fine under other AGs.
Trump.
Shall I reveal it or wait?
I can't be here much longer, so here's the answer:
Neal Katyal drafted the current special counsel rules in 1998-99 in Janet Reno’s Justice Department under Bill Clinton.
What a shame, they never envisioned there would be an investigation of a hated Republican President.
Have a good one.
You keep saying hate, that hate comes from the turd 'president' and his supporters
Funny that you would cite Neal Katyal, he is on MSNBC right now. He just said he would impeach and that Trump should be indicted afterward. They cited footnote 1091 of the Mueller report.
Actually, as I stated before, it worked just fine before. Even for investigations into Republican Administrations. In fact, the Plame investigation, as conducted by Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, under the above rules and supervised ironically enough by Acting Attorney General James Comey.
Like Holder and Lynch. Oh wait they never referred anything to a special counsel. Much easier to obstruct that way.
Prove it. This should be hilarious, since it has been proven already in posts that changes were made to special counsel laws after Starr.
What grounds were there to appoint a Special Counsel? Please be specific.
I already have. 2.4.7.
The difference is that Bill lied about a blowjob. Trump lied about accepting help from Russia to win an election.... HUGE difference.
What specific help did Trump receive, and what could he have done about it?
No worries, the post are just more Trump lies, so better to have one less.
I guess you missed the part when Mueller said that Russia DID interfere in our election process with the intention of helping trump win...AND....the trump campaign ACCEPTED that help.
Please point out where it says Trump Campaign accepted help.
Just point it out and quote it.
Start with reading page 41 of the report. They not only accepted help, they promoted it.
Bull.
From the report page 41:
Subtitle a:
Unfortunately for you both assertions, i.e., that Russian interference had no effect on the election and Russian interference did affect the outcome of the election, can be neither confirmed or ruled out. So that categorical statement of yours is, itself, an example of one of these "ludicrous assertions." The fact is we don't and can't know but we do know that there was much "collaboration and cooperation" (from the Mueller report) between the Shitbag campaign and Russian agents which may not have risen to the level of a crime of conspiracy but certainly does rise well above the level of foreign meddling in our election and that meddling being more than welcome ("Russia, if you're listening...") by Shitbag.
In sum, the laugh's on you.
Ever since the report came out people have been trying to parse out what he said about possible impeachment. He made it clear today. When I see a transcript of his statement today I will post it.
Mueller all but said that Trump would have been indicted except for the fact that Justice Dept guidelines do not permit a sitting president to be charged with a crime. Then he noted that his report acknowledges that the constitution requires another method (Congressional investigation) for dealing with presidential wrongdoing.
That would be hard for the House Committee's to do, since after 2 years and bazillions of dollars of unobstructed digging , even the unobstructed Mueller said he found "Insufficient Evidence" to do anything.
You think the "Committee's" in the "lackadaisical congress" are going to do any better ?
As far as Muellers statement about not being allowed to "Convict a sitting President", there was nothing that would have stopped him from making a recommendation to congress to run with their impeachment SCREAMING ! Even Ken Starr had the balls to make a recommendation ! He said Billy was Guilty of something !
Muellers "Speechifying" said NOTHING more than was already in the report !
I'd luv for these "Committee's" run by Democrats to ……. GO FOR IT !
Please !
You need to go read section two of the Mueller report, Mueller outlines 11 times the president attempted to obstruct the investigation.
Democrats should …… GO FOR IT ….. since it's soooooo transparent.....to Some !
Please !
See, this is why I don't like putting things up for folks to read, they either have a hard time with big words or, they just wish to stay ignorant. Go read the report, if you think I'm wrong then read the report and, post the part or, parts that prove me wrong but, I know what will happen, you'll either disappear or, you'll say something like you don't need to prove nothing. Which will tell me you have nothing to counter what is being said except snark.
Everyone's read the friggin report.
It's been posted even here quite a few times ! Commented on ad-nauseum since it's been out. Did you miss it ?
If it's soooo damning....the Democrats SHOULD go the "Impeachment" route.
Are you against that premise ?
Not me, I'm not against that premise. And I think we should freeze your quote for future reference. I don't think things are going to turn out the way the gop thinks. There will be no way for them to spin some of the malfeasance that will come out of the investigation and impeachment hearings.
Please do !
"I don't think things are going to turn out the way the gop thinks. There will be no way for them to spin some of the malfeasance that will come out of the investigation and impeachment hearings."
Who will "Investigate" what these "Malfeasances" are ?
Nadler....Schiff ……. their underlings ?
Schiff already has "Definitive Proof".....what's the holdup ?
No but, it seems you and, your friends on here are against it, some of you have even said there would be Civil War if Congress tried to impeach Trump. Why are you against impeachment investigations, afraid that what was put in Mueller's report is true? And, if you had read the report you wouldn't be saying, "If it's soooo damning....", you would say that it is damning.
Not me !
Did you miss my ……. "THEY SHOULD GO FOR IT" ?
I agree in concept. That is if its a fair process.
My problem with it is i doubt many of the TDS ridden swamp creatures in congress are capable of such a thing when it comes to Trump
And that is my only problem with it. Which in this case is a pretty damn big problem unfortunately.
They are all just spouting, hoping the spout will get enough "Lefty I want" folks to vote Trump out of office. They ain't gonna actually do it ! But it sounds good to "Their" folks anyway.
No, I saw that one sentence out of the whole post and, what it said to me was "I know you think that there should be an impeachment but, not me and, if you want to try it please do, we'll see you in November 2020", my answer to that is, if you plan on continuing to support Trump and, the traitors and, crooks who work with him to undermine our government then what happens AFTER 2020 will be on you.
You have a wonderful imagination !
Reminds me of the movie "Bridge to Terabithia" !
I could support a truly moderate Democrat. Someone like Jim Webb perhaps but since Hillary torpedoed him before she got to the Bern i never got the chance in 2016.
Let me if one of those ever runs and i'll take a look. I haven't seen it yet in the clown car of wackos running right now.
One I know of does have a good record of reaching across the isle, he was governor of Colorado and, during his time there he had to work with a Republican legislature. John Hickenlooper. Of course he isn't doing well in the polls because he is a moderate and, because he isn't that well known outside of Colorado.
Yeah i've looked at him.
He'll probably get torpedoed by the DNC machine just like Webb and others.
Especially this year ..... the year of far left fundamentalism
I hope not, he was a very good governor and, he does have good ideas to help us out of the hole that Trump is sinking us into with his "trade deals".
Jack Webb was a good man and good candidate as well. It won't matter in the current environment.
Moderates get torpedo'd ..... by both parties.
I can agree with this only in part, it isn't the DNC that is keeping a candidate from being mentioned even, it is the RNC who is doing that to Weld, they won't even admit that there is a Republican who is running against Trump this time around and, refuse to set up any kind of funding for him to run against Trump, sounds like what the RNC was blaming the Democrats of doing during the 2016 race to Bernie Sanders don't it?
I clearly didn't exclude the RNC. Neither side has any high ground in this regard.
Neither side.
And if you think one does you are only fooling yourself.
Oh, I agree that in the last election Bernie wasn't given much of a chance but, it wasn't like the DNC said, "Don't even put him on the ballot during the primaries", in this case the RNC is saying just that, they don't want any challenge to Trump from their side.
I love it when you lot just go free-form and manufacture shit out of nothing.
Thats your move not mine.
But hey, at least you will always get a few votes from folks here who are simpatico with you in that regard.
Birds of a feather if you will ......
No JR, CNN all but said. I was watching CNN and I feel sorry for their viewers. It was 45 minutes of what they think Mueller said. That Mueller WAS telling Congress to impeach President Trump...No wonder the snowflakes watch them.
But yeah its time for Babbling Nancy to shit or get off the pot. She must impeach Trump, Mueller told her to.
If someone is innocent, you don't go to lengths to describe why you could not indict them. It is obvious that Muller thinks Trump committed wrongdoing.
There's no if's John, In America you are innocent until proven guilty......Even Donald Trump gets those rights!
Mueller clearly does not believe Trump is "innocent" . There is no reason to discuss why he couldn't be indicted if he is believed by the prosecutor to be innocent.
For weeks and months we have heard that Mueller found no misconduct by Trump. Now we hear from the man's own mouth that that is not true.
Then why not provide the evidence?
There is no reason to discuss why he couldn't be indicted if he is believed by the prosecutor to be innocent.
If Mueller was laying out a road map for House democrats to use for impeachment - that would be the reason. Remember when people wondered if that report was doing just that? I have said, over & over, that the definitive proof is Mueller waiting for the dems to win the House to hand in his report! How long do you think it took Mueller to realize Trump hadn't conspired with Russia? Remember, there was a counter-intelligence investigation which preceded Mueller's. He started with all that info. Also remember the words of the original lead investigator "I don't think there's any there there!" That's why Comey's buddy, Mueller had to give us this convoluted report in which he has only suspicions about collusion comprising about half the report.
For weeks and months we have heard that Mueller found no misconduct by Trump.
True
Now we hear from the man's own mouth that that is not true.
Nope, Mueller clearly took a final shot at his boss, but he didn't contradict the boss's decision - a decision Mueller refused to make.
Listen to what Mueller said, not CNN.
Barr is clearly a Trump toady, but even if he wasn't, the person who was involved with the two year investigation is the one with the knowledge and ability to reach the best conclusion, not someone who became "boss" a few weeks before the finish of the report.
Barr is simply not a credible person. In his summary he claimed that Mueller did not refrain from indicting Trump because of the DOJ guidelines not allowing a president to be indicted, when it turns out that Mueller said today that was always at the forefront of their decisions.
Barr is completely untrustworthy.
And Mueller is an Obama toady.
but even if he wasn't, the person who was involved with the two year investigation is the one with the knowledge and ability to reach the best conclusion, not someone who became "boss" a few weeks before the finish of the report.
Who's that, Jesus? Oh no it's the partisan Mueller who used a bunch of Trump hating liberal to investigate Trump for over two years! To bad he came back with nothing.
Barr is simply not a credible person.
Because he dosen't do what you want? You loved Rosenstein...Rosenstein agrees with Barr.
In his summary he claimed that Mueller did not refrain from indicting Trump because of the DOJ guidelines not allowing a president to be indicted
Mueller could have made a recommendation regardless of any DOJ policy. Why do I feel like I'm constantly repeating myself?
when it turns out that Mueller said today that was always at the forefront of their decisions.
What decision? To have congress keep a cloud over this President after two years of telling the American people a lie?
Barr is completely untrustworthy.
Mueller is a partisan Obama operative - see I can do it to!
What proof do you have that Mueller is an Obama toady?
We have proof against Barr. In his summary he claimed that the DOJ guidelines against indicting a sitting president was not part of Mueller's result of not charging Trump , when the fact is that Mueller says the DOJ guideline had a lot to do with it. Barr was lying on behalf of Trump. Barr wanted to exonerate Trump and he needed to make it look like Mueller had no problem with that exoneration.
His actions. He only assigned anti-Trump democrat attorneys to his team. He never investigated the clear cut collusion of the Clinton campaign/Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele, or the actions of the lead investigator (Peter Strzok) whom he was forced to remove, or foreign agents who committed the same acts as Paul Manafort, but who happened to be democrat. Despite full cooperation from the President over documents, lots and lots of (right now questionable) surveillance by the FBI (and possibly the CIA and our allies) combined with other investigations it took Mueller two and a half years to tell us first that the President didn't conspire with Russia and second that he's not sure about conspiracy.
But you've herd all that many times, haven't you?
We have proof against Barr.
No, you don't like Barr.
In his summary he claimed that the DOJ guidelines against indicting a sitting president was not part of Mueller's result of not charging Trump , when the fact is that Mueller says the DOJ guideline had a lot to do with it.
So, you've said. There is also a policy about not criticizing those investigated if you don't recommend prosecution. It's funny how Mueller felt free to disregard that one, just like his buddy Comey did.
Barr was lying on behalf of Trump
Barr NEVER LIED!
You better prepare yourself, and so should Mueller. A lot of FBI and maybe CIA officials might just be facing criminal prosecution!
Really? In that briefing, Mueller clearly said that "Barr acted in good faith."
Did you?
My opinion hasn't changed and guess what ? Neither has Mueller's.
The ball still rest in Babbling Nancy's hands. I would think that people would contact her and let her know their feelings instead of trying to put words in Mueller's mouth.
NO Collusion.
Yes, congress gets to decide that. Mueller came out and made it clear. He was constricted by the rules, only congress has the authority to get to the truth and make sure Trump is not above the law. And believe me, people are letting them know. Even in republican districts like Justin Amash represents. Americans will see what Trump did in open hearings and it won't be pretty, because regardless of the willful blindness of conservatives, Trump did a lot of bad things. The obstruction is too obvious to even mention, but why leave it out? Bring it on.
Mueller wasn't appointed to investigate your fantasies.
Actually, Mueller didn't fine sufficient evidence to prosecute for conspiracy and said so.
No, all we need do is compare his statements to Mueller's report.
Again, all we need do is compare Barr's statement to Mueller's report.
Mueller didn't 'criticize' Trump, he documented the evidence of his actions.
Sure as hell looks like he did.
Yay, a second Inquisition to purge the heretics.
JFC, do you never bother to go to the first sources for anything? Vol. II specifically addresses multiple examples of obstruction along with a list for each indicating the legal elements for future prosecutors to follow.
So why won't Democrats impeach?
What are they waiting for, when, according to you, they have ALL the evidence they need?
or do they simply lack the balls to do it?
Collusion is not a legal term. The only time it's used in the report it is to point that out:
So if you're betting all your chips on Mueller not finding "collusion" it means your betting on an empty pot. From the Mueller report here's the introduction to that section on p. 66, Vol I:
There follows 133 pages describing dozens of contacts between multiple Shitbag campaign officials and various Russians, both government related and apparently independent trolls.
They're just parroting what Trump and Fox are saying - clearly without bothering to research the legal terms or even read the full report.
That doesn't explain why exactly zero people in the campaign were indicted for working with Russians trying to interfere with the election. Democrats were adamant that even if Trump couldn't be indicted because he was president, people around him - including his son - would be indicted. That didn't happen.
Is it your claim that Trump himself was the only person cooperating with Russia and that he somehow kept everyone in his campaign from knowing about it? Because that's what would have to be happening.
Mueller is referring to the obstruction of justice part of this. You keep trying to limit it to the conspiracy aspect.
referring to the obstruction of justice part of this
Almost all of the events that Mueller claimed could possibly be construed as obstructive would require co-conspirators. Why weren't any obstruction charges brought that point to Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator?
When you read Mueller's report it's clear he couldn't demonstrate the criminal intent necessary for obstruction.
Actually, he just put to rest the new book claiming he "drew up an indictment" of Trump.
That's about all that happened, other than his refusal to question the Atty General's good faith.
lol
Sean, if Mueller thinks Trump is innocent, why is he alluding to impeachment as the way to deal with the findings of the report?
Because he understands how the Constitution works and Congress can always impeach a President for whatever reasons it chooses.
How is this news?
It is news because there is little to interpret in what he said. For many weeks people have been trying to interpret the sentences in the report that dealt with charging Trump . Mueller said today the same thing that was in the report, that is true. Trump was not exonerated on obstruction of justice. But in a short statement today he said that "another forum" is required to deal with presidential misconduct, other than a criminal indictment from the Dept of Justice. This makes it very clear that Mueller did not find trump innocent.
Sean, should Trump continue to say that the Mueller Report "completely exonerated" him?
No, a prosecutor doesn't "exonerate" anyone. He either indicts or he doesn't. Just like juries don't find defendants innocent.
Your boy is the one that keeps saying the Mueller report exonerated him....
....jes sayin'
Yes, and the entire left is screaming the Mueller report says Trump is guilty. Which neither it, nor Mueller, claim.
.....jes sayin'
35 million, plus countless millions more to be wasted by the House; to divide the country even further. The Establishment is loving this. They couldn't ask for a better outcome.
It's newsworthy because Mueller said that, but for the OLC ruling that a sitting president cannot be indicted, he would have been criminally charged with multiple counts of obstruction of justice.
He never said that, he just manipulated you into thinking he did.
In fact, as he quietly clarified via press release, he never claimed that the OLC guidelines prevented him from finding the President obstructed justice.
Here are Mueller's remarks.
Do point out what you claim.
From Time:
By Rachel E. Greenspan
May 29, 2019
Special Counsel Robert Mueller spoke out publicly for the first — and possibly only — time since his 2017 appointment Wednesday morning to make a statement on his findings in the investigation into 2016 presidential election interference.
“I am speaking today because our investigation is complete,” Mueller said in the live-streamed conference at the Justice Department, before announcing that he would resign to return to “private life.” He took no questions from reporters following his comments.
His statement comes as House Democrats continue to seek his testimony on the investigation. Rep. Jerrold Nadler wrote a letter to Mueller on April 18 asking that the Special Counsel testify publicly before May 23. “It is clear Congress and the American people must hear from Special Counsel Robert Mueller in person to better understand his findings,” Nadler said on Twitter at the time.
Attorney General William Barr told The Wall Street Journal on May 16 that he was not preventing Mueller from giving Congressional testimony in the wake of his own refusal to present the House with an unredacted version of the Mueller report.
The Brief Newsletter
Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now. View Sample
Sign Up Now
Mueller made it clear Wednesday that he would prefer not to testify before Congress.
“The report is my testimony,” he said.
Here’s the full transcript of Mueller’s statement on the investigation:
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.
The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.
I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.
Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.
The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.
And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.
These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.
That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.
Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.
The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.
The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.
We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.
The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.
At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.
I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.
There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.
The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.
In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.
So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.
It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.
Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.
I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American.
Thank you.
Write to Rachel E. Greenspan at rachel.greenspan@time.com.
[deleted]
Link?
[deleted]
Your comment infers that Mueller made a separate and independent statement in a press release. Unless you have some special access that none of the rest of us has, your claim is false.
The document released by the SC office the day Mueller made his statement merely QUOTES what Mueller said in his statement and in his report and CONTRASTS it with what Barr said in his press conference.
Your comment is misleading at best and utter bullshit at worst.
Eventually Rosenstein and Mueller will be asked if what Barr said is true. How confident are you that they will back up Barr's characterization of the exchange?
Here's another thing about Barr. He keeps claiming that DOJ policy did not prohibit Mueller from making prosecutorial decisions about Trump's obstruction of justice.
So that begs the question: If it was Mueller's job to document those decisions, WHY didn't Barr hand Volume II back to Mueller and tell him to do just that?
Actually, he's given the House democrats their new narrative- that but for DOJ policy, Mueller would have found the President guilty of obstruction. Something Mueller could have recomended despite whatever policy there was. The problem was that Rosentein and Barr disagreed with Mueller on what "obstruction" really is.
Here comes a world of pressure on Nancy Pelosi
he House democrats their new narrative- that but for DOJ policy, Mueller would have found the President guilty of obstruction
It's a nitpick, but mueller doesn't have the power to find anyone guilty.
hat but for DOJ policy, Mueller would have found the President guilty of obstruction
That's been the narrative since the report was released. Mueller's statement hasn't changed whats in the report.
As an aside, do Democrats now care about obstruction of justice? The same people who claim to care now didn't think it was an impeachable offense when Clinton did it.
In the case of Bill Clinton, which had a single similarity to this, Clinton did commit perjury and obstruct justice. The Republicans in the House voted to impeach and Senate democrats blocked a conviction. It was good that Clinton wasn't convicted. Why one may ask? Because those criminal acts were committed because of something other than what the investigation was about. It was supposed to be about Whitewater and morphed into a blue dress!
In the case of Trump, there was an investigation lacking a crime. Even if Trump committed obstruction, I'd have to say it becomes mute. Obstruction of a baseless investigation dosen't deserve a prosecution!
IMO if there was no crime, you can't have obstruction.
I hope the Republicans subpoena Mueller and grill him on that bogus/fraudulent investigation.
That is not the law.
Didn't you notice the IMO
OK, your personal opinion is irrelevant.
Your personal opinion IS NOT THE LAW
The law has nothing to do with impeachment.
WTF? Impeachment is all about the law. What's next? Is up down now?
Read the Constitution.
Congress, and Congress alone, decides what is an impeachable offense. All that matters is a majority in the House and 2/3 of the Senate agree to impeach and then remove. Congress could impeach Trump even if Mueller reported Trump was the most innocent person in the history of the world.
Impeachment is far more about politics than law.
Then is that why Bill Clinton was impeached?
Exactly. Only two Presidents have been impeached. It might be interesting to go back and read why the first one, Andrew Johnson was impeached.
(In neither case did the US Senate vote to convict)
Actually, it was why Andrew Johnson was impeached.
Clinton committed perjury and obstruction.
Johnson, who was a terrible President, didn't deserve that impeachment. The Tenure of Office Act he was accused of violating was clearly unconstitutional. It was a drastic overreach on the part of Congress to claim Johnson couldn't fire executive officers without it's approval. I'm no fan of Executive Power, but the idea that the President can't fire members of his branch of government moved the balance of power between the branches way too far in Congress's direction.
You nailed it again Sean. In those days the President didn't pick his vice President, they were both elected, thus you had Abraham Lincoln, a Republican President with Andrew Johnson a democrat Vice President. Johnson was regarded as a southern democrat who was actually loyal to the Union. The problem was that after Lincoln was assassinated, some hard line Republican Congressmen found themselves with Johnson as President. Johnson's views on reconstruction were much different than their's. He favored a more lenient type of Reconstruction, thus as you mentioned, there was a fierce political battle over what he had the authority to do, very similar to today's political animosity. The case for impeachment against Johnson was purely political.
Republican Senator Edmund G Ross, along with 6 other Republican Senators are highlighted in JFK's book "Profiles in Courage" for voting for acquittal and saving both Johnson's Presidency and the stature of the office
In all likelihood, yes.
Are we going to rehash Clinton again or is the topic more about Trump and Mueller?
Well, that is true but Nancy's tough and she can handle it.
Are you now telling us you're (as in all rightwingers) no longer going to keep attacking Clintons for simply existing? You might as well give up breathing, too.
So impeachment IS about the law, then.
It can be. It depends on which obstruction statute he would be charged with. There are a couple dozen. The obstruction laws most frequently cited regarding Trump require some kind of force or threat (not in evidence here) or "corrupt intent." Logically, it's hard for most people to envision corrupt intent when no underlying crime exists.
Still waiting for an answer for post 4.2.8
The Mueller report address that unfounded claim and so did the SCOTUS.
There's more on page 369.
Since impeachment is enumerated in the Constitution, you'd be WAY wrong about that.
So you agree that it does have to do with the law.
If there is something in my post eluding your understanding, just let me know.
Thanks for the offer but I got it.
You sure? You seemed a bit confused.
Yep. I'm good.
Robert Mueller told Democrats they've gotten all they are going to get from him. Mueller is not going to be the Democrat's political patsy.
The issue of impeachment has become strictly a political decision for Democrats. Democrats must decide if they are going to put party before country. Is winning elections more important than the rule of law?
As usual, Democrats have painted themselves into a corner and Robert Mueller is not going to help them get out. Democrats alone must choose whether or not to impeach Trump. And Democrats alone will bear the political consequences of that choice.
Are you serious? Please explain how you think enforcing the demands of the constitution is putting party before country?
Doesn't the Constitution demand holding a President accountable to the rule of law by impeachment?
Robert Mueller affirmed that he will not hold Trump accountable to the rule of law. Investigation, by itself. does not hold Trump (or anyone else) accountable to the rule of law or the Constitution. Only a judicial trial will accomplish that.
Democrats have actually created a Constitutional crisis by claiming Trump broke the law while also avoiding holding Trump accountable to the law. Does the rule of law matter? Democrats must choose. Will Democrats enforce the rule of law? Or will Democrats engage in posturing to avoid the political consequences of trying to impeach a President?
So far, it seems Democrats have chosen party politics over the Constitution and rule of law.
Oh I see what you are up to. Let's take all the onus off the criminal (Trump) and place it on the politicians.
Mueller said he could NOT hold Trump accountable because of the restrictions on his mandate. And he also made it clear that Trump was not exonerated from either conspiracy nor obstruction, and that he had done all he could, now the ball is in congresses court to do its job. I can't eve believe that 'democrats chose party over country' crap after what we are witnessing daily from the gop. I submit your post about dems is a total projection of what the gop has been doing for years. It doesn't matter how hard dems try to work with gops, McConnell will obstruct every time.
And here is an example of courage and how Justin Amash's republican constituents feel about his honesty. Doesn't bode well for Trump.
The Constitution prevents Robert Mueller (or any other prosecutor) criminally indicting POTUS in a Federal court because that would circumvent the Constitutional authority of Congress. The checks and balances of the Constitution require that both the judicial and legislative branches of government must be involved in holding a President accountable to the rule of law. Robert Mueller tossed off legal mumbo Jumbo about DOJ policy but the reality is that the Constitution is why Mueller could not issue a criminal indictment.
The role of investigating a President is to reach a legal conclusion based on evidence that the President committed a crime. A prosecutor cannot circumvent Congress and criminally indict a President in Federal court. A Representative must criminally indict a President through articles of impeachment. It may be a convoluted process but that is what the Constitution demands to maintain the checks and balances between the branches of government.
The Constitution demands holding a President accountable to the rule of law through impeachment.
The investigation of the President is complete and the legal conclusions based on evidence have been delivered. Now the House of Representatives must decide whether or not to criminally indict the President. Since the House is controlled by Democrats, Democrats must choose.
The Constitutional onus is on the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. The hair-on-fire politics deliberately pursued by Democrats have raised the political stakes for doing the job they were elected to do and that the Constitution demands. Democrats have placed themselves in that position.
Robert Mueller did not issue a legal conclusion that President Trump did commit a crime, either. In effect, Mueller did not provide a legal conclusion either way.
The Constitution only allows the House of Representatives to criminally indict a President. By avoiding delivering a definitive legal conclusion, Robert Mueller adopted a position that avoids being the political patsy for the Democratic majority in the House. Democrats can't claim that Robert Mueller told them to impeach Trump.
Oh please. The ignorance and blind fealty to Trump from his supporters and his lap dogs among the Republicans in Congress is what has created this crisis. If there were objective Republicans in both houses of Congress there would never have been any doubt about impeachment. Trump is the most unfit for office president anyone has ever seen.
So, impeach Trump. That's what the Constitution demands. Pointing fingers and snarky diatribes won't fulfill that Constitutional obligation.
Democrats desperately wanted to control a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. Democrats succeeded. But having a majority also comes with Constitutional obligations and responsibilities. Democrats got what they wanted, now they need to govern. The Democratic majority in the House will have to choose whether or not Trump will be held accountable to the rule of law. Republicans can't do that for Democrats since they lost the midterm elections.
If Democrats are not going to fulfill their Constitutional obligations and responsibilities then why should Democrats remain in the majority?
Exactly.
What is the freaking hold-up?
Didn't the Great Mueller Report give them everything they needed and demanded?
Personally, I think too many in Congress simply lack the cojones to do it.
n't the Great Mueller Report give them everything they needed and demanded?
It didn't take. so now they have to pretend something new happened (though the facts remain the same) and try impeachment drive 2.0
In a few weeks, they'll find someone to testify about what's been publicly available in the report and excitedly claim this information (that they already knew) really demands impeachment.
The gop congress doesn't want to move forward on impeachment because they're complicit along with the 'president'
Since there isn't any links, I'll file that under "wishful thinking".
WHAT 'gop congress"????
You DO realize that it is the Democrats in control of the House, right? Nothing the GOP can stop the Dems from filing the articles of impeachment.
But for some reason, Dems are dragging their heels.
Must not have the cojones to pull it off.
Well, unless you somehow think Trump will impeach himself, then YES, the onus is on the Democrats to impeach.
Democrats have been braying for wel over 2 years about all the Trump "crimes". Either the Dems were lying and there are no crimes, or they were telling the truth and there were crimes and now they just don't care.
Impeach Trump or stop braying about doing it, Democrats!
As expected, Democratic candidates for President are being pressed to take a definite stance on impeachment.
Joe Biden has made the noncommittal establishment argument that impeachment would be divisive but may be unavoidable if Trump continues to stonewall, as if the Mueller investigation didn't happen. Biden (and the party establishment) are placing party politics ahead of the rule of law.
Not too surprisingly candidates that are back in the pack are taking a more aggressive position on impeachment to gain mentions in the news and raise their public visibility. The press isn't particularly interested in camp followers so its necessary for lesser known candidates to challenger the leaders.
Nancy Pelosi has lost control of the politics. Impeachment will be divisive and division is to Trump's political advantage. The Democratic Party has already begun to divide itself over impeachment which is only a precursor to the divisions that will emerge in the electorate. The hair on fire politics pursued by Democrats have forced the issue of impeachment into the headlines. The 2020 election is turning into a referendum for establishment party politics and Democrats won't be able to avoid scrutiny for their role in the political mess.
Nancy Pelosi won't be Speaker of the House after the 2020 election no matter which party holds the majority of seats in the House. Democrats will push her out as quickly as would Republicans.
I say do it or STFU. Every day that Democrats prance around talking about their evidence and Trump's guilt but don't actually take steps to prosecute him, tells me they are all 100% full of shit.
Self preservation "Politics" are the most important thing on this planet to democrats in office !
Can't beat what the economy is doing now....Impeach !
Can't beat that Trump is talking with those no one dreamed of talking to before …… Impeach !
Trying to make our borders actual Borders ….. Impeach !
Trying to make U.S. Citizens Important over all others ……. Impeach !
Trying to get jobs going for U.S. Citizens as the most important thing ………. Impeach !
Making "Trade" more fair for this country ………… Impeach !
Letting ALL "Americans" keep more of what they earn ………. Impeach !
[Removed]
Be careful what you wish for. Check out how Justin Amash's republican constituents feel about his call for justice and the fact president is not above the law. (Hint: standing ovation) And it's now going to be done through congress. Thank god.
Thank God, huh? Because Congress has a whole bunch of investigative experience and tools that the Department of Justice lacks ?
The Congress has the tools to hold a sitting POTUS accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors. The DOJ does NOT.
The Congress has the tools to collect evidence for legislative purposes. The DOJ does NOT.
You (and others) keep telling everyone to hurry up and then when things do wind up (e.g., Mueller and his report) you go all ape-shit about the results. I'd suggest you all learn a bit of self-control and patience and be careful for what you wish for.
WTF are you talking about? I'm totally satisfied with the results. The report said no one in the Trump campaign was working with the Russians to interfere with the election. That was the big worry. As far as I'm concerned, the crisis is over.
You're the one who's not happy and wants more investigations. You're the one who thinks it's still cool to go around talking shit about these people when it's already been concluded they didn't do anything wrong. If anyone was going around making accusations about someone else and saying there oughta be action, I'd say do the action already. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that all you really care about is smearing someone's reputation for political gain.
I'd suggest you bite me. My self control is just fine.
Rudy Giuliani Reacts to Mueller by Comparing Him to Soviet Union: ‘He’s Lost His Notion of American Fairness’
Why was Bill Clinton impeached for obstruction of justice but trmp can't be?
Democrats set the precedent that obstruction of justice is not an impeachable offense, let alone one worthy of removal.
So it was the Democrats that set this precedent. All righty then.
Why didn't the Republicans over turn that when they had both House and Senate?
No need to answer that question. You republicans liked the idea and kept it because you knew it would come in handy some day
How would they overturn that?
The Democrats voted almost unanimously that obstruction of justice is not impeachable or removable. Republicans didn't control 2/3 of the Senate, so how do you imagine they could remove a President without Democrat support?
As the Democratic Judiciary Chair said when Clinton was charged with obstruction, even if proven true, it's not an impeachable offense.
Didn't the Republicans control the House and Senate for most of Obama's term?
They never had close to 2/3 of the Senate.
And the House never tried to impeach Obama.
I have no clue what point you are trying to make.
That you republicans got the democrats to do your dirty work for ya.
Republicans tricked Jerry Nadler in 1998 into claiming that it doesn't matter if the President obstructed justice because it's not an impeachable offense because they knew Nadler would be the head of the Judiciary 20 years later when a Republican was President? .
If lying was an impeachable offence, trump would have been out in his first year.
The man cannot tell the truth about simple things...
I don't care what Jerry Nadler or anyone else said 20 years ago. I thought Bill Clinton should have resigned when it came out that he had lied to the American people about having "sex" with Monica Lewinsky.
At any rate, anything that is a crime someone could go to prison for should be considered an "impeachable offense".
What exactly is stopping Democrats from filing the articles of impeachment?
They have the vaunted Mueller Report.
Let's get to it instead of braying incessantly about it!
What is the point when the senate would shut it down within a week.
Oh boo hoo, how dare the Dems talk about it....
If ALL they are going to do is yap about it, then, hell yes, the Democrats should shut their pieholes.
Time for Nancy and Co. to put up or shut up.
The Senate can not "shut it down" if the House impeaches.
If he had, or had Democrats voted to remove him, someone like Trump would never have been elected. But once a major party convinced the American public that it didn't matter if a President lied, or obstructed justice, as long as the economy was good, than Trump became possible.
Michael Gerson, without connecting the dots, laid it out in the Washington Post last week:
"So it matters if the legacy of the president is that the ends justify the means; that rules do not apply across the board; that lawlessness can be excused. It matters, too, if we demean the presidency by lowering our standards of expectations for the office and by redefining moral authority down. It matters if truth becomes incidental, and public office is used to cover up misdeeds. And it matters if we treat a president as if he were a king, above the law.”
Once the standard was set with Clinton, it defined deviancy down for the Presidency and it becomes impossible to ask one side to unilaterally play by different rules.
I know you know how it works, so just admit it.
Yes the house can open proceedings, the senate would shut it down and it would never happen.
They even said this.
I learned long ago the difference between shutting something down and a vote to convict.
Pity not everyone knows the difference.
This battle will be fought between Pelosi and that hate-filled group of bout 40 House democrats! Just the fight by itself is going to hurt democrats.
Pity some just love to be obtuse.
Shutting down, quash, dispose of....same thing.
This is Hillaryious.
And around half the Democrats will promptly deny it.
All over a blow job and lying about it?
Didn't Starr get pictures of Clinton's penis?
Thanks Tessy, trying to eat dinner... lol
It's called perjury.
Which is the reason that Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones an $850,000 settlement.
Clinton was also disbarred over it.
Seems that only Democrats in the House and Senate condone perjury; and obstruction. When a Democrat is in the White House that is.
Not enough evidence of obstruction to prosecute. That's basically summed up what Mueller said today.
If there was enough real evidence, they would have charged him.
Ok for the 500th time in the last 6 hours, that's NOT what Mueller said. He said that it's policy for the DOJ to not impeach or indict a sitting president. Tat's for CONGRESS to do. And since we still have way too many boot licking repubs, it would be a waste of time to impeach trump.
Is that a different way of saying that, for all the rhetoric thrown out by Congressional Democrats, they will simply refuse to do their duty and impeach?
Doesn't that make them complicit?
Oh sorry, I was talking about REPUBLICANS. Should have been more clear.
Your merry little band of Democrats in the House hold all the power to impeach.
You trying to blame the GOP is laughable.
The DOJ doesn't have anything to do with impeachment.
Where do you find this stuff, anyways?
I'm sorry, didn't mean to confuse you... The DOJ has policies... One of them is to not indict a sitting president.
Which has diddly-squat to do with impeachment.
Unless you actually think the DOJ DOES have something to do with impeachment??
And where in Mueller's statement did he ALLEGEDLY say that the DOJ doesn't impeach?
Go ahead and give me that quote you claim.
If you can.
So the DOJ says that a president cannot be indicted while in office.
Well isn't that nice. There is nowhere else in the land that this would even be considered just or right.
So it sounds like they are saying that the president is above the law.
They are saying the president could be removed/impeached and then indicted.
After the transfer of power.
So basically yes, if the sitting president has a majority, s/he can be above the law.
Highly unlikely because no Democrats or Republicans would vote for an impeachment of a President (regardless of party) unless most Americans where in support of it. Or they would be risking re-election.
Reason Democrats are not filing articles of impeachment on Trump....it would be suicidal at this time.
Well....according to Pelosi at the Commonwealth Club Today, they do have 38 of approx. 235 democrats that want to impeach, and we all know that in the Democrat Party, the "Minority ALWAYS Rule" .
I am of the belief that it doesn't really matter either way.
If they did trump would use it against them, if they don't trump will use it against them.
Well of course, that is what all of them do.
Since when does Trump control the Dems? Most Dems do not want impeachment, it is the loudmouths like Nadler and Waters that get the media's attention and then the TDS crowd falls for it. They do not even have their House Leader's support.
Jokes on them...
The joke is on impeachment itself. I don't know that we'll ever have a Congress where both sides will work together to impeach any President; everyone is too partisan. Look at the Clinton impeachment - it was just lip service since nothing happened after the impeachment, so what's the point in going down that road again? Even if Congress did somehow manage to impeach Trump for obstruction of justice, it would just be lip service as well.
I think it's ridiculous that a President just gets away with stuff like that if their party is in the majority of at least one part of Congress, but that's the way it goes. Party over morals and ethics.
The same could be said for both parties.
The extreme voices seem to get the most attention.
Hell just this week two members of the repub party stopped the disaster aid package from going through over the objections of most of the rest of the party. Something that the senate already passed and trump said he would sign.
The Founders made it somewhat difficult to impeach, so a president couldn't be removed from office for frivolous or political reasons.
They also made it to where the president doesn't have unlimited power and where we do not have a king.
Some would call that apathy.
Ah, a Libertarian.
Is that the scholarly surmise?
Not so. The reason why they are waiting is because Trump only has a few more months to his first term, and if he is re-elected they will then go ahead with the impeachment proceedings. Once Trump is no longer a 'sitting President' he will face the legal proceedings associated with the courts.
If you are going to talk bad about people, at least know what you are talking about.
Mueller appears to be someone lacking any credibility when it comes to the rule of law
the same Mueller who when Director of the FBI,
“Mueller is portrayed as a steadfast defender of liberty in part because of the just-released 460-page FBI guideline for running intelligence operations, which Weiner labels the “first realistic operating manual for running a secret intelligence service in an open democracy.” The new rules require “rigorous obedience to constitutional principles.” Sounds good—but at the same time, the FBI was teaching its agents behind closed doors that they have “the ability to bend or suspend the law.”
Please try and impeach Trump. It will guarantee his re-election
It's going to bring everything Trump and his campaign did in the lead up to the election - and after- into public awareness. There will be a point that republicans will be trying to defend the indefensible, and that won't be good for them. This isn't a blow job (that's the reason Clinton's impeachment backfired - the public tied his impeachment to that). This is Russian (ONGOING) interference into our election and how Trump reacted. This won't be a merely a legal case, this will be a moral judgement. It takes a while to get going, there's a lot more information to come out over the months ahead. By the end Trump's base will be all he has, the left, middle and center right will be gone. Stock market likely to add to the problems by then. Careful what you wish for.
Barr's reputation will never be the same, and I won't be surprised to see him in a courtroom one day like John Mitchell. Wonder how he'll look in orange? He does seem drawn to it.
I'm not surprised you don't have a clue what the Mueller investigation was about.
I hate to break the news to you but Trump wasn't President.
FFS make up your mind. I thought President Trump only had support of the deplorables?
As Mueller inferred the ball is in Babbling Nancy's court. Either bring the impeachment charges, which they wont do, or shut the hell up.
No Collusion
I agree, no collusion but there's numerous instances of obstruction which is much more grave than collusion.
The 10 Trump actions Mueller spotlighted for potential obstruction
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/18/trump-actions-mueller-spotlighted-potential-obstruction/?utm_term=.4f55873bd0a8
I would think allegations of conspiring to steal an election in league with a hostile government are more grave than obstruction, especially when the claimed obstruction didn't interfere with the investigation.
This didn't happen. Its Gop fantasy, nothing more. Don't hold your breath for any prosecution.
It's going to bring everything Trump and his campaign did in the lead up to the election - and after- into public awareness......there's a lot more information to come out over the months ahead......by the end Trump's base will be all he has, the left, middle and center right will be gone.
The public has been well aware of this prolonged witch hunt, and has pretty much tuned it out.
I would suspect that that all the relevant information has been uncovered. Mueller made it clear he has given his last word on this issue.
Don't get you hopes up. Barr's investigations into the previous administration misdeeds will be going full swing.
Up to now, Barr has very carefully followed the law. Why would he be in a courtroom.
Like anyone remotely interested in all of this hasn't heard about it for well over 2 years now.
All I can say is:
WHERE ARE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, and WHAT IS TAKING THE DEMOCRATS SO LONG TO FILE THEM????
I know Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to interfere with the election. You know that's what Democrats claimed and was the point of the investigation. I still have no idea how you could believe possible acts of obstruction that didn't interfere with an investigation are worse than allegations of colluding to interfere with an election.
You said obstruction is more grave than collusion. That makes no sense to me.
Its been republicans that have been broadcasting for the last two years that collusion is not illegal, even Gulliani said it. So what is it ? Is collusion a crime or not ?
Yeah we better not hold our breath while we wait for the investigations of the investigators.
your quote:
Trump was elected by some voters who aren't part of that group of fanatics, I am speaking about them.
We aren't talking about Obama.
Partisanship 101:
1) The right attacks Mueller for two years, calling him a RINO, hack, Democrat, corrupt, liar, conflicted, loser, etc. etc. etc....
2) The report comes out, Barr spins it and the right wing suddenly, in a matter of seconds decides that Muller is honorable, perfect, patriot, Republican, etc. etc. etc..
3) Muller speaks for himself and refutes what Barr said, (under oath), and it's back to, calling him a RINO, hack, Democrat, corrupt, liar, conflicted, loser, etc. etc. etc....
www.nytimes.com
Opinion | Robert De Niro: Robert Mueller, We Need to Hear More
Opinion |Robert De Niro: Robert Mueller, We Need to Hear More
You said that your investigation’s work “speaks for itself.” It doesn’t.
Mr. De Niro is an actor, producer and director.
Robert De Niro as Robert Mueller on “Saturday Night Live.” CreditWill Heath/NBC
Dear Mr. Mueller,
It probably hasn’t escaped your attention (in my mind, nothing escapes your attention) that I play a version of you on “Saturday Night Live.” As “Robert Mueller,” my character is intimidating because he is so honest and upright. I do it for comic effect — that’s the intention anyway — but there’s also a lot of truth to it. To put it another way — it’s good-natured fun, but not entirely good-natured.
There’s a level of satire, directed at the current administration. To be fair, not everyone appreciates the humor. The president has tweeted that there’s “nothing funny about tired ‘Saturday Night Live’” and that it’s “very unfair and should be looked into,” even “ tested in courts ,” and “this is the real collusion!” Though what or with whom the show would be colluding is unclear. But then I don’t have to tell you about problems with the term “collusion.” You barely mention the word in your report, and then only to explain why you’re not using it. That could be a punch line on “Saturday Night Live.”
As I prepared for my role on the show, I got to know you a lot better. I read about your lifetime devotion to public service and your respect for the rule of law. I watched how you presided over the special counsel’s office apparently without leaks. And you never wavered, even in the face of regular vicious attacks from the president and his surrogates.
While I and so many Americans have admired your quiet, confident, dignified response in ignoring that assault, it allowed the administration to use its own voice to control the narrative. And those voices are so loud and so persistent that they beat even reasonable people into submission. The loudest, most persistent voice belongs to the president himself, and under most circumstances, we want to believe our president.
There’s a lot of speculation about the president being tone-deaf to facts, but there’s not much disagreement about the tone. Whether you take delight in it as his loyal supporters do or you’re the unfortunate target of his angry rhetoric, the hostile way he expresses himself registers with everyone. Nor is there much credible disagreement that the president treats lies, exaggerations and bullying as everyday weapons in his communication toolbox. These onslaughts of rhetoric aimed at his opposition mostly leave his antagonists sputtering in response, but I don’t think an in-kind response will be very effective either.
Say what you will about the president — and I have — when it comes to that lying, exaggerating, bullying thing, no one can touch him. He has set up a world where it seems as if those disapproving of him can effectively challenge him only by becoming just like him. He’s bringing down the level of the entire playing field.
And here, Mr. Mueller, is where you come in — where you need to come in. In your news conference, you said that your investigation’s work “ speaks for itself .” It doesn’t. It may speak for itself to lawyers and lawmakers who have the patience and obligation to read through the more than 400 pages of carefully chosen words and nuanced conclusions (with all due respect, as good a read as it is, you’re no Stephen King).
You’ve characterized the report as your testimony, but you wouldn’t accept that reason from anyone your office interviewed. Additional information and illumination emerge from responses to questions. I know you’re as uncomfortable in the spotlight as the president is out of it. I know you don’t want to become part of the political spectacle surrounding Russia’s crimes and your report on them. I know you will, however reluctantly, testify before Congress if called, because you respect the system and follow the rules, and I understand why you’d want to do it away from the public glare.
But the country needs to hear your voice. Your actual voice. And not just because you don’t want them to think that your actual voice sounds like Robert De Niro reading from cue cards, but because this is the report your country asked you to do, and now you must give it authority and clarity without, if I may use the term, obstruction.
We’ve learned our lesson about what can happen to the perception of your work when interpreted in rabid tweets by the president, dissected by pundits all over the map, trumpeted in bizarre terms by the president’s absurd personal lawyer and distorted by the attorney general.
And if, in fact, you have nothing further to say about the investigation, for your public testimony, you could just read from the report in response to questions from members of Congress. Your life has been a shining example of bravely and selflessly doing things for the good of our country. I urge you to leave your comfort zone and do that again.
You are the voice of the Mueller report. Let the country hear that voice.
With great respect,
Robert De Niro
A view from abroad, and from a person who's glad he ISN'T an American: What a fucking circus!!!
I hope I'm still alive and lucid in 2020 to see the result. IMO it's up in the air as to whether the effect of the unrelenting attacks on your POTUS is to unseat him or due to resentment cause retaliation to benefit him. It could work either way, so there is a gamble involved. As well, I think that an impeachment procedure is a gamble as well and if unsuccessful will be a snake that bites its own tail, but then, why should I give a damn anyway?
And for those of you who just tell me to mind my own business - I'm a member of NewsTalkers and I'm as entitled to "Speak My Mind" no less than anyone else here.
I completely agree Buzz, and we have the ring leader in the white house. It will be quite the show whatever way it goes. Frankly, I'm more afraid of Trump getting impeached and then the religious right coalescing behind Pence who could run as the incumbent in 2020 and if he won could perhaps win again in 2024 sealing the next 9 years in religious conservative hands. We could see an America taken all the way back to pre-Brown v Board of education if we're not careful.
But he would end up pardoning trump and look what happened to Gerald Ford, lost to Jimmy.
I had to look up Brown v Board of Education. Of course I was aware of the advent of school integration, just not the case that caused it. Its result was very well depicted in the movie "Remember the Titans", if you've ever watched it.
I don't think Pence would have a chance of getting elected in 2020. If Trump is impeached, Pence's reputation goes up in flames with Trump. He is too closely tied to Trump as an asskisser. Yeah if Trump were removed before the election Pence would be president for a few months or even a year depending on when it happened, but I doubt if the Republicans would then even nominate Pence for 2020 in that circumstance. You would see a run of the mill candidate like Romney or Jeff Flake.
And there aren't that many evangelicals. He wouldn't appeal to a very broad spectrum of Americans.
The data says differently
The facts about Evangelical voters in America from Gallup
“There has been little change in the percentage of Americans who identify as "born-again or evangelical" over the past 27 years.
From time to time each year, we at Gallup include this self-definitional question in surveys: "Would you describe yourself as 'born-again' or evangelical?" This provides us with the great advantage of being able to track a consistent wording over time.
The most interesting finding from our 27 years of tracking this question is the lack of meaningful variation. We have seen year-to-year fluctuations, to be sure, but nothing meaningful or sustained.
The 42% of Americans who on average identified as born-again or evangelical in 1991-1995 is little different from the 41% over the past three years.
The born-again/evangelical population in this country is highest among blacks, who are overall the most religious racial and ethnic group in the U.S. Sixty-one percent of blacks in recent years have identified themselves as born-again or evangelical. By contrast, 38% of non-Hispanic whites and 44% of Hispanics say "yes" to this born-again/evangelical measure.
There is little substantive difference in Trump approval or Republican identification between those who identify as born-again or evangelical and those who identify as an evangelical.
I find it hilarious that just a week or so ago a conservative was trying to refute the number of evangelicals claiming it should be on the low end at 5% instead of the high end at 35% from the studies done depending on how you define "evangelical". Here you want to use it as proof there are many of you so you want the loosest possible definition. Do conservatives ever get tired of tailoring the narrative to fit their world view instead of just accepting reality as it is? "We're the minority being attacked and discriminated against! But we're also the majority who should get to decide what's right and wrong!"...
I’m not responsible for what others write or say
secondly I did not say nor did my post that Evangelicals are the majority. I simply refuted your claim that they are too few to matter
“Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found obstruction,” William Barr testimony May, 1.
Interesting... Barr's claimed, under oath, that Mueller told him three times with witnesses present, that the OLC opinion did not keep him from finding obstruction. Given that Barr said others were present, it would be easy to charge Barr with lying to Congress. Yet Democrats haven't made that referral.
Seems like Mueller forgot to mention that today. He seems to have wanted to leave the impression that what he thought, without actually saying it. Very weaselly, given Barr's sworn testimony that Mueller told the DOJ, "that in the future, the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case."
Yet... Mueller clearly pointed out that Barr either lied or is mistaken. So Barr lied to congress? Maybe, depends on the wording. But if he did? He needs to be shown the door.
Where does he do that? Where does he specifically and clearly contradict Barr's testimony?
He created the impression that the OLC guideline kept him from indicting Trump but never actually says it. He specifically said Barr acted in good faith in handling the report. If Barr lied about Mueller's statements to the DOJ, how could he possibly say that?
It makes sense why Mueller doesn't want to testify under oath.
And now Mueller has issued a press release agreeing that Barr's testimony to Congress was correct.
Very shrewd political move by Mueller, who's going full partisan Comey at this point.
You have carved yourself out a nice little niche here on NT as the explainer-away in chief of everything Trump scandal.
The question is why would anyone want to be known for that?
Mueller just undercut everything you've been arguing, by admitting publicly that the OLC opinion didn't keep him from indicting Trump.
Does it bother you at all a supposedly "independent" prosecutor just played you to score political points against Trump? You just spent 24 hours parroting an untruth Mueller manipulated you into believing . That would bother me, maybe it doesn't you.
Link?
My understanding of what Mueller has said, and wrote, is that they never considered indicting Trump. Mueller seems to have thought from the beginning that any misconduct by trump would have to be resolved by the Congress.
A lot of smart lawyers think there is obstruction of justice there. Just because Trumps pet Barr says otherwise that doesnt mean it is the last word.
"The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements," a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr said."
That just sounds like papering over differences.
The operable phrase is
You make it sound like Mueller admitted to being deceptive. I dont see that as the case at all. He just probably wants to maintain a working relationship with Barr thinking it might come in handy some day.
And some folks will pretend that these statements were simply never made.
The statements damn sure don't fit the narrative they wish to talk about.
Trumpsters will try and latch onto any piece of floating driftwood.
If Mueller believed Trump was innocent there are two ways he could have dealt with it yesterday.
He could have said "we found no evidence of misconduct on the part of the president", or he could have refrained from alluding to Congress as a form of remedy for presidential misconduct.
Mueller did neither yesterday.
Shit John. How many people in the last 24 hours have claimed here and elsewhere that Mueller would have indicted Trump but for the OLC guidelines? Creating that impression was obviously his goal. He's a good lawyer, he knows how to push people to reach false conclusions without actually lying himself.
Imagine if he would have started off by saying, "As Bob Barr testified to, the OLC guidelines did not keep me from indicting Trump. In fact, as I told Bob Barr, I believe a President can be indicted despite the OLC guidelines, but this isn't the case for that." That would have been the proper context to place his report, but somehow he managed to omit that. I wonder why.
Watch how a false narrative take hold:
Here's Charles Blow in today's New York Times:
"He made clear, contrary to Attorney General Bill Barr’s assessment, that he was prevented from making that determination based on the Justice Department’s policy against indicting a sitting president."
And if Mueller is convinced that Trump committed any crimes, he could have SAID so, but he didn't. Why not?
Exactly !
WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group) — Constitutional lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said the special counsel had a legally flawed approach to investigating alleged obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.
"What jumps out at me is that the Mueller people got the law all wrong on obstruction of justice," Dershowitz told Sinclair Broadcast Group in a Thursday interview. "They came to the conclusion that a president could obstruct justice by simply exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2."
According to Dershowitz, the president was within his authority to fire the FBI director and would have been justified, under the unified executive theory, to shut down the investigation.
"The position I've taken from day one is for the president to obstruct justice, he has to go beyond his own permissible constitutional authority and engage in conduct that would be a crime for anyone else, like tampering with witnesses, obstructing a witness, paying witnesses, telling them to lie. None of that is charged against President Trump," Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz emphasized, "In my view and I think in the view of many constitutional scholars, a president can't obstruct justice by merely exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2, firing or pardoning. And the Mueller report gets that wrong."
Mueller has now exposed himself as part of the deep state conspiracy against Trump
“ Dershowitz: Shame on Robert Mueller for exceeding his role
“Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.
That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.
No prosecutor should ever say or do anything for the purpose of helping one party or the other. I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.”
Deep state blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Yes I understand that you live in denial since the Trump presidency
pre Trump, the left was just as vocal as I am about the danger of the deep state. But hatred of Trump has suddenly made the left love that which they previously distrusted
It is shameful. The only reason for the press conference was to cast doubt without providing any evidence.
He could have quietly resigned with some dignity. Now is name will forever be tainted, and the TDS crowd gobbled up his nonsense like pigs in a trough.
Here we see why Dershowitz has become known for sucking Trump's ass.
'Yes I understand that you live in denial since the Trump presidency'
'pre Trump, the left was just as vocal as I am about the danger of the deep state.' But hatred of Trump has suddenly made the left love that which they previously distrusted'
BULLSHIT.
No such thing as the deep state except to whackjob conspiracy theorists.
Some are just more grown up than others ….. so it seems !
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has been losing fans lately thanks his arguments in defense of Donald Trump. But this is, after all, a guy who built his name as a liberal. That fact popped up again in a Tweeted rebuttal to colleague and Trump-critic Laurence Tribe.
“Are you really counseling me not to articulate principles I’ve been advocating for decades because they sometimes help someone you and I voted against?” Dershowitz answered back.
We reached out to him for clarification about the post.
“I have never voted for a republican for president,” he told Law&Crime over email. “Of course I voted for and contributed to Hillary Clinton.”
None of this is a surprise, but it’s what makes his recent appearances in the media so striking. Long story short, he’s been arguing that people are too quick to assume that Trump’s campaign violated a law in their alleged ties to the Russian government’s 2016 election interference.
“My point is that we should not stretch existi ng criminal laws to fit political opponents with whose actions we disagree,” Dershowitz wrote in an August op-ed for The Hill.
“Why not seek the warrant?” he said Monday on Fox News after it was revealed that Mueller obtained emails from the Trump transition. “Getting warrants is like getting candy at Christmas. It’s very easy to get, and not getting a warrant gives the defense an opportunity to challenge it in court.”
'Shame on Mueller'
Shame on Dershowitz for kissing Rump's big fat ass
Stage 1 is denial...lol
" Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz was accused of involvement in billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking ring by an attorney for one of Epstein’s victims, who claimed in federal court on Wednesday that the release of sealed documents will prove it."
"For years, Epstein lured an endless stream of teenage girls to his Palm Beach mansion, offering to pay them for massages. Instead, police say, for years he coerced middle and high school girls into engaging in sex acts with him and others .
As evidence emerged that there were victims and witnesses outside of Palm Beach, the FBI began an investigation in 2006 into whether Epstein and others employed by him were involved in underage sex trafficking.
But in 2007, despite substantial evidence that corroborated the girls’ stories of abuse by Epstein, the U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, signed off on a secret deal for the multimillionaire , one that ensured he would never spend a day in prison .
Acosta, now President Donald Trump’s secretary of labor, agreed to seal the agreement so that no one — not even Epstein’s victims — would know the full extent of his crimes or who was involved."
" Epstein was proud of his “collection” of famous friends , which included Bill Clinton and Donald Trump , and there’s long been speculation that some of these friends may have participated in his abuses."
The reasons for Dershowitz to lie and conceal, protecting himself and his criminal clients and friends, are many. Kissing Rumps Tiny Trumpet by defending him here should be no surprise to anyone.
Dershowitz has become know for knowingly making an illegal plea deal for a billionaire pedophile and defaming his teenaged victims.
Dershowitz is an officer of the court who swore an oath to uphold the Constitutions and the Laws of the United States. He knowingly violated those laws for profit. He should be disbarred.
It's NOT character assassination [I presume that's what you meant] since Federal Judge ruled that the plea he brokered violated Federal law. You can't claim on one hand that he's a legal icon and on the other pretend that he didn't KNOW what he did was ILLEGAL.
How quickly I forgot about that one. I believe I posted a piece on exactly that which you have provided.
Makes me wonder what crimes Acosta covered up for the 'president'
Attorneys are not be involved in cover-ups.
Some attorney. Pffft.
What are you a freaking parrot?
Denial, denial, SQUAWK SQUAWK!
Dershowitz must have missed the part where Barr claims just the opposite: that Mueller should have done more (i.e., actually charged Shitbag with crimes). This is the problem for all Shitbag supporters at all levels. In their frenzied, frantic efforts to cover Shtibag's cirmes, sooner or later it they will end up knocking each other down in Keystong Kops fashion.
Deep state, deep state
There is no question that crimes and misdemeanors have been committed. That is why Mueller did NOT exonerate the President, he was unable to bring charges because his hands were tied, and because these criminals destroyed evidence that could have made the case or too many people lied or refused to talk.
Anyone that looks at how the Trump campaign has had several guilty pleas, multiple indictments and several in jail and thinks that Trump or his family knew nothing or that they did not try to obstruct the process to avoid being charged themselves is living in a fantasy world.
Trump knew, he directed people to lie, his family members knew and his campaign associates knew, they all were willing to take foreign help without notifying legal authorities. Then tried everything they could to stop the information from being brought to light.
However it was brought to light anyway because Flynn, Manafort, Cohen and a host of others have been charged, pled guilty, and are serving time for their part in this.
The office of the President should not be associated in any way with this level of criminal activity and the office of the President and his family or associates should not be willing to sell out our elections to foreign influence.
Nice summary of things.
See how Mueller just manipulated 50% of the country into believing a lie? He gives a press conference to create that impression, then quietly walks it back with a press release that won't get 10% of the attention his conference did, after the damage is done.
Shameful behavior
They didn't.
Not one smidgen of proof.
Why didn't Mueller put that in his report !
"However it was brought to light anyway because Flynn, Manafort, Cohen and a host of others have been charged, pled guilty, and are serving time for their part in this."
Do tell what those folks were actually convicted of !
Enquiring minds want to know !
A lot of interesting comments, and several good conversations on the subject of Mueller. I found his words yesterday to be well scripted and direct. Mueller said he gave his testimony in his report, and apparently does not feel the need to provide any further explanation...
Seems to me there are 2 options when it comes to the lack of 'exoneration' of Trump. First option is to start the impeach process, the second is to wait til he is out of office and attempt to get a grand jury to indict on obstruction charges. I think impeachment will ultimately be a failed attempt at getting Trump to pay for his sins .. and could get him reelected..
[exoneration is such a 'unique' word] .. he has not been 'exonerated' yet he will not be charged with a crime either … the most recent blatant example is Jussie Smollet .. he was not 'exonerated' but the charges were dropped and files sealed.. Mueller says that Trump is not 'exonerated' … if he was confident there was no wrong doing by the president he would have said so - but did not conclude that there was any obstruction...…? [side note, Mueller could not indict a seated president, but he could have concluded there was obstruction based on his investigation]
Beats me folks, I patiently waited for the Mueller report, to get nothing for the wait. Reading Mueller's report was like watching my Steelers play the Ravens, less than 2 minutes to go, Steelers are at the end zone - Roethlisberger draws back and throws, only to have the football intercepted by a Raven on the 2 yard line … thus losing the game .. disappointment may not be the right word to describe the feeling I had!
Have a great day all..
Peace..
Which he did. From the report:
Here are some of the specific examples of obstruction cited in the Mueller report:
In each of those categories the Mueller report also laid out which elements were present which were necessary to meet the legal bar for obstruction.
That is not a conclusion. Mueller wrote a very details report that did not conclude the President was guilty of obstruction. Mueller just does not 'exonerate' Trump and said something along the line of 'if I was confident that the president 'did not' commit a crime the report would say so' which means Mueller does not have confidence that a crime was not committed, yet he does not conclude that a crime was committed either... the list of events where there is the possibility of obstruction will most likely be beneficial in making a case for impeachment (Mueller's report is thorough)
Other than the attempt to impeach the president would fail in the Senate, I thought the House would have proceeded with impeachment process already. I think it is a mistake .. as it might get Trump reelected, yet I can understand why so many desire to impeach - after Mueller's 8 minutes on TV the impeachment process almost has to begin now.. (?)
The outcome remains to be seen
Hope your day has been a good one...
Without the option of prosecution (now at least), that's as conclusive as it gets. A thousand--and counting--former federal prosecutors from the entire political spectrum have agreed that would it have been any other citizen beside the POTUS, they would have charged the perp of those crimes based on the evidence presented in Mueller's report. And, I can tell you haven't read the report or heard Mueller's oral comments from this comment:
It does not mean that at all. Mueller clearly stated in the report and at the podium yesterday that the reason he did not charge Shitbag for obstruction and it had nothing to do with his "confidence" (a word he used when the decision not to indict anyone for Russian interference in Vol. I but has never used about the crimes of obstruction) but was entirely because he was prevented from charging (indicting) a sitting president about the infamous OLC ruling that this would be unconstitutional. And the second part is also false because Mueller listed those crimes and the elements that were satisfied to be obstruction---which I listed above and said that the details can be found for each of those in the report. But you'll continue to refuse to inform yourself and keep denying the existence of these facts no matter.
I already posted Mueller's statement. He said nothing of the sort, and you know it.
which is a cop out .. making a decision, reaching a conclusion does not a 'indictment' make. I saw the list above, and it will help make a case for impeachment - there are really only 2 options available to the House Judiciary committee .. impeachment or charge Trump when he leaves office.
Mueller's job is done
Do you consider yourself informed Atheist? I do not see the rainbow and unicorns that you see written in Mueller's report and I am 'refusing to inform myself?'
Those facts you speak of will make a good case for impeachment - Mueller did not reach a conclusion, I suggests charging the President when he leaves office - it will save face for the (D)'s .. I am sorry Mueller tossed the hopes and dreams of crushing Trump in the sewer .. but hey if you read the report standing on your head with you toes pointing east who knows you might get lucky and get an impeachment from the House...
Insults are fun right?
Take care of you Atheist!
But of course. That's how they roll.
No cop out dear.
Here are his exact words.
Mueller: If it were clear president committed no crime, "we would have said so"
Wouldn't also be: "If it were clear the president committed a crime, "we would have said so".
Nothing stopped Mueller from "saying" such !
NO !
No where in the report did Mueller note Trump actually committed any crime....so Why Not ?
Innuendo and Conjectures aren't notations of an Actual Crime being Committed.
Are you a "Could be" type ?
“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,”
“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote.
That's not an innuendo or conjecture. The report clearly states what happened and the part Trump played in it. It would be akin to a crime scene report that doesn't say "Mr. Trump entered the room and shot the victim", it says "we found the victim was lying on the floor with an apparent gun shot wound to the chest". It's up to the totality of the evidence and the originators of the obstruction that congress and the American people have to review and decide whether or not all the metaphorical slaughtering on Presidential norms and the apparent overreach is criminal, or just really distasteful and reprehensible.
Mueller said that if his office “had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” and noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”
Mueller noted after Trump learned that his own actions regarding obstruction were being investigated after appointment of the special counsel, “the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”
Read those two statements you led with again....and Again and AGAIN if needed, Then get back with me.
Why do you keep saying things that are untrue? You've been corrected yet you repeat falsehoods.
Please try and debate honestly.
Its the old "tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth" gambit.
Here's what I know:
It's always amazing and yet never surprising how these people simply will not let plain simple language deter them from the lying.
Sean, here's a basic rule of epistemology: using ideology to decide what's true or not is a false path. You need to get off it.
I read them, but I didn't stop there as apparently many on the right have chosen to do. Read these two lines and then again, and again and then get back to me...
"Mueller said that if his office “had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” and noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”
What part of that are you misunderstanding? Mueller laid out the conduct and said he does not have the authority to indict so presented the evidence so the constitutional process of congressional oversight may formally accuse the sitting President of wrongdoing. He even clarifies saying if he could have cleared the President, he would have, but he couldn't.
Can anyone on the right be honest enough to admit that if that was the verdict handed down after an investigation of President Obama a Republican congress would already be having impeachment hearings? Judge Napolitano from Fox News who is basically employed by a media company working as a shill for the President yet he pointed out the Mueller report laid out clear cases of obstruction.
Reading and comprehending are two different things.
Try again !
“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,”
“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment (the DUH/WTF MOMENT CONTRADICTING HIS ORIGINAL STATEMENT ABOVE), we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote.
Good advise ..... you should try following it.
Still confused ?
using ideology to decide what's true or not is a false path
Heal thyself.
My argument is based on Mueller's own statement.
You are spreading falsehoods that directly contradict Mueller's own stated position because they fit the narrative of you cling to.
I don't know if you just don't understand what's happening, or you do and are just happy to manipulate gullible progressives, but to repeating blatant falsehoods when you've been shown they're false is not a good look. Does intentionally spreading falsehoods bother you at all, or do you justify it as service to your party?
It's not and Mueller explains why in the report.
Again, READ the report an Mueller's explanation for why a conclusion without the ability to indict is unfair to the accused.
Actually, the House Judiciary can open an impeachment inquiry. The Nixon inquiry lasted over 3 months and they had EVERY document that the Sirica Grand Jury gathered. At this point, the Judiciary only has a redacted version of the report with NO underlying documents.
Then WHY is Barr saying that he could have and should have made prosecutorial decisions and documented them in his report?
Which would require Trump to loose the 2020 election. The Federal statute of limitation is 5 years.
Yes they are, so you want to give it another try?
“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,”
Multiple: adjective - having or involving several parts, elements, or members.
Act: verb - take action; do something.
Capable: adjective - having the ability, fitness, or quality necessary to do or achieve a specified thing.
Exert: verb - apply or bring to bear (a force, influence, or quality).
Undue: adjective - unwarranted or inappropriate because excessive or disproportionate
Influence: noun - the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, control the effect itself.
Obstruction: noun - a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage.
Maybe using smaller words will help it sink in.
“Our investigation found 'several ' 'actions' by the President that 'had the ability" of 'applying' 'inappropriate' 'control' over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and 'the impeding of' investigations,”
Where in there does it say the President didn't commit any crime? He is essentially saying "Our investigation found the President did take actions that can be considered to have been obstructing the investigation, but since we decided we could not indict or bring charges against the President, all we could do was lay out the details of the potential crimes for the appropriate authority to take action if they so choose."
“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote
I fail to see how any of that contradicts his statements as you claim. It makes perfect sense to me. He's saying because they had decided early in the investigation that they could not bring a traditional indictment against the President, they chose to just document and not draw any conclusions and to leave that up to the congress to decide if the many counts of obstruction documented warranted impeachment which is the only remedy for a President gone wild according to their reading of the constitution.
Typical !
Leave out his second statement that contradicts his first statement, and then just stick to the one you're now fixated on.
Why is that ?
? You mean “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote"? Right there in my comment, I just didn't highlight it in blue and red like you did. And as I point out, it was not in any way a contradiction. I get that you enjoy emoji laughing, but if you took the time to actual read and reply cogently you might find more people willing to debate instead of just eventually having to ignore you and the prolific emoji trolling.
You might as well be talking to the wall.
For a reason. You ain't as tricky as you think you are.
Your just trying to convict Trump through Muellers omittance and avoiding his contradictions .
He says:
“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment "
but said this:
“ Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations , including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,”
If you wish to not see that as a contradiction, you will have issues for quite some time !
Yeah...now you're catching on.
Oh, dennis, dennnis, dennis; for you to declare something a lie we'd need evidence you could recognize the difference between trust and lie and you've never posted anything true so the evidence is overwhelming is that you don't know the difference.
I'm beginning to feel for all the Shitbag supporters in the country, particularly here. It seems they're stuck in the first two stages of grief: denial and anger and are rapid-cycling between them. They keep telling US to move on but for their own sakes that's what they really need to do. The next step is bargaining so that's going to be interesting, if not fun, to watch.
the next step....if they ever get to it, that is.
He followed the law based on the law and what he knew Congress could do. He clearly had evidence that Trump and the campaign had knowledge of foreign interference in the election and they welcomed it. No clearer case of crimes and misdemeanors which leaves it to Congress.
When a sitting President has his attorney, and 2 campaign associates running the campaign in jail all associated with foreign influence what else do blind Trump supporters need?
Fox even has several of their own pundits refute Trumps lies on several issues, Napolitano, Shep Smith, Chris Wallace, and even Bret Baier.
Not one American has been indicted, much less is in prison for working with the Russians regarding the 2016 election
The left loves to perpetuate these lies
Papodopoulous
Flynn
Cohen
Pinedo
Wow, you really don't understand those indictments.
By all means explain how those you listed were indicted for "working with the Russians regarding the 2016 election"
Start with Papadapolous, what Russian did he work with regarding the 2016 election?
Okey dokey, Sean:
But I'm sure you'll want to read a full description of his crimes, right, Sean?
REad the indictment.
First, The idea that he was indicted for working with Russians is farcical. He was indicting for lying. Not because of "working with Russians regarding the election." I'd hope you can understand the difference.
Second. Even though the indictment itself makes clear he wasn't indicted for working with Russians as was falsely claimed, who was his supposed Russian contact? The supposed Russian identified in the indictment was interviewed by Mueller. Look at his testimony and then tell me he was a "Russian official."
Here's a hint, look at how carefully Mueller describes him. He never says the Professor was a Russian agent or official....
I'd be much more willing to reply to your requests if you replied to mine Sean.
What "indictment" are you using? The one invented out of thin air to pretend nothing happened?
And the ghost of Goebbels smiles.
Okey doke. Page 2, paragraph a.:
Sean, feel free to ask me for help in understanding things like this.
It’s a farce. Not one indictment of a US citizen for supposed collusion with Russia on the 2016 election. And there is no crime of election collusion in US law
Manafort and Gates were charged with phony crimes unrelated to either Trump or the election
Papadopolous took a phony guilty plea which he is appealing for getting the date wrong on a CIA sting operation in which he was set up by the thugs in the Obama Administration
Flynn took a guilty plea unrelated to supposed Russian collusion in order to stop the thugs at the FBI and Mueller from harassing his son
the FBI has cleared Flynn of any wrongdoing with Russia
https://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking-him-to-russia/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons
And Papadopolous was an unpaid volunteer not officially even part of the 2016 campaign and has appealed his guilty plea for supposedly about the date of a conversation with a professor (who turned out to be a CIA plant)
13 Russians who will never face trial have been charged with the phony “election interference fraud” charge. For daring to post phony stories on social media. It’s a joke
What's a farce are most of the sources you're trying to use to refute facts and reality and create some warped alternate version of events that are more in line with your desired fantasy to exonerate the President and all the criminals he surrounded himself with. "The lady doth protest, too much, me thinks...".
Not one American citizen has been charged with conspiracy, collusion, or "insert latest liberal talking point" with any Russian national...not one relating to Mueller's investigation.
Don't know how many times we're going to have to repeat this but it's shaping up to be an infinite number: THERE IS NO CRIME CALLED "COLLUSION." Collusion could be action(s) that lead(s) to criminal activity, e.g., conspiracy. Same goes for lying which by itself is not a crime unless it is done in a manner to further other kinds of criminal activity, e.g. bank fraud (see: Paul Manafort). Mueller did not "clear" Shitbag or his campaign from collusion and in fact list dozens of examples of collusive behavior by Shitbag & Co. in his report but states he couldn't make a case for conspiracy.
It's far past the point now that we no longer can pass off these comments about there being "no collusion" as just ignorance of the term or the contents of Mueller report but a determined effort on the part of Shitbag, et al., to keep trying to deflect away from the actual documented crimes of obstruction.
Oh, sorry, you're in the wrong department. The "Limpdick Response Training Center" is down the hall.
Meetings and actual conspiracy with foreign nationals are two entirely different actions. No one committed any acts of conspiracy....no one, because there where no criminal activities regarding election interference by any American. It is not against the law to have meetings with people, actions must go further to criminal activity and there wasn't any.
Reason Mueller did not have a case. It isn't rocket science. Got it?
Anyone convicted related to Mueller's investigation was for either making false accusations to the FBI, which is a crime, or committed fraud.
How many times does it need to be explained?
Here we are a week later and still no impeachment in the works!
The right has been screaming that Hillary, "will be arrested any day now", for the last 20 years.... One week? Get in line Bubba.. LOL
Here we are over two years later and Trump is still too insecure to say that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election.