Mueller

[KeithKSR]

How the heck did anyone deem this guy competent to lead an investigation?

[suncat05]

It's just yet another Congressional dog-n-pony show. Nothing more.

[Doc]

My 95 year old grandmother who had dementia would have been more impressive. He gets as(ed a question and "can you repeat", does not know what is in report, etc.

The questions were as expected and revealed nothing, nothing at all

[Catonahottinroof]

Agreed

It's just yet another Congressional dog-n-pony show. Nothing more.

[KeithKSR]

...does not know what is in report, etc.

I doubt that he wrote one word of the report. He didn’t handle day to day supervision of the team conducting the probe, and I suspect he is just a name on the report and had little to do with the investigative process nor the results.

[Doc]

It's just yet another Congressional dog-n-pony show. Nothing more.

Not really...dog and pony shows are fun to watch



This is just a whack a mole from BOTH sides.

[Doc]

Not familiar with Fusion GPS???

How can you spend 2 plus years on an investigation and not know who Fusion GPS is. This 100% ruins any credibility

so which is he 1) an idiot 2) a liar or 3) totally incompetent

[Catonahottinroof]

If I was a committee member, I’d like to ask Mr Meuller, “Do you know anything?”

[Carolinawildcats]

If I was a committee member, I’d like to ask Mr Meuller, “Do you know anything?”

Amen! This is his legacy folks! Pathetic display of incompetence!

Peace

Richard (CW)

[Catonahottinroof]

It looks to me like he was just a figurehead to the investigation, nothing more.

Amen! This is his legacy folks! Pathetic display of incompetence!

Peace

Richard (CW)

[KeithKSR]

If I was a committee member, I’d like to ask Mr Meuller, “Do you know anything?”

I’d ask, “Who wrote the report?”

[Doc]

I’d ask, “Who wrote the report?”

Jerry Nadler and Chuck Schumer

[Doc]

So as bad and confused as he looked, is it any wonder why Trump wanted him gone? IMO the idea that Trump wanting him gone it tantamount to "Obstruction of Justice" is nothing more than democrats creating something else to yell impeachment at. First, Special council serves at the Presidents request and can fire him for any reason. Second, Replacing him is that...replacing. It does not stop the investigation. Finally, it is clear that he is a dottering old man now who clearly is not at the top of his game. It is now being reported the he was almost a figure head, where others did the work..others being democrat hacks. I mean the one clear intrusion into the election, Fusion GPS, is something he didn't recall and democrats want to ignore or bury. How competent is that from the head of the investigation? I would have wanted him out too were I a democrat because he made the entire thing look bafoonish.

Donald Trump Jr.: Mueller was a 'figurehead' in 'hoax' run by '19 leftist Clinton-donor lawyers'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/donald...-investigation

Granted, source is Donald Trump Jr but based on what I saw, it is more than plausable

[KeithKSR]

So as bad and confused as he looked, is it any wonder why Trump wanted him gone? IMO the idea that Trump wanting him gone it tantamount to "Obstruction of Justice" is nothing more than democrats creating something else to yell impeachment at. First, Special council serves at the Presidents request and can fire him for any reason. Second, Replacing him is that...replacing. It does not stop the investigation. Finally, it is clear that he is a dottering old man now who clearly is not at the top of his game. It is now being reported the he was almost a figure head, where others did the work..others being democrat hacks. I mean the one clear intrusion into the election, Fusion GPS, is something he didn't recall and democrats want to ignore or bury. How competent is that from the head of the investigation? I would have wanted him out too were I a democrat because he made the entire thing look bafoonish.

Donald Trump Jr.: Mueller was a 'figurehead' in 'hoax' run by '19 leftist Clinton-donor lawyers'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/donald...-investigation

Granted, source is Donald Trump Jr but based on what I saw, it is more than plausable

Mueller met with Trump about the FBI job just before he was appointed special counsel, I’m sure he noticed that Mueller was a bit off his game at that point, unless he has gone downhill that much in the 22 months he has been on the job.

I have no doubt that Part 2 of the Mueller report was primarily an Andrew Weissman product.

[CitizenBBN]

This notion that something like thinking about firing someone who you can legally fire is "obstruction" is asinine. By that logic any President who invokes privilege in a Congressional investigation is "obstructing justice" and can be impeached.

First and foremost, how do you cover up a "crime" when there was no crime? this is one of those "process crimes" like lying to the FBI, where there's no crime at all except one caused by the investigation itself.

Second, Trump took no formal action to impede the investigation of which I am aware. Complaining about it, calling it out in public, even pondering firing someone (which does not end the investigation as Doc points out) isn't "obstruction".

There was no conspiracy. There was no Trump collusion where he's some pawn of Putin and we have a Russian agent running the country. It's a complete falsehood. Were there "ties"? No more than the ties of any other major candidate, of Hillary, of Obama, etc. Most major candidates and parties reach out apparently to foreigners, like the DNC operative reaching out to the Ukraine to get dirt on Manafort. Apparently it's pretty common.

I don't like it, I don't think it's good, but it's not a conspiracy. Trump won fair and square b/c he went to battleground rust belt states and got out the vote and Hillary didn't, and he touched a nerve of Populism that got people to turn out. Period. Done. Get over it and move on.

[KeithKSR]

This notion that something like thinking about firing someone who you can legally fire is "obstruction" is asinine. By that logic any President who invokes privilege in a Congressional investigation is "obstructing justice" and can be impeached.

First and foremost, how do you cover up a "crime" when there was no crime? this is one of those "process crimes" like lying to the FBI, where there's no crime at all except one caused by the investigation itself.

Second, Trump took no formal action to impede the investigation of which I am aware. Complaining about it, calling it out in public, even pondering firing someone (which does not end the investigation as Doc points out) isn't "obstruction".

There was no conspiracy. There was no Trump collusion where he's some pawn of Putin and we have a Russian agent running the country. It's a complete falsehood. Were there "ties"? No more than the ties of any other major candidate, of Hillary, of Obama, etc. Most major candidates and parties reach out apparently to foreigners, like the DNC operative reaching out to the Ukraine to get dirt on Manafort. Apparently it's pretty common.

I don't like it, I don't think it's good, but it's not a conspiracy. Trump won fair and square b/c he went to battleground rust belt states and got out the vote and Hillary didn't, and he touched a nerve of Populism that got people to turn out. Period. Done. Get over it and move on.

How about the media completely missing one of the biggest questions Mueller was asked? Did anyone impede the investigation? No. That completely negates any obstruction charge.

[CitizenBBN]

How about the media completely missing one of the biggest questions Mueller was asked? Did anyone impede the investigation? No. That completely negates any obstruction charge.

Hard to be guilty of obstruction when nothing was obstructed.

Let's be plain. We're in the fantasyland now with these accusations about Trump. He's an ass, you don't have to like him or agree with him, but this notion he's a foreign agent or he's going to seize control of the nation or in any way do anything that is outside the established norms for a President is just absurd.

We're three years in now, and none of this over the top sky falling stuff has even been on the horizon. It just hasn't. Yeah he makes people mad, allies and enemies. that's a surprise from him? No, it's why he was elected.

And the Democratic leadership apparently has absolutely nothing else other than to try to foment hate for Trump and make people think he's a threat akin to the Nazi movement. It's become just plain silly.

Trump is portrayed as being so far outside the lines we have to "bend the rules" to save the rules, but that's bunk. First he's not outside the lines, and second bending the rules to save the rules is just destroying the rules.

[kingcat]

Was the president lying when he said he had no business ties to Russia? “I’m not going to go into the details of the report along those lines,” Mueller said.

Did you develop any sort of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia? “Again,” Mueller said, “I pass on answering.”

Chairman Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, asked about Trump’s multiple claims of vindication by the investigation.
“And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked.

“No,” Mueller replied.

I don't know how clear the man has to be.

Collusion-yes (non prosecutorial as instructed by the White House Justice Dept.)

Conspiracy-no (not beyond a shadow of doubt..also non prosecutorial)

Obstruction- yes (obviously)

Tell me which one he was NOT cleared of by Mueller according to his own words?

I understand disagreeing with the report or declaring it unimportant, but denying it's contents, or changing the subject makes no sense.

[CitizenBBN]

Was the president lying when he said he had no business ties to Russia? “I’m not going to go into the details of the report along those lines,” Mueller said.

Did you develop any sort of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia? “Again,” Mueller said, “I pass on answering.”

Chairman Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, asked about Trump’s multiple claims of vindication by the investigation.
“And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked.

“No,” Mueller replied.

And what do you conclude from that?

Is that obstruction to you? Is that a conspiracy?

Does it matter to you that Mueller didn't "exonerate" Trump in some affirmative act? Does that mean something?

[kingcat]

Again...Tell me which one he was NOT cleared of by Mueller according to his own words?

I don't have all the answers. But I am asking just one simple and totally relevant question.

And I promise fwiw I will not dispute a direct answer.

The ball is not in my court I'd be silly to swing.

[Catonahottinroof]

A prosecutor’s job isn’t to exonerate anyone. They either charge or they don’t....

[kingcat]

A prosecutor’s job isn’t to exonerate anyone. They either charge or they don’t....

Does not apply in this situation. He could not charge a sitting President of a crime as so agreed to with the DOJ

He found insufficient evidence of conspiracy and stated so.

That leaves two (or really three as in both) other answers to my question above as I see it.

[Catonahottinroof]

According to who? You?
He passed his findings on to the Atty General who said as much as the same.
A prosecutor doesn’t prove innocence, nor do they state such.

[CitizenBBN]

Does not apply in this situation. He could not charge a sitting President of a crime as so agreed to with the DOJ

He found insufficient evidence of conspiracy and stated so.

That leaves two (or really three as in both) other answers to my question above as I see it.

It's extremely relevant. Just b/c it's trump and you are convinced he's some kind of comicbook villain it's OK to throw the presumption of innocence out the window.

The Mueller team is extremely biased. All but one of the lead attorneys were Democratic donors. They had 2 years and unlimited money and power to find Trump guilty of SOMETHING. ANYTHING.

THey put white collar criminals in solitary for months. They raided homes with SWAT teams with M16s drawn over procedural arrests. they pulled out all the stops.

Yet they still found no evidence of collusion, and none of obstruction.

The fact that a bunch of people out to get trump couldn't find any proof, but then wouldn't "exonerate" him either, is what you're hanging your hat on here.

"Well, we can't prove he didn't do it" is an incredibly dangerous road to go down, politically and legally, and you're running down it as fast as you can simply due to your belief that Trump is really guilty of something, no matter what.

You're seriously going on Mueller saying "I won't answer that question" as some kind of proof of wrongdoing. A guy who about 200 times asked to have questions repeated, and avoided answering anything he could.

it's funny to me that a guy out to get Trump can't but that's not proof enough, when I'm sure you'll dismiss Barr and Rosenstein (who is no Trump fan) concluding there's nothing there as being biased for Trump. You need to see that it's all biased, and that the anti-Trump people did everything they could to nail him and still got nothing even close to proof of wrongdoing.

there's a place for faith, but it's not in politics. there facts and evidence need to rule, and this belief by so many that Trump must be guilty of crimes simply b/c they hate the guy is the real danger to this nation from Trump.

When you believe in your soul he is going to declare martial law and unravel the Constitution and gets his orders from Putin it creates this dangerous behavior where any means are justified, and that is the real threat here.

[CitizenBBN]

Again...Tell me which one he was NOT cleared of by Mueller according to his own words?

I don't have all the answers. But I am asking just one simple and totally relevant question.

And I promise fwiw I will not dispute a direct answer.

The ball is not in my court I'd be silly to swing.

You already disputed the direct answer.

the direct answer is that with unlimited time, money and prosecutorial power, they were unable to establish any actual evidence of any kind of collusion.

Mueller didn't exonerate Trump, or anyone else, b/c prosecutors don't "exonerate" anyone. that's a direct answer. That question has no meaning, nor does its answer.

They didn't even CHARGE one person, not one, with any crime related to collusion with Russia. Found no links to even get to the question of whether or not that's a crime.

As for the "did you develop any sort of conspiracy" that question was about whether they made the dang thing up. Of course he's going to pass on answering. Duh.

As for the business ties with Russia, I'm sure Trump has done business there obviously, and so have the Clintons, but only with Trump do you conclude it's proof he's a Russian agent. With no other proof. He's a global real estate developer, he's done business with lots of countries and regimes.

[kingcat]

Mueller doc. page 213.

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the
constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’S legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional View, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.3 The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.‘4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time.

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.

The evidence we obtained about the
President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him.



Me..

It seems quite obvious that if they had pursued a traditional prosecutorial judgment, or one that allowed for prosecution rather, there was very likely, (And I'm being overly generous) a case to be made. Just because they stopped short of completing the case based on the above reasoning in no way implies innocence.

Just the opposite. It is clear Mueller believes the president obstructed justice. And reading the report (which I have tried to do) makes that pretty clear.

It is clearly wrong to say that the president was found to be completely innocent. And that is exactly what I am reading here.

And that is plainly, and unarguably false.


As for collusion, it happened to some extent. 117 contacts between campaign officials and Russian representatives to discuss the many publicized ways they might help the campaign at least hints at that.
Some were pursued, others were not according to the report. But collusion is not the same as conspiracy. The evidence obtained did not reach the level of a conspiracy.

Thats why it would have been nice for concerned Americans not to defend obstruction of justice. And make no mistake, that has happened, for whatever it is worth...

.."yeah buts" aside

Anyway, that's all for me. I've got UK recruiting to do!

[Doc]

The dems are taking the same approach to impeachment as they do to racism. Just keep making the accusation over and over and over again, and hope each time a little sticks. That done, by the thousandth time, its going to have some traction in the minds of some.

[Catonahottinroof]

Good luck with that once he leaves office.....he won’t live long enough to see any prosecution should any be brought.

Mueller doc. page 213.

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the
constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’S legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional View, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.3 The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.‘4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time.

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.

The evidence we obtained about the
President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him.



Me..

It seems quite obvious that if they had pursued a traditional prosecutorial judgment, or one that allowed for prosecution rather, there was very likely, (And I'm being overly generous) a case to be made. Just because they stopped short of completing the case based on the above reasoning in no way implies innocence.

Just the opposite. It is clear Mueller believes the president obstructed justice. And reading the report (which I have tried to do) makes that pretty clear.

It is clearly wrong to say that the president was found to be completely innocent. And that is exactly what I am reading here.

And that is plainly, and unarguably false.


As for collusion, it happened to some extent. 117 contacts between campaign officials and Russian representatives to discuss the many publicized ways they might help the campaign at least hints at that.
Some were pursued, others were not according to the report. But collusion is not the same as conspiracy. The evidence obtained did not reach the level of a conspiracy.

Thats why it would have been nice for concerned Americans not to defend obstruction of justice. And make no mistake, that has happened, for whatever it is worth...

.."yeah buts" aside

Anyway, that's all for me. I've got UK recruiting to do!

[dan_bgblue]

The dems are taking the same approach to impeachment as they do to racism. Just keep making the accusation over and over and over again, and hope each time a little sticks. That done, by the thousandth time, its going to have some traction in the minds of some.

And with others it will have d9iminished in meaning and purpose and, they will be so sick of hearing it, the hoped for effect will fail to materialize.,

[dan_bgblue]

Good luck with that once he leaves office.....he won’t live long enough to see any prosecution should any be brought.

I thought he was going to declare himself emperor/dictator in chief/king forever, so leaving office would be a moot point.