Mueller talking to congress

[Hayabusa Rider]

So, the end result of Muellers investigation is that we should no longer appoint special councils because they can't do the job Congress is asking of them. Mueller is basically saying that he can not actually investigate a President.

No, he said the opposite. There exists an inherent right to investigate a sitting President, firmly contradicting Trump's personal attornies. A report can be prepared on the facts of the matter, however the DOJ can't prosecute according to policies which I disagree with but they exist regardless. Mueller told us Trump was guilty and why he couldn't prosecute. I didn't expect that much. Now it's up to Pelosi to impeach or let Trump get away with his crimes without so much as a proper accusal, and the Republicans to scuttle the facts in a way what would have astounded Nixon.

Mueller did his job properly even though we might wish otherwise. Again it's up to Pelosi to take the next significant step.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I got four takaways:

- Trump was not charged with obstruction because he is the president. This is the only reason.

- Mueller's report speaks for itself, and he won't make any other comments beyond the report, to the public or to congress

- The investigators and the FBI did a great job, they are patriots, and any "investigation of the investigators" is wrong.

- The Russians made systematic efforts to interfere in the US election, and this should be taken VERY seriously by everyone.

It is very much you read between the lines: I can’t indict him; you have to impeach. He refuses to make himself and his staff the point of the spear. I think it is his duty to do so, but it wasn't his job. He did his job, there it is.

Yes, the report speaks for itself...but unfortunately there are people who are actively denying and lying about what the report says.

Ok, Nancy, Tag! You're it!

One more thing is that it wasn't the criminal traitor Democrats and they didn't benefit. The aim was to attack the Dems and attempt to subvert the election. Taken together this was an effort to get Trump in power.

 

[fskimospy]

We don't know about them. There are other investigations pending, some in the SDNY. If Jr et. al. are being looked at then nothing about that would be mentioned.

Mueller did mention why he didn't charge Don Jr. in his report. While what Don Jr. was doing was clearly illegal Mueller couldn't establish that Don Jr. knew it was illegal to a sufficient extent to charge him.

ie: Don Jr. was too stupid to charge with a crime. lol.

 

[vi edit]

“If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so,” said Mueller

Damm, kinda hard to not understand what hes saying there. Wonder how republicans and fox will twist it to sound like a good thing.

Fox News take:

“If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so,” said Mueller

 

[Indus]

Fine you don't charge the President, what about Jr and Kushner?

Probably indicted under seal

 

[HomerJS]

Mueller did mention why he didn't charge Don Jr. in his report. While what Don Jr. was doing was clearly illegal Mueller couldn't establish that Don Jr. knew it was illegal to a sufficient extent to charge him.

ie: Don Jr. was too stupid to charge with a crime. lol.

I thought ignorance of the law is not an excuse??

Listening to the Fox News feed. The hosts are really trying to hedge on Mueller's statement the OLC opinion prevented a prosecution.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I thought ignorance of the law is not an excuse??

Listening to the Fox News feed. The hosts are really trying to hedge on Mueller's statement.

I think the point is that Jr is so incompetent he couldn't pull off a crime without screwing it up so badly that he could be properly charged. Doesn't mean he was innocent and we only know about what Mueller has found.

In any case NY is moving along so if I were a Trumpette I should not get cocky as to probable civil and criminal repercussion along other fronts. As far as Trump getting justice it is the states which will have ultimate say.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, he said the opposite. There exists an inherent right to investigate a sitting President, firmly contradicting Trump's personal attornies. A report can be prepared on the facts of the matter, however the DOJ can't prosecute according to policies which I disagree with but they exist regardless. Mueller told us Trump was guilty and why he couldn't prosecute. I didn't expect that much. Now it's up to Pelosi to impeach or let Trump get away with his crimes without so much as a proper accusal, and the Republicans to scuttle the facts in a way what would have astounded Nixon.

Mueller did his job properly even though we might wish otherwise. Again it's up to Pelosi to take the next significant step.

Not really, he was not able to even come to any real conclusions because it would be unfair to do so since the President can't defend himself in court. An investigation that can't make conclusions is pretty much useless as we are seeing. Congress is having to basically redo the investigation to actually do anything.

 

[fskimospy]

I thought ignorance of the law is not an excuse??

Listening to the Fox News feed. The hosts are really trying to hedge on Mueller's statement the OLC opinion prevented a prosecution.

Ignorance of the law is USUALLY not an excuse but there are exceptions.

As I think Popehat said the easiest way to figure out what these are is to close your eyes and imagine the type of person you think would commit this crime. If the answer is a middle aged white dude in a suit and tie, it's probably one of those exceptions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not really, he was not able to even come to any real conclusions because it would be unfair to do so since the President can't defend himself in court. An investigation that can't make conclusions is pretty much useless as we are seeing. Congress is having to basically redo the investigation to actually do anything.

If there was no investigation then how would you know about factual infractions that could not be charged? We know about anything in any objective reality because of Mueller. How it's being spun is another matter.

Mueller finds obstruction.
OLC says that Mueller cannot prosecute.
Since Mueller cannot prosecute then protocol requires that he cannot accuse anyone when there is no possibility of trial.

But

Mueller DID say that if he were confident that there was no criminal wrongdoing that he would have clearly stated so. In the context of what cannot be done he still managed to say "He did it" without using those words.

Now it's up to Pelosi to impeach based on many grounds, part of which is the fact that obstruction was real and that Trump wasn't about to be vindicated.

That's a hell of a lot right there whether you accept it or not. This is a foundation on which impeachment can be built. Pelosi just has to follow through and do it when other matters are settled in particular Trump's financial involvements and possible crimes.

So sure Trump is likely to shoot someone and the Senate let him get away with it but history will show they were complicit in the act and we need that looking from the near future until the end of the Republic.

 

[ivwshane]

Not really, he was not able to even come to any real conclusions because it would be unfair to do so since the President can't defend himself in court. An investigation that can't make conclusions is pretty much useless as we are seeing. Congress is having to basically redo the investigation to actually do anything.

I disagree. He didn't come to a conclusion because he wasn't allowed to. However he supplied enough evidence that Congress can come to their own conclusions. The case for impeachment is a strong one. The ball has been and continues to be in congresses court.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If there was no investigation then how would you know about factual infractions that could not be charged? We know about anything in any objective reality because of Mueller. How it's being spun is another matter.

Mueller finds obstruction.
OLC says that Mueller cannot prosecute.
Since Mueller cannot prosecute then protocol requires that he cannot accuse anyone when there is no possibility of trial.

But

Mueller DID say that if he were confident that there was no criminal wrongdoing that he would have clearly stated so. In the context of what cannot be done he still managed to say "He did it" without using those words.

Now it's up to Pelosi to impeach based on many grounds, part of which is the fact that obstruction was real and that Trump wasn't about to be vindicated.

That's a hell of a lot right there whether you accept it or not. This is a foundation on which impeachment can be built. Pelosi just has to follow through and do it when other matters are settled in particular Trump's financial involvements and possible crimes.

So sure Trump is likely to shoot someone and the Senate let him get away with it but history will show they were complicit in the act and we need that looking from the near future until the end of the Republic.

Oh, we need an investigation, we need someone that works for Congress not the DOJ to do that investigation. Allowing the DOJ to investigate the administration it works for is an inherent conflict of interest. That is what we learned.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I disagree. He didn't come to a conclusion because he wasn't allowed to. However he supplied enough evidence that Congress can come to their own conclusions. The case for impeachment is a strong one. The ball has been and continues to be in congresses court.

There is more material coming in soon from banks and accounting firms. Once that is processed Nancy better get on the stick because. There's no way I'm playing partisan apologist if she does not follow through in a timely way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, we need an investigation, we need someone that works for Congress not the DOJ to do that investigation. Allowing the DOJ to investigate the administration it works for is an inherent conflict of interest. That is what we learned.

The Dems unwisely did away with the power of Congress because of the real witch hunt of Clinton. It would have been far better to keep the rule, strengthen any weakness discovered and stipulated conditions which could be invoked or at least provide a means in advance which allows advancement or rejection of the process.

That however is what should have happened and what could again, but I don't see it happening. That leaves justice to the "impartial" Barr.

 

[hal2kilo]

I disagree. He didn't come to a conclusion because he wasn't allowed to. However he supplied enough evidence that Congress can come to their own conclusions. The case for impeachment is a strong one. The ball has been and continues to be in congresses court.

I wish I thought that it would be possible with impeachment hearings to convince the public to contact their Senators to convince them that they need to do the right thing but, I think any conventional processes have been thrown out the window. Trump gets away with firing the AG and putting his puppet AG in place. Turning logic on its head in a grand prapaganda show to go after the law inforcement and intellegence agencies. Folks we are in deep shit. Maybe the continuing investigations might convince the public but with the previous Republican "show hearings" they've just paved the way to make the public believe it's all just political theater. Work to re-elect anybody but Trump seems to be the only real answer as one party has sold us out to the Russians.

 

[ivwshane]

There is more material coming in soon from banks and accounting firms. Once that is processed Nancy better get on the stick because. There's no way I'm playing partisan apologist if she does not follow through in a timely way.

I agree with regards to Pelosi. Anyone who puts politics before the country and doing their constitutional duty does not deserve to be in office.

The fact that more information may be coming out, to me, is immaterial to whether or not impeachment should begin. The president must be held accountable for what he does and that accountability should not be dependent on what he might have done.
Lets take a worse case scenario and say nothing else is found, then what? Go back and tell the American people, "well we found that the president didn't commit any other crimes so now we'll go back and impeach him for his obstruction". To the American people that would sound like petty political squabbling.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ignorance of the law is USUALLY not an excuse but there are exceptions.

As I think Popehat said the easiest way to figure out what these are is to close your eyes and imagine the type of person you think would commit this crime. If the answer is a middle aged white dude in a suit and tie, it's probably one of those exceptions.

Sounds like the law needs some revision in this area. I can understand why certain white collar crimes may require knowledge of the legal duty because they can be highly technical, but when you're meeting with a foreign government to discuss dirt said government has acquired on your political opponent during a campaign, it seems to me that you have notice that what you're doing could be illegal. That ought to be enough, particularly for someone who has resources, including access to legal advice.

 

[ivwshane]

I wish I thought that it would be possible with impeachment hearings to convince the public to contact their Senators to convince them that they need to do the right thing but, I think any conventional processes have been thrown out the window. Trump gets away with firing the AG and putting his puppet AG in place. Turning logic on its head in a grand prapaganda show to go after the law inforcement and intellegence agencies. Folks we are in deep shit. Maybe the continuing investigations might convince the public but with the previous Republican "show hearings" they've just paved the way to make the public believe it's all just political theater. Work to re-elect anybody but Trump seems to be the only real answer as one party has sold us out to the Russians.

Yep, its the old stand by play by Republicans, "both sides". Its designed to muddy the waters and have an ignorant public throw up its hands and vote for whoever will burn it all down in the name of frustration (that's how we got trump).

 

[glenn1]

Probably indicted under seal

What difference does an indictment make? First the old saying "you could indict a ham sandwich" applies since it's a pretty low threshold to get a true bill by a grand jury and it has little bearing on whether the person could actually be successfully prosecuted. Secondly an "indictment" is a political non-issue as proven by plenty of Congress critters previously indicted while in office and sometimes re-elected under indictment and there's nothing even compelling removal for politicians who are convicted. Bill Clinton was "indicted" by Congressional impeachment and he survived politically. And this for crimes which were much better established - his disposition was video recorded and the "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" quote was there for the public to see. For housekeeping purposes I guess an indictment could be useful but as a practical tool of actually getting Trump out of office or defeated in the 2020 election it would have been worthless anyway. I'd be ecstatic if Trump went away but thinking an indictment (which would never happen anyway) would do the trick doesn't make any sense. It's like thinking if Trump's tax returns are released that somehow he'll have to resign, it's simply motivated wishful thinking.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e-achieving-rare-feat/?utm_term=.d29d64854546

 

[Indus]

What difference does an indictment make? First the old saying "you could indict a ham sandwich" applies since it's a pretty low threshold to get a true bill by a grand jury and it has little bearing on whether the person could actually be successfully prosecuted. Secondly an "indictment" is a political non-issue as proven by plenty of Congress critters previously indicted while in office and sometimes re-elected under indictment and there's nothing even compelling removal for politicians who are convicted. Bill Clinton was "indicted" by Congressional impeachment and he survived politically. And this for crimes which were much better established - his disposition was video recorded and the "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" quote was there for the public to see. For housekeeping purposes I guess an indictment could be useful but as a practical tool of actually getting Trump out of office or defeated in the 2020 election it would have been worthless anyway. I'd be ecstatic if Trump went away but thinking an indictment (which would never happen anyway) would do the trick doesn't make any sense. It's like thinking if Trump's tax returns are released that somehow he'll have to resign, it's simply motivated wishful thinking.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e-achieving-rare-feat/?utm_term=.d29d64854546

Resign? The guy is more likely to be POTUS for life since the constitution is toilet paper for him and his followers.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yep, its the old stand by play by Republicans, "both sides". Its designed to muddy the waters and have an ignorant public throw up its hands and vote for whoever will burn it all down in the name of frustration (that's how we got trump).

Make politics difficult and most people won't bother. It works for policy positions as well as voter suppression. Then offer an easy solution and people will jump at it. Democrats need to spend the next decade working hard to make voting for them as easy as possible.

 

[Skel]

I agree with regards to Pelosi. Anyone who puts politics before the country and doing their constitutional duty does not deserve to be in office.

The fact that more information may be coming out, to me, is immaterial to whether or not impeachment should begin. The president must be held accountable for what he does and that accountability should not be dependent on what he might have done.
Lets take a worse case scenario and say nothing else is found, then what? Go back and tell the American people, "well we found that the president didn't commit any other crimes so now we'll go back and impeach him for his obstruction". To the American people that would sound like petty political squabbling.

Doesn't the Senate need to convict him? I may be way out of date (it's been a long while since I've read up on civics) but don't you need 2/3 of the Senate to convict a President? I'm not sure that's possible with the politics in play. The worst case is he beats the impeachment and the undecided think he's been right in saying that the Democrats have been wasting time with party politics.

 

[fskimospy]

Sounds like the law needs some revision in this area. I can understand why certain white collar crimes may require knowledge of the legal duty because they can be highly technical, but when you're meeting with a foreign government to discuss dirt said government has acquired on your political opponent during a campaign, it seems to me that you have notice that what you're doing could be illegal. That ought to be enough, particularly for someone who has resources, including access to legal advice.

No argument there. The idea that someone with effectively unlimited legal resources at his disposal whose father has been running for president for about a year could not reasonably be expected to know that having the Russian government secretly supply dirt on your opponents might be illegal strains credulity.

 

[soulcougher73]

So when they say its a long standing policy to not charge a president with a crime, does that mean its the law written somewhere, or just the way it has been for along time? Meaning one could buck that trend if they wanted to?

 

[SMOGZINN]

So when they say its a long standing policy to not charge a president with a crime, does that mean its the law written somewhere, or just the way it has been for along time? Meaning one could buck that trend if they wanted to?

There is no law, it is just the DOJ policy that they don't charge their boss with a crime.