Mueller talking to congress

[fskimospy]

Like I did before I read your post....

Makes no sense.

Let’s talk about the felonies. How do you feel about them?

 

[DrDoug]

Mueller's timing on this is a work of art. Just like just about everything about his investigation, 'things' have happened at critical times to force a change in the narrative of the defense of Err Furor. This time Mueller let Barr's misrepresentation of his report become 'fact' among Republicans and then dropped the bomb on them. Felonious D and the Republicans have taken on our intelligence and law enforcement systems, calling them corrupt and the deep state. That was later refined into the leadership was corrupt and the rank and file were good people, which was an attempt to split our agencies from within. All to cover up the misdeeds of Felonious D.

There has been a quiet war going on between our now corrupt Justice department and the other agencies tasked with protecting the United States. Mueller dropped the A bomb today with his presser. I have no doubt that he did this so that he could say what he felt he needed to get out to the American people without the white noise of the Republicans in the House drowning him out or misrepresenting his words. Mueller's no patsy, nor is he going to let his report be misrepresented to the American people. He made it clear that the President broke the law and if he had not, he would have said so. Not only that but that it was not his place to bring charges but rather the realm of the House.

Today was a very good day for everyone except Felonious D and the Republicans.

 

[Jhhnn]

So why the news conference? If he gave a 400 page report on the matter there shouldn't be a need...right? All he did was stir the Party of Evil's base to further their antics.

It really surprises me that people who fall in line with this impeachment thing don't remember the Beasts husband impeachment. Republicans voted to impeach President Clinton but guess what....it didn't go anywhere in the Senate. Its turning into a group of bloviators trying to urniate up a rope. Impeach the guy....in a way, I hope they do. It will die in the Senate and you will hand Trump 4 more years.

That will give some people 4 more years of trolling....lmao

Why? From the speech-

Now I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel’s office, and as well I’m resigning from the Department of Justice to return 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.

Clinton? The country forgave him & the Senate followed suit. His approval rating was 73% at the time.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/poli...ll-clinton-s-legacy-1469576026-htmlstory.html

He wasn't running for re-election, either.

 

[Greenman]

Yea Fox News generals havent emerged from das Führerbunker with a battle plan on this yet .. The troops are certainly not aligned.

Here is Gowdy on Fox
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6042420644001/

Brett Baier
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6042352613001/

I really like Trey Gowdy. Pity he left congress.

 

[Moonbeam]

This portion of Mueller's remarks requires careful parsing-



http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/robert-muellers-statement-full-speech-transcript.html

Marines don't question the good faith of their immediate superiors. It's just not done. They follow the chain of command.

The way I read that is that he remains opaque regarding whether he questions Barr’s good faith because what he states he has faith in was releasing the whole, minus perhaps appropriate redaction, publicly. He thought the release was good faith. We don’t know what he thinks of Barr’s obvious conclusion of no guilt. Mueller did not conclude that and said so.

 

[Jhhnn]

I really like Trey Gowdy. Pity he left congress.

He really helped to string out Ben-fucking-ghazi forever, didn't he? Right wing conspiracy theorists went absolutely wild over it. Flood the public consciousness with bullshit whenever possible.

 

[brycejones]

I really like Trey Gowdy. Pity he left congress.

This is not shocking at all. You are the kind of useful idiot that is required to continue looting the country.

 

[Paratus]

Honestly....not frothing, just drinking a red beer and replying to your comment.

Red beer? That’s koolaid dude.

 

[brycejones]

Red beer? That’s koolaid dude.

It’s all mom will let him have in the basement (sorry, man bunker).

 

[drifter106]

Are the Democrats as eager to impeach Trump as the Republicans were to impeach Clinton? Its been a while and I didn't follow politics the way I do now...but it just appears there is more hate and animosity towards our duly elected President.

Party of Evil timeline...

Trump stole the election.....won according to the constitutional guidelines

I really like Trey Gowdy. Pity he left congress.

Agree with you on Trey Gowdy...

 

[DarthKyrie]

He really helped to string out Ben-fucking-ghazi forever, didn't he? Right wing conspiracy theorists went absolutely wild over it. Flood the public consciousness with bullshit whenever possible.

That's the name of the game, put out so much bullshit that people just say fuck it.

Red beer? That’s koolaid dude.

There are a couple of red beers for sale here in New England so I am sure wherever he is he has access to red beer. Please don't take this comment to be in defense of the assclown you quoted.

 

[drifter106]

It’s all mom will let him have in the basement (sorry, man bunker).

Do comments like that make you feel manly....or are you trying to make your fellow posters laugh? On another note...my preference would be Jack and coke.

 

[Paratus]

That's the name of the game, put out so much bullshit that people just say fuck it.



There are a couple of red beers for sale here in New England so I am sure wherever he is he has access to red beer. Please don't take this comment to be in defense of the assclown you quoted.

I’m aware. In college I was partial to Killians Irish Red.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

Or a Senior White Lady in a Pantsuit.

 

[ivwshane]

Do comments like that make you feel manly....or are you trying to make your fellow posters laugh? On another note...my preference would be Jack and coke.

I don't know who Jack is but you on drugs makes sense now.

 

[ondma]

You clearly weren't listening to what Mueller said today. He stated the OLC guideline prevented him from charging a sitting President so that was not considered. However there are other bodies who need this information compiled so they can followup.

Options: Congress: Impeachment inquiry
Prosecutors: Indict the minute Trump becomes a private citizen.

That was not hard to comprehend.

In my opinion Mueller wimped out. Either there was or was not evidence Trump committed crimes. If you follow Mueller's reasoning, the entire process was destined to fail from the beginning. If he could not indite Trump (and he couldnt, because of the constitution), and would not accuse him of a crime without a trial (indictment), which as already stated he couldnt do, then what was the point? The "we could not prove him innocent" is just fodder for Trump and Fox news to tout "you dont have to prove innocent, you are innocent until proven guilty". If Mueller had any guts, and he had solid evidence of a crime, then he should have simply said "we found evidence of a crime, but could not proceed because you cannot indict a sitting president". That would have been clear evidence for Congress to proceed with impeachment. Instead, after two years, we got a mealy-mouthed, inconclusive statement that only muddies the water.

 

[Jhhnn]

The way I read that is that he remains opaque regarding whether he questions Barr’s good faith because what he states he has faith in was releasing the whole, minus perhaps appropriate redaction, publicly. He thought the release was good faith. We don’t know what he thinks of Barr’s obvious conclusion of no guilt. Mueller did not conclude that and said so.

It's not his job to deal with Barr's bullshit, so he doesn't. You don't have to be a genius to figure this one out-

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.

That process is impeachment.

 

[Jhhnn]

In my opinion Mueller wimped out. Either there was or was not evidence Trump committed crimes. If you follow Mueller's reasoning, the entire process was destined to fail from the beginning. If he could not indite Trump (and he couldnt, because of the constitution), and would not accuse him of a crime without a trial (indictment), which as already stated he couldnt do, then what was the point? The "we could not prove him innocent" is just fodder for Trump and Fox news to tout "you dont have to prove innocent, you are innocent until proven guilty". If Mueller had any guts, and he had solid evidence of a crime, then he should have simply said "we found evidence of a crime, but could not proceed because you cannot indict a sitting president". That would have been clear evidence for Congress to proceed with impeachment. Instead, after two years, we got a mealy-mouthed, inconclusive statement that only muddies the water.

It's not an issue of guts, but of principle-

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 the actual charge.

As he points out, it's up to Congress to make the accusations & resolve it through the impeachment process. Unlike Barr, he won't presume to usurp their authority.

 

[brandonbull]

So Mueller didn’t stand up there and say
“No Collusion! No Obstruction! No Collusion!”

HAhahaha
I posted before I saw our resident Russian @Luna1968

Mueller's job was to find and produce the required evidence of those events and he couldn't. Spin Mueller's presser however you wish but those are the facts.

 

[HomerJS]

One side benefit from Gowdy he set the benchmark for length of investigations. GOP can't complain until Dems exceed Gowdy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Mueller's job was to find and produce the required evidence of those events and he couldn't. Spin Mueller's presser however you wish but those are the facts.

It's funny how Mueller detailed ten potential acts of obstruction in his report, huh?

 

[HomerJS]

Mueller's job was to find and produce the required evidence of those events and he couldn't. Spin Mueller's presser however you wish but those are the facts.

I bet you never read part 2 of the report. You know the collusion section. How do you know he couldn't?

We all know of at least 2 crimes the coverup and the Stormy Daniels payoff.

 

[Vic]

Mueller's job was to find and produce the required evidence of those events and he couldn't. Spin Mueller's presser however you wish but those are the facts.

The facts are that you support a criminal as President.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Mueller's job was to find and produce the required evidence of those events and he couldn't. Spin Mueller's presser however you wish but those are the facts.

It`s obvious that you do not know what Mueller`s job was....
In Meuller`s press conference he out lined what his job was and he also outlined why he could not go forward.
Obviously you are blind or cannot read or refuse to believe that Meuller acted according to what he considered to be moral and he explained himself!

"In fact, the report says, his team would have exonerated Trump on obstruction charges if it could."
So why did the report not say Trump was NOT guilty.....hmmmmmm

Using your logic the words Meuller used which were - here is an excerpt from an article --
The first volume of his report, he said, “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.”


Insufficient evidence, of course, is not a lack of evidence. Again, this distinction exists within the report, but it’s not how Trump or Barr presented Mueller’s findings.


The second volume of the report assesses Trump’s efforts to undermine Mueller’s investigation. Here, Mueller spoke at length.


“Under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office,” Mueller said. “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,” he continued, “was therefore not an option we could consider.”


This conflicts with what Barr said at that news conference before the report was released publicly. The attorney general was asked whether the opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (referred to by Mueller above) was the reason Mueller didn’t charge Trump with a crime.
“He – he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime,” Barr said. “He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.”


Because of the boundaries established by that opinion, Mueller said on Wednesday, “we concluded that we not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.” In fact, the report says, his team would have exonerated Trump on obstruction charges if it could.


It couldn’t.


Mueller, in his statement on Wednesday, explained how the OLC opinion guided their work. First, he said, the opinion allows for an investigation of a sitting president in order to preserve evidence. Second, it points to the existence of other mechanisms for accusing sitting presidents of crimes.

 

[pcgeek11]

Don't ignore the "there were multiple, systemic efforts to interfere with our election" bit. There really needs to be more highlighting of GOP refusal to take election security seriously. I mean, real election security, not voter suppression dogwhistles.

It was also stated that No US Citizens were involved or colluded with the Russians in those efforts. I think everybody or at least most people know this is a fact and it happened during Obama's time in office.

If it happens again in 2020 it is on Trump's watch.