Mueller talking to congress

[Maxima1]

Barr keeps saying Mueller could have made a decision. Mueller needs to testify in public and tell it like it is. If he still shies from it, he's no doubt partisan to me.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...truction-cbs-intv-william-barr-sot-nr-vpx.cnn

Barr: Mueller could've reached decision on obstruction

 

[Jhhnn]

Barr keeps saying Mueller could have made a decision. Mueller needs to testify in public and tell it like it is. If he still shies from it, he's no doubt partisan to me.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...truction-cbs-intv-william-barr-sot-nr-vpx.cnn

Barr: Mueller could've reached decision on obstruction

So, uhh, Barr is changing DoJ policy?

Dear Mr Barr:

In light of the recent policy change, I highly recommend that the DoJ indict the president on charges of obstruction of justice.

Sincerely,

Robert Mueller

 

[zinfamous]

Baby Jesus Speaks :

"some of the worst human beings on Earth."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1134078020820639750

"Collusion between Hillary and the media"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1134078512288210945

"Impeach a dirty filthy disgusting word"
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1134079302138519552

Reference for how easy lying comes to this man
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1134081834827026432

A little slip at the end there?
"No crime no anything cause didnt have the information"
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1134083090090024960

The dude clearly has syphilis and it is destroying his brain. It's observable and easily diagnosed. This guy can also launch nuclear weapons.

Think about that: dickless conservatives.

 

[pcgeek11]

It’s very strange that Pcgeek is very willing to discuss the evidence presented in the part of the report that he think exonerates Trump (falsely) but totally unwilling to discuss the evidence in the second part of the report that describes multiple felonies by Trump in detail.

I wonder why that is.

I never said anyone was exonerated. I merely quoted the report ( several times ). I also never made any claims about the obstruction. Only that I wasn't convinced.

 

[pcgeek11]

lol, no he didn't.

“investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly and intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operations”

 

[pcgeek11]

jesus fucking christ. This is just pure, false, bullshit. Why do you repeat easily disprovable lies like this? why do you do this?

“investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly and intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operations”

 

[dawp]

My sense is that 6 months is too long. If Nancy wants to go with partisan concerns over Constitutional responsibilities then postponing is to her advantage as the collective memory of voters is notoriously short.

Yesterday was historic as there will never likely be a speech by another of Mueller's breed given by his own free will in such a grave matter that was both damning and placed the burden squarely on the House and Pelosi in particular. She will want the past behind her as much as possible if she intends to take the "do not impeach" tack.

What I am hoping is that Nancy will be both a good political animal with her instincts and Constitutionally responsible, waiting until the full impact of Mueller takes hold and not waste a singular opportunity for public support. We'll see.

I think 6 months is the longest they can hold out on starting the inquiry but I feel it'll start much sooner.

 

[fskimospy]

“investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly and intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operations”

You should read your own quote very carefully because it doesn’t say what you think it says.

It says there’s not evidence that they coordinated with one very specific act by the Russians. If you actually read the report there’s tons of evidence of collusion overall.

 

[fskimospy]

I never said anyone was exonerated. I merely quoted the report ( several times ). I also never made any claims about the obstruction. Only that I wasn't convinced.

Hahaha. I never said you said anyone was exonerated, just that it’s what you clearly believe. Like I said, it’s very interesting how you’re willing to discuss some parts of the report but adamantly refuse to discuss others.

I wonder why that is.

 

[cytg111]

“investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly and intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operations”

That is a very narrow scope he is putting forth in aspect of collusion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/opinion/mueller-report-trump-counterintelligence.html

 

[DrDoug]

Via the New Yorker, let's see if pcgeek can answer this:

 

[fskimospy]

Via the New Yorker, let's see if pcgeek can answer this:

He’s just not convinced.

Why isn’t he convinced? This is a secret that no one can know.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

“investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly and intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operations”

You keep doing this so please stop. Not one person said that people were involved with the IRA, which was responsible for electronic subversion. Jr. seeking help and Trump covering for him wasn't "electronic", we're talking about meetings with people who represent Russian interests. When Russia is mentioned you go back to the IRA as if that is the totality of Russia's involvement and we (you too) know that's not the case.

 

[Moonbeam]

I never said anyone was exonerated. I merely quoted the report ( several times ). I also never made any claims about the obstruction. Only that I wasn't convinced.

But we do know that 700 prosecutors have signed a thingi saying they believe the President would have been indited for crimes had he been an ordinary citizen, the evidence against him is that substantial, so I think we have to look elsewhere to understand what you mean by that you are not convinced. It could mean that you do not posses the legal training to arrive at a sound legal conclusion and it could mean that there is something about your character or personality, whatever, that does not want to be convinced, or both in cooperation.

Now since there is nothing wrong with not having professional legal training and the legal judgment thereby acquired, or even the training in critical thinking a liberal education would or should impart, not everybody is so inclined or perhaps capable, for numerous and neutral reasons, of acquiring that particular level of sophistication, that leaves us with the inclination part. And there again, how could anybody be personally responsible for how their particular personality and characteristics, temperament, or self identity, whatever we are talking about here, how could anybody be to blame for that.

I mention these things because it is my experience that what keeps a person who is not convinced, the old lead a horse to water thingi, is the fear of being wrong, as if it mattered somehow in a ledger written in the sky or something similar. Why should we really care if we have made a mistake, misapprehended logical implications, come to a wrong conclusion etc. I think it's because we have been made fun of all our lives by people who feel so bad about their own capacities they feel better when they can put somebody else down.

I think I make mistakes all the time so if you have you're not alone. We are all the same in my opinion. I think Trump is guilty but I try to keep in mind that I might be wrong. And I will try not to let it bother me is somebody is offended by that. Only you can or have the right to change your opinion. And the more you know that, I think the easier it is to do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's clear that people won't read the actual report and my eyes rebel when I try.

But

Here is a FREE audible book, no strings nada. I'll start listening today.

Edit, yes there is a string of sorts. One has to start a free trial with a credit card so I did that and will cancel.

One more thing-

Searchable, indexed report in print.

 

[cytg111]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/willia...nt-sparred-over-russia-report-legal-analysis/

"Asked about the fundamental difference between his and Mueller's views on what the evidence gathered during the Russia probe means, Barr said, "I think Bob said he was not going to engage in the analysis. He was not going to make a determination one way or the other. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction."

"As a matter of law?" Crawford asked.

"As a matter of law. In other words we didn't agree with the legal analysis, a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department," Barr said. "It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law.""

Also, there is two kinds of "spying" the authorized kind and the unauthorized one... So when Barr said back then that he thought that yes maybe there was spying going on and he was going to look into it.. He was having a senior moment cause he had forgotten about the FISAs etc. Partisan to the core.

 

[ondma]

Via the New Yorker, let's see if pcgeek can answer this:

View attachment 6974

I still hold the opinion that Mueller wimped out. The elephant in the room that no one has brought up is that Mueller *could have*, and IMO should have, reached a conclusion and stated it clearly in the report. Yes he could not indict, but that does not prevent him from reaching a conclusion and clearly saying so. Instead we got the obfuscated double talk that each side uses to reach the conclusion that fits their agenda. And no, I do not consider saying they could not prove him innocent to be a conclusion.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I still hold the opinion that Mueller wimped out. The elephant in the room that no one has brought up is that Mueller *could have*, and IMO should have, reached a conclusion and stated it clearly in the report. Yes he could not indict, but that does not prevent him from reaching a conclusion and clearly saying so. Instead we got the obfuscated double talk that each side uses to reach the conclusion that fits their agenda. And no, I do not consider saying they could not prove him innocent to be a conclusion.

Do you think maybe that is because a certain head of a branch of government kept threatening him publicly?

 

[Jhhnn]

I still hold the opinion that Mueller wimped out. The elephant in the room that no one has brought up is that Mueller *could have*, and IMO should have, reached a conclusion and stated it clearly in the report. Yes he could not indict, but that does not prevent him from reaching a conclusion and clearly saying so. Instead we got the obfuscated double talk that each side uses to reach the conclusion that fits their agenda. And no, I do not consider saying they could not prove him innocent to be a conclusion.

Oh, please. Mueller explained his reasoning & it's obviously quite sound. The decision as to what to do with the evidence he has found lies with Congress & no others. It moves to the higher realm of impeachment. Barr going beyond that & withholding the actual evidence usurps the power of Congress. He has no call to make, no legitimate say in the matter at all.

 

[fskimospy]

I still hold the opinion that Mueller wimped out. The elephant in the room that no one has brought up is that Mueller *could have*, and IMO should have, reached a conclusion and stated it clearly in the report. Yes he could not indict, but that does not prevent him from reaching a conclusion and clearly saying so. Instead we got the obfuscated double talk that each side uses to reach the conclusion that fits their agenda. And no, I do not consider saying they could not prove him innocent to be a conclusion.

I agree, Mueller should have bitten the bullet and made a recommendation.

While he’s right in principle that Trump couldn’t defend himself in a court so saying that is in some ways unfair, he’s the president. The president is more than capable of defending himself.

If you believe as Mueller appears to, that we have a criminal for a president abusing his powers to protect him and his associates from the law that is an existential threat to our country. Sometimes you just have to act.

 

[soundforbjt]

I agree, Mueller should have bitten the bullet and made a recommendation.

While he’s right in principle that Trump couldn’t defend himself in a court so saying that is in some ways unfair, he’s the president. The president is more than capable of defending himself.

If you believe as Mueller appears to, that we have a criminal for a president abusing his powers to protect him and his associates from the law that is an existential threat to our country. Sometimes you just have to act.

If Mueller had put it out there for all to see (the recommendation), we'd probably have a good chance at an impeachment going through. He wimped out. So much for the tough Marine.

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree, Mueller should have bitten the bullet and made a recommendation.

While he’s right in principle that Trump couldn’t defend himself in a court so saying that is in some ways unfair, he’s the president. The president is more than capable of defending himself.

If you believe as Mueller appears to, that we have a criminal for a president abusing his powers to protect him and his associates from the law that is an existential threat to our country. Sometimes you just have to act.

Gawd. As Special Counsel, Mueller can't level charges that can't be defended against in Court. It would be grossly unfair. The only legitimate venue in which the President can formally defend himself would be in a trial by the Senate. It is, therefore, the Constitutional duty of the AG to provide the actual evidence to the HOR for their consideration. No honest person would do otherwise.

 

[fskimospy]

Gawd. As Special Counsel, Mueller can't level charges that can't be defended against in Court. It would be grossly unfair. The only legitimate venue in which the President can formally defend himself would be in a trial by the Senate. It is, therefore, the Constitutional duty of the AG to provide the actual evidence to the HOR for their consideration. No honest person would do otherwise.

Nah, the president can defend himself just fine. He has the entire force and weight of the federal government behind him. If he wanted to challenge the evidence he would have between one and two million different ways to do it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Oh, please. Mueller explained his reasoning & it's obviously quite sound. The decision as to what to do with the evidence he has found lies with Congress & no others. It moves to the higher realm of impeachment. Barr going beyond that & withholding the actual evidence usurps the power of Congress. He has no call to make, no legitimate say in the matter at all.

Exactly!! The courts have no jurisdiction in the impeachment process!@!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

Nah, the president can defend himself just fine. He has the entire force and weight of the federal government behind him. If he wanted to challenge the evidence he would have between one and two million different ways to do it.

So what? The issue is the Constitution & the rule of Law. The President is above the reach of the DoJ but not that of Congress. In that, the AG must provide them with whatever evidence they request to exercise oversight.

Blaming Mueller for anything is bullshit & exactly what Barr intends to happen.