Why aren't we talking about how Mueller said Trump committed a crime?

[ondma]

He couldn't say that directly because of DOJ rules. What he did is to explain that obstruction was found and that because of "the rules" Trump was immune and Mueller was forced to silence on matters of guilt. He then went into something completely outside of the report itself and told America that if these serious issues are to be addressed then Congress has a Constitutional mechanism to hold an Officeholder accountable, and that is obviously impeachment. I think an argument that Mueller wasn't aware of that statement's significance would be foolish. There was nothing ambiguous about Mueller, his investigation or the path he was forced to take but there was double talk and outright lies by the administration and Republicans. There was no exoneration by Mueller and Barr outright lied. That was perfectly understandable by people not familiar with "legalese".

Naturally the wagons circle and part of that is misleading as you have in your statement of outright fabrication.

Your hope is that Americans are so ignorant that you can play them and by heavens, you are right in the case of too many. The Great Deceiver must heartily approve of you and yours.

For your information, I do not support Trump at all. The only "fabrication" in this thread is the thread title. Anyone who can read English can clearly see that Mueller did not say that. At best, the tread title should be reworded. If Mueller had any balls, and if he had clear evidence that Trump did a crime, he should have laid it out clearly. "This is the evidence that he did this crime. It is up to someone else to pursue it because we cannot indict a sitting president."

 

[feralkid]

For your information, I do not support Trump at all. The only "fabrication" in this thread is the thread title. Anyone who can read English can clearly see that Mueller did not say that. At best, the tread title should be reworded. If Mueller had any balls, and if he had clear evidence that Trump did a crime, he should have laid it out clearly. "This is the evidence that he did this crime. It is up to someone else to pursue it because we cannot indict a sitting president."

https://www.politico.com/video/2019/05/29/mueller-obstruction-mueller-report-068192

 

[Vic]

I found it an odd thing to say about an onging investigation.

Our system works on the idea that people are innocent. Prosecutors generally shouldn't make public declarations that a suspect is guilty.
Not that they don't do it, mind you.

It would be odd if a prosecutor, commenting on Mr X, accused of bank fraud, said in public:

"If we had confidence that Mr X did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

I think such a statement would seriously jeopardize the case against Mr X.

The only thing i can think of is that Mueller knows there's no case against Trump, and wanted to get a shot in at Trump.

Because I think as a prosecutor, Mueller would not have wanted to make a possibly prejudicial statement about an ongoing proceeding.

Anyway, we've known all along that charging a sitting President is a job for Congress.

These are some very bizarre mental gymnastics.
Prosecutors make public declarations about their belief in a defendant's guilt all the time. Because if they didn't believe in a defendant's guilt, they probably would not choose to prosecute.
At the same time, choosing to prosecute does not rob a defendant of their right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
While Mueller's statement was not prejudicial, it was his findings of fact. And he was quite that clear that he wants Congress to take up their duties and act upon his findings.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I found it an odd thing to say about an onging investigation.

Our system works on the idea that people are innocent. Prosecutors generally shouldn't make public declarations that a suspect is guilty.
Not that they don't do it, mind you.

It would be odd if a prosecutor, commenting on Mr X, accused of bank fraud, said in public:

"If we had confidence that Mr X did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

I think such a statement would seriously jeopardize the case against Mr X.

The only thing i can think of is that Mueller knows there's no case against Trump, and wanted to get a shot in at Trump.

Because I think as a prosecutor, Mueller would not have wanted to make a possibly prejudicial statement about an ongoing proceeding.

Anyway, we've known all along that charging a sitting President is a job for Congress.

In the case of a President, the system is inapplicable He or she is above any consequences and there is no possibility of what the rest of us would face, a trial. Being above the law is a fact for the Officeholder. Considering that to be the case all the evidence in the world would have gotten the same result. For sake of discussion, there might be an investigation that finds a President is a monster child rapist serial killer of the highest order, yet Mueller could not say that. Instead, he would cite the facts and while he can't accuse but he can say "I say he was innocent", and due to the egregious crimes be they murder or obstruction of an ongoing investigation or any serious matter of national lasting importance, then yes, they ought to say something.

Trump spoke with less credibility than usual just now he wildly accused Mueller, as you have, that this was about getting a "shot" at Trump. Well this is an odd way to go about it as the report outlines obstruction with facts clearly presented. No, Mueller recognized that a criminal was above the law and while he officially could not indict he has a voice and can do his patriotic duty and put Barr and Trump's lies to the test of fire and they both failed.

What should happen is the Trump should be impeached, removed, and then prosecuted at the Federal level. He should have his day in criminal court and not in some remote future. But the Senate doesn't care about crime nor do Republicans in general. Instead they accuse Mueller of revenge and a witch hunt and will not do their duty. That's the really relevant and important thing glossed over, not Mueller yesterday other than him being a man who has a quaint and mocked quality, virtue.

 

[fskimospy]

I found it an odd thing to say about an onging investigation.

Our system works on the idea that people are innocent. Prosecutors generally shouldn't make public declarations that a suspect is guilty.
Not that they don't do it, mind you.

It would be odd if a prosecutor, commenting on Mr X, accused of bank fraud, said in public:

"If we had confidence that Mr X did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

I think such a statement would seriously jeopardize the case against Mr X.

The only thing i can think of is that Mueller knows there's no case against Trump, and wanted to get a shot in at Trump.

Because I think as a prosecutor, Mueller would not have wanted to make a possibly prejudicial statement about an ongoing proceeding.

Anyway, we've known all along that charging a sitting President is a job for Congress.

This makes absolutely no sense.

First, just from reading the report you can see there is a strong case against Trump. Like, you can read it right now and establish the necessary elements of felonies yourself.

Second, Mueller came straight out and said he would not make a statement as to Trump’s guilt. With that in mind he made the strongest statement about Trump’s guilt possible.

Why would you look at someone saying Trump was guilty as strongly as possible given the circumstances and conclude the opposite? Just baffling.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

For your information, I do not support Trump at all. The only "fabrication" in this thread is the thread title. Anyone who can read English can clearly see that Mueller did not say that. At best, the tread title should be reworded. If Mueller had any balls, and if he had clear evidence that Trump did a crime, he should have laid it out clearly. "This is the evidence that he did this crime. It is up to someone else to pursue it because we cannot indict a sitting president."

OK, let's try this out. You are immune from justice that everyone else would face. A prosecutor presents the crimes for all to see but what he may not do is charge or even say you are a criminal. So what might a rational person do given the gag on them? Lay out those acts and say that they cannot declare you innocent or he would and forcefully.

So say you have been seen shooting someone. We may have the DNA, eyewitness which matches videos shot at multiple angles in 4k and ultra slow motion, and among those witnesses was the Supreme Court, and a football stadium full of legal experts in criminal law. You raised a big sign first saying "You can't prosecute me even though I am acting with intent to murder, fuck off" then pull the trigger. A prosecutor operating under the same rules of Mueller? "Well, all I can say is that I can't claim he's innocent" which is precisely what happened.

Under the restraints and contexts that exist, Mueller made a statement tantamount to accusal and wordplay does not change that fact.

 

[brandonbull]

"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

More to the point, why aren't we talking about the Republicans support having a criminal as President? And how Republicans are eagerly hoping to re-elect a criminal as President?

That is a bad statement to make public. What is the bar for a prosecutor to feel confident that the someone didn't commit a crime? So you make the leap from insufficient evidence to guilty?

 

[Jaskalas]

Why are you trying to obscure the plain language of what the special council said?

Plain language is "The President committed the crime of obstruction".
Not "We cannot say he's not guilty".

The meaning of what Mueller said has to be interpreted. And that is inherently subject to our biases and perceptions. Unlike the first example where criminality would be definitively stated, Mueller covering his ass leaves room for obfuscation and disbelief. Double speak simply does not exist for or cannot pass through the minds of many people.

What you claim was stated plainly, was in fact never stated at all. Just ask Fox News.

 

[fskimospy]

That is a bad statement to make public. What is the bar for a prosecutor to feel confident that the someone didn't commit a crime? So you make the leap from insufficient evidence to guilty?

Mueller was trying as hard as he could to say Trump committed a crime, given the fact that he couldn't say that Trump committed a crime.

What's not to get here? I mean if you read the report and the evidence Mueller laid out it's obvious that Trump committed multiple felonies.

 

[Vic]

Plain language is "The President committed the crime of obstruction".
Not "We cannot say he's not guilty".

The meaning of what Mueller said has to be interpreted. And that is inherently subject to our biases and perceptions. Unlike the first example where criminality would be definitively stated, Mueller covering his ass leaves room for obfuscation and disbelief. Double speak simply does not exist for or cannot pass through the minds of many people.

What you claim was stated plainly, was in fact never stated at all. Just ask Fox News.

Mueller isn't "covering his ass." He's acting within the legal confines of his office as special counsel. The bias here is affecting those who choose not to understand that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is a bad statement to make public. What is the bar for a prosecutor to feel confident that the someone didn't commit a crime? So you make the leap from insufficient evidence to guilty?

When a criminal is above the law in a matter of utmost national importance. These were crimes against the United States that if allowed to stand would sanction repeat performances of the most egregious acts against us, the other Branches and the basic Constitutional principles upon which our government and rights depend.

That was Mueller's patriotic and responsible act in an attempt to save the fall of a Democratic Republic into a parody and shadow of what should have been.

Note that "criminal" means committed criminal acts, and obstruction is one and was found. It is only because a President is the equivalent of an absolute despot in total control in this one regard that puts him above accountability as everyone else understand it. That a murderer might be immune does not mean he did not murder and the same with Presidents and their criminal acts.

Mueller saw what Trump was and said "Ecce Homo".

 

[HomerJS]

That is a bad statement to make public. What is the bar for a prosecutor to feel confident that the someone didn't commit a crime? So you make the leap from insufficient evidence to guilty?

He is saying there is something to prosecute but it isn't my job to do it. OLC regulations. Mueller specifically referenced that. He also said there are other avenues to prosecute.

 

[brandonbull]

If the President is "above the law", then why did Mueller get appointed? Mueller was charged with finding Russian election interference and Trump campaign involvement with the Russians. Mueller got some indictments against Russians for election interference but got ZERO Americans for election interference and involvement with the Russians concerning the elections. Mueller also didn't find the evidence to make the statement that Trump obstructed justice.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Plain language is "The President committed the crime of obstruction".
Not "We cannot say he's not guilty".

The meaning of what Mueller said has to be interpreted. And that is inherently subject to our biases and perceptions. Unlike the first example where criminality would be definitively stated, Mueller covering his ass leaves room for obfuscation and disbelief. Double speak simply does not exist for or cannot pass through the minds of many people.

What you claim was stated plainly, was in fact never stated at all. Just ask Fox News.

You could not be more incorrect viewing the totality of the evidence, events and criminal acts done when seen in the light of the constraints on Mueller while taking into account the omnipotence of Trump when it comes to criminal justice. The response was clear, proper, and provided what was as close to a mandate to the House for impeachment as could be made.

I commend Mueller and his actions because they were right, not because I want revenge on Trump and by now you should know some part of my mind on such things. If it were Obama or Hillary, anyone, it would be the same.

 

[zinfamous]

Plain language is "The President committed the crime of obstruction".
Not "We cannot say he's not guilty".

The meaning of what Mueller said has to be interpreted. And that is inherently subject to our biases and perceptions. Unlike the first example where criminality would be definitively stated, Mueller covering his ass leaves room for obfuscation and disbelief. Double speak simply does not exist for or cannot pass through the minds of many people.

What you claim was stated plainly, was in fact never stated at all. Just ask Fox News.

It can be interpreted very easily and correctly by 4th graders.

I can't believe that anyone is having this discussion. wtf.

 

[ecogen]

If the President is "above the law", then why did Mueller get appointed? Mueller was charged with finding Russian election interference and Trump campaign involvement with the Russians. Mueller got some indictments against Russians for election interference but got ZERO Americans for election interference and involvement with the Russians concerning the elections. Mueller also didn't find the evidence to make the statement that Trump obstructed justice.

Are your parents siblings or did you just really get shafted this much by the genetic lottery?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If the President is "above the law", then why did Mueller get appointed? Mueller was charged with finding Russian election interference and Trump campaign involvement with the Russians. Mueller got some indictments against Russians for election interference but got ZERO Americans for election interference and involvement with the Russians concerning the elections. Mueller also didn't find the evidence to make the statement that Trump obstructed justice.

He is above the law but he is not THE LAW. Consequently, investigations are not his to quash, which would be obstruction and that was found. He is above any consequences as President. He may shoot a thousand people in the streets for god and the world to see in plain daylight and the same applies. He is above the law that we must abide by or face civil or criminal charges. More, he can to out and shoot people daily according to DOJ guidelines unless and until removed by Congress. Every... single... day, and the DOJ is helpless to indict.

Oh you forgot the obstruction during the investigation, something that was needless according to you. The honest and wisest action would be to allow Mueller to discover Trump's innocent which would have been announced, but instead became a criminal above justice for no purpose.

That alone demonstrates Trump's unfitness and grounds for removal. Obstruction of justice is a serious crime, especially when done by a President for his own purposes.

 

[LTC8K6]

Hmmm...not exactly clearing things up.

NARRATIVE BUSTED. AGAIN: Mueller spox Peter Carr says ‘there is no conflict’ with AG Barr’s statement
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2019...there-is-no-conflict-with-ag-barrs-statement/

 

[fskimospy]

Hmmm...not exactly clearing things up.

NARRATIVE BUSTED. AGAIN: Mueller spox Peter Carr says ‘there is no conflict’ with AG Barr’s statement
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2019...there-is-no-conflict-with-ag-barrs-statement/

I'm confused, what additional clarity is needed? Mueller said as plainly as he could that Trump committed a crime.

He's not going to go fight Barr on semantics where people are parsing what he said, just look at the plain meaning. This is not complicated.

 

[fskimospy]

In case anyone needed a reminder of how clear the Mueller report was:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hmmm...not exactly clearing things up.

NARRATIVE BUSTED. AGAIN: Mueller spox Peter Carr says ‘there is no conflict’ with AG Barr’s statement
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2019...there-is-no-conflict-with-ag-barrs-statement/

Ahh yes, those who still are under Trump's thumb against what someone actually said and witnessed by millions and who no longer answers to anyone in government.

I do agree the Administration's narrative busted again.

 

[Jaskalas]

Mueller was trying as hard as he could to say Trump committed a crime, given the fact that he couldn't say that Trump committed a crime.

What's not to get here? I mean if you read the report and the evidence Mueller laid out it's obvious that Trump committed multiple felonies.

Who has done that? Not I.

If people have read it and reached those conclusions, they need to scream clearly and loudly. Every day, with their own summary of the report to back it up anytime someone is curious enough to look at the evidence. What I am saying is, the argument needs to be more accessible as I'm not sure what exactly is in the Mueller report.

It's a nothing burger for public opinion until someone is able to articulately use it in a presentation, and keeps spreading that message wide and far.

In case anyone needed a reminder of how clear the Mueller report was:

Yes, something like that is quite useful. No clue what "Nexus" means. But the obstruction and intent are quite good markers. Needs references or explanations for how they arrived at each point, like.. where in the report those bullet points exist, and how they arrived at those conclusions.

 

[fskimospy]

Who has done that? Not I.

If people have read it and reached those conclusions, they need to scream clearly and loudly. Every day, with their own summary of the report to back it up anytime someone is curious enough to look at the evidence. What I am saying is, the argument needs to be more accessible as I'm not sure what exactly is in the Mueller report.

It's a nothing burger for public opinion until someone is able to articulately use it in a presentation, and keeps spreading that message wide and far.

Here is the larger presentation my image above comes from. It lays out multiple felony counts in detail, as loudly as the author possibly can.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

 

[imported_tajmahal]

"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

More to the point, why aren't we talking about the Republicans support having a criminal as President? And how Republicans are eagerly hoping to re-elect a criminal as President?

Here I always thought that in this country people were innocent until proven guilty. Either way if the Democrats think President Trump committed a crime they should impeach him, it's pretty simple and the ball is in their court.

Shit or get off the fucking impeachment pot.

 

[fskimospy]

Mueller also didn't find the evidence to make the statement that Trump obstructed justice.

This is a flatly, provably false statement. Mueller explicitly stated that he would not make a statement that Trump obstructed justice, regardless of the evidence, because he could not indict Trump. He did lay out large quantities of evidence that show Trump did commit obstruction of justice though.

Can you read the article I linked above and tell us your thoughts about the multiple felonies it establishes for Trump? How do you feel about them? Do you think Trump should be prosecuted when he leaves office? I think most people would agree the answer is yes, that he needs to be prosecuted and sent to prison.