Mueller press conference

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • amboy49

    Master
    Rating - 83.3%
    5   1   0
    Feb 1, 2013
    2,293
    83
    central indiana
    Mueller held a press conference today - 30 days after he released the long anticipated report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He stated the report speaks for itself and that he wouldn’t make any additional comments. And THEN he went on to say they couldn’t prove Tump DIDN’T do anything illegal. And reading between the lines, he implied that he thought Trump was guilty but they couldn’t prove it. The standard now, according to Mueller, is not one of presumed innocence, but one of “we don’t have sufficient evidence to charge you but we know you are guilty.”

    Apparently the theory of presumed innocence no longer applies in our culture of laws. Mueller, in my opinion, has now shown himself to be a Department of Justice stooge who has revealed that he is no different than Comey. This is a continuing orchestrated impeachment attack on Trump which will only stop when Trump is no longer President.
     
    Last edited:

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    What the spinning heads did with this after it was over just made my head hurt. They have shown their hands. Cards are on the table. They are all in.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,628
    149
    Prosecutorial protocol dictates that if you can’t bring charges then you shouldn’t be commenting on potential wrong doing.

    Mueller broke protocol with his political statement by basically saying that they didn’t have the confidence to exonerate the President on the issue of obstruction but because of standing DOJ rules it prohibits indicting a sitting president. Then he goes on to tell Congress there is another option for dealing with potential wrongdoing.

    He basically gives the impression to Congress that his Special Counsel believes there may be a case for wrongdoing but thier hands are bound by DOJ rules and they should run with impeachment.

    This was an intentional political statement by Mueller. Something that breaks with protocol and it calls into question his integrity all along.

    In hindsight he should have been fired IMO.
     

    Spear Dane

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 4, 2015
    5,119
    113
    Kokomo area
    Maybe he should have been. But I think it's far better that he was kept and given the rope he needed to hang himself because he sure did it.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,628
    149
    Maybe he should have been. But I think it's far better that he was kept and given the rope he needed to hang himself because he sure did it.
    I tend to agree. This whole thing stinks. I'm very skeptical about Mueller's handling of this whole obstruction thing. I think it was designed as a guideline for impeachment.

    I'm starting to believe he might of made a deal with the Democrats to put out a statement bolstering their impeachment case in exchange for testifying. I say that because at Democrat House Commitee Chair Nadler's press conference following Mueller's statement Nadler was asked if Mueller would still be compelled to testify and he was non committal. Said something to the effect that Mueller's statement gave them everything they needed.

    In light of that I do indeed call in to question Mueller's integrity and I think he at some point turned into a political creature for the Democrats. I also think in part Mueller pushed this obstruction thing to placate all the bloodthirsty handpicked Democrat supporting mongrels on his Special Counsel team when they could'nt dig up anything to pin Trump with on collusion/conspiracy. They did'nt want to come up empty handed concerning Trump after an exhaustive thorough investigation.
     

    Ziggidy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 7, 2018
    7,265
    113
    Ziggidyville
    I always believe "he who gets their first, wins". I truly believe the current justice department needs to start indicting, and in a fury that makes heads spin. The House wants to impeach and the House will impeach UNLESS, Barr starts acting and issuing indictments now.

    Mueller had 2 years to try to straighten out their illegal efforts that started in the Obama administration. If Barr fails to do anything now, we will experience the bloodless coup right before our eyes. Ay this point it can go either way; depends on Barr's next move.
     

    Mongo59

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jul 30, 2018
    4,448
    113
    Purgatory
    There is nothing new under the sun.

    For what ever reason it would seem Mueller is playing the Fred MacMurry role from "The Caine Mutiny".

    Passive/aggressively presenting "facts" only from his perspective as an "authority" to indicate a need for action without any self commitment...
     

    Mikey1911

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 14, 2014
    2,772
    113
    Newburgh
    There is nothing new under the sun.

    For what ever reason it would seem Mueller is playing the Fred MacMurry role from "The Caine Mutiny".

    Passive/aggressively presenting "facts" only from his perspective as an "authority" to indicate a need for action without any self commitment...
    We can hope that BARR-ney Greenwald will torpedo Mueller and harpoon Nadler the Whale (metaphorically speaking).
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,628
    149
    I've heard it said that there has been bad blood concerning other matters between Nadler and Trump going way back before Trump even considered running for office. IMO there is a conflict there and Nadler should step aside as commitee chair on this one.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,686
    113
    .
    I've heard it said that there has been bad blood concerning other matters between Nadler and Trump going way back before Trump even considered running for office. IMO there is a conflict there and Nadler should step aside as commitee chair on this one.

    Probably some sort of NYC/Tammany spat, now being played out on the national stage financed by tax dollars from hard working Americans.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Mueller held a press conference today - 30 days after he released the long anticipated report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He stated the report speaks for itself and that he wouldn’t make any additional comments. And THEN he went on to say they couldn’t prove Tump DIDN’T do anything illegal. And reading between the lines, he implied that he thought Trump was guilty but they couldn’t prove it. The standard now, according to Mueller, is not one of presumed innocence, but one of “we don’t have sufficient evidence to charge you but we know you are guilty.”

    Apparently the theory of presumed innocence no longer applies in our culture of laws. Mueller, in my opinion, has now shown himself to be a Department of Justice stooge who has revealed that he is no different than Comey. This is a continuing orchestrated impeachment attack on Trump which will only stop when Trump is no longer President.

    He didn't say that at all. He said that if they had confidence the president hadn't committed a crime, they would have said so. He further said that since DoJ policy does not allow for a sitting president to be charged, they never made a consideration into doing so. That doesn't come close to him saying that he could not prove the president is guilty.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Prosecutorial protocol dictates that if you can’t bring charges then you shouldn’t be commenting on potential wrong doing.

    Mueller broke protocol with his political statement by basically saying that they didn’t have the confidence to exonerate the President on the issue of obstruction but because of standing DOJ rules it prohibits indicting a sitting president. Then he goes on to tell Congress there is another option for dealing with potential wrongdoing.

    He basically gives the impression to Congress that his Special Counsel believes there may be a case for wrongdoing but thier hands are bound by DOJ rules and they should run with impeachment.

    This was an intentional political statement by Mueller. Something that breaks with protocol and it calls into question his integrity all along.

    In hindsight he should have been fired IMO.

    There's another option. It's called elections. If impeached the outcome will be political. The Democrats will vote for, the Republicans will vote against..presumably. Probably best to let America decide. If you think he's guilty. Vote your conscience. If you think he's innocent. Same. But the political view of Democrats, they don't want America to decide it because that leaves the potential that he could remain as president for an additional two years.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Prosecutorial protocol dictates that if you can’t bring charges then you shouldn’t be commenting on potential wrong doing.

    Mueller broke protocol with his political statement by basically saying that they didn’t have the confidence to exonerate the President on the issue of obstruction but because of standing DOJ rules it prohibits indicting a sitting president. Then he goes on to tell Congress there is another option for dealing with potential wrongdoing.

    He basically gives the impression to Congress that his Special Counsel believes there may be a case for wrongdoing but thier hands are bound by DOJ rules and they should run with impeachment.

    This was an intentional political statement by Mueller. Something that breaks with protocol and it calls into question his integrity all along.

    In hindsight he should have been fired IMO.

    This I agree with.
     

    spec4

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 19, 2010
    3,775
    27
    NWI
    From the minute it was announced that all of Mueller's lawyers were Clinton supporting Dems, I knew this would be a farce. Mueller should go down in history as a jellyfish. Since the Dems like subpoenas so much, Barr needs to deliver a stack of them, richly deserved.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    From the minute it was announced that all of Mueller's lawyers were Clinton supporting Dems, I knew this would be a farce. Mueller should go down in history as a jellyfish. Since the Dems like subpoenas so much, Barr needs to deliver a stack of them, richly deserved.

    Essentially you're saying, that because some of the lawyers on Mueller's team supported Clinton, that they are unable to do their jobs, as professionals, without bias. Unless you have hard facts to back that premise up, other than simply saying that they were "Clinton supporting Dems," you are exhibiting the same bias as you are accusing them of.
     

    Birds Away

    ex CZ afficionado.
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Aug 29, 2011
    76,248
    113
    Monticello
    Essentially you're saying, that because some of the lawyers on Mueller's team supported Clinton, that they are unable to do their jobs, as professionals, without bias. Unless you have hard facts to back that premise up, other than simply saying that they were "Clinton supporting Dems," you are exhibiting the same bias as you are accusing them of.
    The difference is, as you are well aware, they are in positions that are supposed to be apolitical (like that's even possible these days) and we, as citizens, are not.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    The difference is, as you are well aware, they are in positions that are supposed to be apolitical (like that's even possible these days) and we, as citizens, are not.

    As long as they do not bring their politics into their tasked job, then it's not an issue. Keep in mind, that the those on the Muller team were brought together after the FISA warrants, so I'm curious in what ways people thinks their politics would have played a role in how they conducted their investigations. Is working too hard illustrative of this, or are we inferring that those on the Mueller team took criminal actions?
     

    Birds Away

    ex CZ afficionado.
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Aug 29, 2011
    76,248
    113
    Monticello
    As long as they do not bring their politics into their tasked job, then it's not an issue. Keep in mind, that the those on the Muller team were brought together after the FISA warrants, so I'm curious in what ways people thinks their politics would have played a role in how they conducted their investigations. Is working too hard illustrative of this, or are we inferring that those on the Mueller team took criminal actions?
    Whose to say? If the roles were reversed and this was a Republican hit squad I'm sure your opinion would be quite different.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Whose to say? If the roles were reversed and this was a Republican hit squad I'm sure your opinion would be quite different.

    Negative ghostrider, I'm going to need something tangible to observe in order to have such an opinion; and simply being a member of one party investigating the member of another party, isn't what I'd call tangible. For instance, the Peter Strock (sp?) and that chick from the FBI? Those two certainly put themselves in a positions to reap justifiable criticism, the Mueller investigators? At least from what I have seen, not so much.
     
    Top Bottom