Mueller press conference

[chipbennett]

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.

Since when is it the responsibility of a prosecutor to prove that someone did not commit a crime? The only role of a prosecutor is to prove, through evidence, that someone did commit a crime. Presumption of innocence covers all other persons.

 

[chipbennett]

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?

The entire investigation was politically motivated, and based on criminal behavior (the falsified FISA warrant).

The day Mueller took over the investigation, he opened an obstruction investigation - with no evidence or other reason to do so. Within a matter of months, the underlying "collusion" investigation was concluded - and yet the obstruction investigation continued on for almost two years. All of it was politically motivated, and the swamp rats have circled the wagons to protect themselves.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Since when is it the responsibility of a prosecutor to prove that someone did not commit a crime? The only role of a prosecutor is to prove, through evidence, that someone did commit a crime. Presumption of innocence covers all other persons.

Yeah, the little sound bites I've heard of that press conference were so full of double negatives, it was actually hard to follow.

 

[jamil]

Muller said he can’t indict a sitting president. So it’s not going to go through the legal system. That doesn’t mean he can’t say in his report that this and that crime was committed. I want to know why he added the political bull**** about there being other means besides the courts.

I think it’s pretty much impeachment that he’s alluding to. Without him admitting why he said it, I’m left to infer that he doesn’t have enough evidence of a crime, including obstruction, so he’s signaling congress that it’s up to them to settle it.

I’ve talked about Overton’s window in the abortion thread, it applies here too. A pretty large majority don’t want impeachment the last time I checked. You move too far past the window and people revolt. I think Democrats will get punished if the impeach Trump.

The method besides the courts that I don’t think Mueller was referring to is the polls. Let the voters litigate this at the polls. Pretty much everyone has access the Mueller report. We can decide this ourselves.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Muller said he can’t indict a sitting president. So it’s not going to go through the legal system. That doesn’t mean he can’t say in his report that this and that crime was committed. I want to know why he added the political bull**** about there being other means besides the courts.

I think it’s pretty much impeachment that he’s alluding to. Without him admitting why he said it, I’m left to infer that he doesn’t have enough evidence of a crime, including obstruction, so he’s signaling congress that it’s up to them to settle it.

I’ve talked about Overton’s window in the abortion thread, it applies here too. A pretty large majority don’t want impeachment the last time I checked. You move too far past the window and people revolt. I think Democrats will get punished if the impeach Trump.

The method besides the courts that I don’t think Mueller was referring to is the polls. Let the voters litigate this at the polls. Pretty much everyone has access the Mueller report. We can decide this ourselves.

1) That's exactly what he's alluding to (impeachment).
2) I think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer know this too.

 

[KG1]

I'm totally convinced Mueller was referring to impeachment as well and my contention all along has been that he basically said to Congress that his hands were tied by DOJ rules so it's up to them to carry it further via the political impeachment process.

 

[amboy49]

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.

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Mueller started out by saying the report speaks for itself and he wouldn’t comment further. And THEN he commented further. Since when does any prosecutor say he knows what the accused did but just can’t prove it ? Mueller used the press conference to plant more seeds of doubt to fan the flames. The Dems can try to spin it however they want, what Mueller did is unconscionable.

 

[blues bondsman]

Ronald Reagan said it best.

"the trouble with our Liberal friends is not that their ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so"

And they know it too, it's gotta be hard to live your entire life based on a Lie you know is a lie.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Since when is it the responsibility of a prosecutor to prove that someone did not commit a crime? The only role of a prosecutor is to prove, through evidence, that someone did commit a crime. Presumption of innocence covers all other persons.

Since when does a prosecutor have the ability to charge someone taken away? In the case of the president, the role of prosecution was explicitly verboten. It is more correct, at so far in relation to the president, to say that he was an investigator tasked with gathering information.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Mueller started out by saying the report speaks for itself and he wouldn’t comment further. And THEN he commented further. Since when does any prosecutor say he knows what the accused did but just can’t prove it ? Mueller used the press conference to plant more seeds of doubt to fan the flames. The Dems can try to spin it however they want, what Mueller did is unconscionable.

He didn't add anything, that wasn't already stated in his report.

 

[KG1]

AG Barr said in an interview that Mueller could have come to a conclusion on obstruction regardless of OLC guidelines but he chose not to and he left it up to Barr to decide.

Barr along with Rosenstein came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence on the issue of obstruction the same as Mueller did with collusion/conspiracy.

Now if Mueller could reach a conclusion on the issue of collusion/conspiracy then why could he not do the same with obstruction one way or the other?

The reason he gave for not reaching a conclusion on obstruction was that he was precluded from doing so due to OLC guidelines and that’s BS.

 

[churchmouse]

AG Barr said in an interview that Mueller could have come to a conclusion on obstruction regardless of OLC guidelines but he chose not to and he left it up to Barr to decide.

Barr along with Rosenstein came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence on the issue of obstruction the same as Mueller did with collusion/conspiracy.

Now if Mueller could reach a conclusion on the issue of collusion/conspiracy then why could he not do the same with obstruction one way or the other?

The game is still afoot people. This is now the hand they are playing. The cards are on the table and they are all in at this point. Right wrong or indifferent they care not.

 

[Kutnupe14]

AG Barr said in an interview that Mueller could have come to a conclusion on obstruction regardless of OLC guidelines but he chose not to and he left it up to Barr to decide.

Barr along with Rosenstein came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence on the issue of obstruction the same as Mueller did with collusion/conspiracy.

Now if Mueller could reach a conclusion on the issue of collusion/conspiracy then why could he not do the same with obstruction one way or the other?

The reason he gave for not reaching a conclusion on obstruction was that he was precluded from doing so due to OLC guidelines and that’s BS.

That's is what Barr said. The same guy that misrepresented the Muller Investigation, in an attempt to spin it as a positive for the president, prior to the report ever being released. I find Barr as reliable as any other politician.

 

[KG1]

There was another conflicting thing that was pointed out about Mueller’s statement and AG Barr’s testimony before a House Comittee hearing and that is Barr testified that at a meeting where Mueller turned over his report that he stated not once but three separate times that OLC guidelines had nothing to do with his decision not to come to a conclusion on the issue of obstruction.

Now in Muller’s statement he so much as affirms that it had everything to do with it.

So which is it? Somebody is not telling the truth. Supposedly there were other people present at the meeting.

 

[KG1]

That's is what Barr said. The same guy that misrepresented the Muller Investigation, in an attempt to spin it as a positive for the president, prior to the report ever being released. I find Barr as reliable as any other politician.

Well that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it just like I am entitled to my opinion when I call into question Muller’s integrity after he crossed the line into the political realm by basically giving the Democrats what amounted to an impeachment referal and encouraged them to follow the divisive political impeachment option for recourse.

It is also my contention that Mueller made a deal with the Democrats in negotiations on whether or not to testify to make a statement bolstering thier impeachment option in exchange for not testifying.

I gave my reason for my belief in another post up thread.

 

[BugI02]

I am also reading that Mueller did not identify grand jury testimony in the full report as submitted to Barr, even though he was instructed to do so. Instead he attempted to squeeze Barr into releasing his team's summaries.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/01/7190...ng-concern-about-barr-s-summary-of-his-report
READ: Mueller's Letter Expressing Concern About Barr's Summary Of His Report

Dear Attorney General Barr:


I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly.


Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time.

The only result of that was to slow down the release of the full report.

My supposition is that it was deliberate, in order to give a long space for media supposition and innuendo to set the narrative with Barr unable to respond. Perhaps Barr surprised him and his handlers by quickly releasing a synopsis (with the concurrence of DAG Rosenstein) and getting out in front of the issue, then releasing the full report for all to read to combat spin

I have always trusted Barr far more than Mueller (who after all is a Comey Crony) YMMV

 

[terrehautian]

After the report release, it is put up or shut up in terms of impeachment proceedings on trump. It will mostly be a party line vote in the house to impeach, so he probably will. I seriously doubt he will get removed from office. This will only hurt democrats in coming elections if that happens. That who are diehard for their party won’t affect their voting habits but I feel those on the middle probably won’t vote Democrat as much. I’m not voting democrat in 2020, not sure I will vote republican either. Not a dig at trump as he has some campaign ideas I like (term limits for Congress, border wall) but has done things I don’t like (social media misfit, a tariff war might not be the smartest thing).

 

[Kutnupe14]

After the report release, it is put up or shut up in terms of impeachment proceedings on trump. It will mostly be a party line vote in the house to impeach, so he probably will. I seriously doubt he will get removed from office. This will only hurt democrats in coming elections if that happens. That who are diehard for their party won’t affect their voting habits but I feel those on the middle probably won’t vote Democrat as much. I’m not voting democrat in 2020, not sure I will vote republican either. Not a dig at trump as he has some campaign ideas I like (term limits for Congress, border wall) but has done things I don’t like (social media misfit, a tariff war might not be the smartest thing).

There's a ZERO percent chance Congress will remove him from office. There are simply too many sycophants in the Senate. Actually they aren't really sycophants. They're actually professional politicians that are more worried about keeping their seats than challenging the president when he goes off the rails. I personally am not completely confident that impeaching the president will be detrimental to the Democrats. Given how many people haven't read what's in the Mueller report, the optics of a trial held in the Senate might be advantageous to the Democrats.

 

[Trigger Time]

Trump should have fired mueller and the AG at the time from day one like i said.
Biggest bunch of unnecessary crap ever.
I just hope we see some traitors from obamas administration get locked up soon. Hillary should be locked up too.
Nothing happens to the left because republicans are wimps. Little cucks. Or maybe they're all playing their part in the ruse and we are the suckers.
I love Trump. I'd follow him to hell. I would gladly come out of retirement to fight under his command if he called for it.
And i know a lot of other vets would too.

 

[KG1]

There's a ZERO percent chance Congress will remove him from office. There are simply too many sycophants in the Senate. Actually they aren't really sycophants. They're actually professional politicians that are more worried about keeping their seats than challenging the president when he goes off the rails. I personally am not completely confident that impeaching the president will be detrimental to the Democrats. Given how many people haven't read what's in the Mueller report, the optics of a trial held in the Senate might be advantageous to the Democrats.

You mean that you would be in favor of putting the country thru a grinding divisive political process just for the optics?

Wasn’t the past two years of constant collusion/conspiracy investigations that didn’t bear legal fruit against Trump personally enough division for you?

Here’s a novel idea. Howbout finally accepting the legitimate outcome of the 2016 election and we get away from all the political bull**** side show and let the natural election process take it’s course in 2020?

Or do you hate Trump so much that you fear taking a chance on him being re-elected for another term?

You’re starting to sound like the rabid Democrat Trump haters Kut that want to remove him from office and or impede his ability to run the country by any means necessary.