BREAKING: Robert Mueller is speaking right now, for the first time since the report was released

"They" huh? Who are "they"? What are their motivations? Why trump, a guy who can't even f*cking communicate verbally?

 

It's not a legal question anymore, and has nothing to do with the legal system. It's only a political question now. Mueller gonzo, out, fade away, fini.

 

Link covered both phone calls. Trump said go to Rod both times. It's not my allegation ... read the Mueller report excerpts in the WaPo link. You have additional material?

 

Timelines you are ignoring are important. You cannot win an argument using ignorance of events as your position.

 

you seem to have misread my post, I think he was fair to trump, I neither hate or love Mueller....

now Trump appears to like him when he thought Barr's sumary was true and hate him when he finds out it was false, he even called Mueller Honorable just weeks ago

 

You probably don't have to worry about that... In 2024, it's quite possible that the Presidential election will be a 12 week reality show, where losing contestants get voted off each week, last person standing is President...

 

​

It is not the job of a prosecutor to declare people innocent and imply that if the can't then the person is guilty of something.

It was FULLY within his purview to list any crimes they found were committed and announce charges would be levied once he was no longer in office whether by impeachment or not as with Clinton. If he consider it never an option then the whole thing should have been called off.

No it doesn't require such a process, impeachment is for one reason only, removal from office and does not preclude indictment and conviction on the legal charges.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

It was HIS duty to consider whether the law was violated and report accordingly. And what additional information are you talking about after a two year unrestricted investigation that was fully cooperated with?

 

First small group consisted of Comey, Brennan, Clapper, and McCabe which expanded to include the WH. None of it went through normal procedures. Comets leaking to the press pretty much secured his position as anti-Trump.

 

The Pro-Trump RW does it 24/7 (All Day/Every Day).

What's good for the goose, etc.

Mueller just should've indicted Trump, and let the chips fall.

 

You mean indict with that lack of evidence he claimed? LOL

 

I'm still not sure if you misread my post or are propping up a strawman. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to the other contents in my post, particularly the quote that was cited outlining Mueller's job and how the president being the subject of an investigation doesn't change his job. It's an important point that underscores the political game Mueller and his merry band of cleaners and "insurance" agents were playing.

As for Rosenstein, I never stated that he ever argued that Mueller could have indicted Trump, and given the fact that Rosenstein determined that Mueller failed to produce the evidence necessary to indict Trump the point would have been moot.

 

Coulda shoulda woulda.....but didn't.

I guess that explains why the DOJ official who appointed Bobby the Weasel and oversaw his investigation didn't indict Trump either.

 

The OLC statement was just an advisary as Judge Nap noted this morning and two months later President Clinton was advised that as soon as he left office he would be indicted for multiple felonies. When the Starr team submitted it's report it listed the multiple felonies they were going to charge. They left it to Congress to impeach and remove now or barring them not doing so then the charges would await his leaving office otherwise. Mueller could have done exactly the same but he has no case and he knows it. As a prosecutor for him to not charge someone but then go public and say "but hey maybe he is a criminal" should bring him before the BAR for a reprimand and he should never be hired again by the DOJ or government for ANYTHING.

 

You realize that is a worse standard for you, right?

 

I never disputed your allegation that Trump told McGahn to go to Rosenstein. I disputed your allegation that Trump asked McGahn to get Rosenstein to merely review Mueller for conflicts.

He ordered McGahn to tell Rosenstein to get rid of Mueller.

 

Now read this ...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...IA-Starr-memo-presidential.html?module=inline

( It includes multiple SCOTUS decisions on indicting a sitting prez. That's THE LAW, and not an opinion of the law by staff attorneys.)

BTW, did you not read the joint press release confirming Barr's query of mueller's reason for no criminal referral of Trump? That the reason was insufficient evidence. That means Trump is vindicated.

 

Could Mueller have indicted Trump, even if he had undeniable proof of guilt, in your mind?

 

Mueller could not conclude any crime was committed for which to obstruct and investigation. Then he brought no charge of obstruction for which he could request Congress act on impeachment so that prosecution could go forth. There is no long standing DOJ policy or law that would have prevented that as we saw with Clinton. Starr found crimes and reported them to Congress, Congress failed to remove from office so the charges were held until he left office. Mueller made no such allegation of a crime, presented no evidence of a crime or of any obstruction.

 

Mueller explicitly told you that there is a long standing DOJ policy that prevented him from indicting Trump and that because he could not indict, he decided that he would not allege an opinion that Trump committed a crime because it would unfairly influence the office of the President.

Starr reached a different conclusion and made a different decision in regards to that longstanding DOJ policy.

 

Doesn't matter which you argue. McGahn was told to contact Rod and inform him it was Trump's opinion Mueller be removed for conflicts. Rosenstein confirms himself that he reviewed those conflicts and found none disqualified Mueller. Rosenstein testified to that on 2 seperate occasions.

 

Yes, and tt the very least mulehead could have made a criminal referral to the DoJ, but he didn't because there's no there there.Too bad.
It's time to move on, kids.

 

And his finding was no determination a crime of OOJ was committed, no charge, confirmed by AG Barr, DAG Rosenstein and the OLC.

 

Keep your tinfoil hat nearby, you will need it.

 

And the matter was dropped, no obstruction of justice.

 

You mean the facts you ignore? Fascinating.