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

Discussion in 'United States' started by MrTLegal, May 29, 2019.

  1. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Didn't you listen to his press conference. He made it perfectly clear he was restrained from charging the President by the DOJ policy, whereas; Starr was to make recommendations.
    Let me know if you need a transcript.
     
    bx4 and The Mello Guy like this.
  2. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,309
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that was proper, standard action for such a DOJ employee in his position.
     
    Egoboy and bx4 like this.
  3. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    15,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except, that’s not what Mueller said. He was very clear. He said that if he thought Trump was innocent, he would have said so.

    He also made it very clear that he was not going to seek indictment because of long standing DoJ policy.

    Which is very different from the claims you are making. He did NOT say that they could not conclude he committed a crime.
     
    Egoboy and The Mello Guy like this.
  4. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    15,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At least one Trumpster on this thread claimed to have listened to it and then came here and said Mueller something completely different entirely from what he actually said.

    I happened to be listening the the TV feed from Fox right after the press conference. It was very clear that the Fox News models were waiting for their instructions, and trying hard to to say the obvious. Brett Baier admitted that it looked really bad for Trump. But they quickly recovered with Sarah Sander’s ludicrous statement.
     
    Egoboy and The Mello Guy like this.
  5. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    19,496
    Likes Received:
    9,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is only one half of the Russian investigation done because they only investigated one party and there is more of a Russian connection in other areas..

    If Mueller is such a great fact finder why won't Democrats accept his findings and do something about immigration and infrastructure?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  6. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    19,496
    Likes Received:
    9,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And if he thought he was guilty what would he have done?
    It is not a long standing DOJ policy.
    There was no crime and he said so. What was the point of his public statement?
     
  7. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,852
    Likes Received:
    3,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As I saw it;

    1. Collusion-no longer on the table, once again Mueller states that whilst the Russians certainly tried to influence the election there was no conspiracy on the part of the Trump campaign.

    2. Obstruction-basically the same as before, he suspects that numerous actions by Trump may have amounted to obstruction but they fall far short of the evidential requirement.

    3. He effectively exonerates Barr saying, in fact saying that Barr actually released more of the report than Mueller wanted to.

    4. He doesn't exonerate Trump, the gist seems to be he suspects him of wrongdoing but cannot prove it, leaving the ball firmly in the court of Congress as he cannot indict a sitting president. He makes the rather odd remark that without that in fairness Trump can't prove himself innocent?

    5. He seems to imply that this is his final word on the matter, effectively saying no further testimony before Congress.

    So essentially as I read it he's saying he has nothing to add to the report, there was no collusion, there are plenty of reasons to suspect obstruction but not enough evidence to be certain and certainly not enough to proceed to charge. He clears Barr of any wrongdoing and essentially leaves it to Congress to investigate any future presidential wrongdoing?

    So, goodbye to Mr Mueller who now retires from public life and hopefully writes a bestselling autobiography. I know I'd read it.
     
  8. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    23,170
    Likes Received:
    16,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another poster was gracious enough to provide the regs that outline the circumstance and process for removal of special counsel. Onlt Rosenstein had the authority to remove Mueller. But you are wrong in any case. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...eres-what-muellers-report-says/?noredirect=on Maybe you'll take WaPo's word for it, because you weren't willing to take Mueller's. Or haven't you read Mueller's report?
     
    BaghdadBob likes this.
  9. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    10,291
    Likes Received:
    13,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Remember when you loved Mueller? Remember those happy days?

    Look at your now, tossing him right under the bus.
     
    BaghdadBob likes this.
  10. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    15,894
    Trophy Points:
    113


    It appears as though they have. And they are weighing the political risks of taking the next step.

    Trump already made it clear that he wasn’t going to do anything about infrastructure. He has no plan. Democrats sent an immigration bill over to the Senate before Trump even showed up, and McConnell has sat on it ever since.
     
  11. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    15,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You weren’t paying attention,

    But you did a good job of parroting the Fox News talking points.

    Or at least the ones the came down from the second floor just in time to keep the folks on the air for inadvertently admitting the truth. Too late for Brett Baier though, who admitted that this was bad for Trump.

    So, one by one.

    1. Collusion is still on the table. Indeed, since collusion is not a defined crime, the mountain of evidence that the Trump campaign did its level best to try and collude with the Russians did not result in a chargeable crime against the President,.

    It should be noted that the report details several incidents in which record were destroyed, witnesses kept deliberately out of the law’s reach, and the use of codes and encrypted devices.

    2. The case for obstruction is 200 pages long, and Trump adds to it right in the open every day.

    3. He called Barr a liar on national TV. He did toss him a bone by acknowledging that he released the report.

    4. He does not exhonorate Trump. Barr’s memo said that too.

    Then Trump bellowed it on TV, and all the little Trumpsters sheep fell right in line, and began braying the new slogan “no collusion, no obstruction””, despite the fact that the actual report details over 400 pages of both.

    5. He said he hopes that is the case.
     
  12. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    23,170
    Likes Received:
    16,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm of the mind that (R)'s on committee shouldn't take it upon themselves to subpoena Mueller. AG Barr & the US Attorney should be the ones who interview Mueller. Declassified testimony revealed that McCabe, not Mueller reassigned Strzok. So what Mueller knew or was told about Strzok's texts, specifically texts about FISA judge Rudy Contreras are unavoidable questions. It would certainly give Mueller cause to susppect that all "evidence" collected by Strzok was potentially tainted or slanted. So how much made it into the report anyway?
     
  13. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    15,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um.....

    Congressional subpoenas are usually at the discretion of the committee chair. That is the case in the Intelligence Committee, where Devin Nunes made sure that no inconvenient witnesses were called during his sham investigation.

    What Mueller knew about Strzok’s e-mail is a question that will be asked. Of course, Trump is doing everything he can to prevent McCabe from testifying. Which poses a logistical problem for Trump, if Trump’s real objective is to actually know about that.

    But then, if you’re trying to keep a far fetched narrative alive, and claim that it wasn’t fair to investigate a Presidential campaign that happened to be up to its neck in Russians, maybe having the relevant witnesses in the box is not a good idea.

    But since the information in the report has been confirmed; often admitted to in public by the relevant parties, the question is moot.

    Trump is a criminal. So are many of the people in his inner circle.

    I guess when it becomes really obvious that the (wannabe) emperor has no clothes, the minions have to shout “look the other way” that much louder. Or at least, that’s what that crackpot Mark Levin was doing on Sham Hammity’s program last night.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  14. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,852
    Likes Received:
    3,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. No, specifically what evidence do you refer to? In terms of collusion he said there was 'not sufficient grounds for conspiracy'?
    2. Yes 200 pages of possible obstruction but not enough evidence to confirm any of it?
    3. When did he call Barr a liar? All he said was Barr acted in 'good faith' when he released more of the report than he wanted him to?
    4. No, he doesn't exonerate him but Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence? (and actually, cannot for all intents and purposes)

    Then CNN bellowed on TV and grasped at more straws as all the little anti-Trumper zombies fell right into line and began braying the new slogan 'Congress must impeach for a crime there is no evidence for' despite the fact that the report says there are no grounds for either?
     
  15. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    23,170
    Likes Received:
    16,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No ... what I've done is perfectlty predict the LW noise machines meme, and you laid it right out. A GOP Senate hearing would be portrayed as a partisan ambush. The only thing Mueller made clear yesterday was that furtherer cooperation wasn't in the equation. McCabe is destined for the grand jury, but since you've stuck you're neck out, back up your claim. How is Trump preventing McCabe from being questioned by anyone?
     
  16. BaghdadBob

    BaghdadBob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Messages:
    3,126
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office, released the following statement:

    The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.


    BTW, it's a bald faced lie to claim that it's against DoJ policy to indict a sitting prez.
    Mueller purposely is misleading the knuckle draggers.

    https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download

    The short of it...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html


    So, please continue to argue about things you don't know or understand. It keeps me laffing throughout the day. :)
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean where he also did not find enough evidence and made a political statement instead. Mueller turned jurisprudence on it's head. Trump is now guilty until proven innocent. If prosecutors do not find enough evidence, they just don't charge, they never exonerate anyone. He did not find enough evidence. Starr in his report used the word guilty 11 times. Mueller not once.
     
    Bluesguy likes this.
  18. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They do accept his findings... now it's time to act on them....

    As I recall, a bunch of Democrats went to the WH with a 35 page plan for infrastructure for a super productive 3 minute meeting...

    And on immigration, they are trying to stop US funds from being wasted on a physical wall that we were told Mexico would pay for.... seems like solid fiscal responsibility there...
     
  19. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,206
    Likes Received:
    14,700
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No "prosecutor" ever said that he could not determine whether crimes were ever committed by Trump.

    The Trump Justice Department Special Counsel did say, "As set forth in the report, after that investigation if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so." He did not say so, not having that confidence that the president clearly had not committed a crime.

    He made it clear that it was simply not within his purview to make any such charges: "Under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. ... Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."

    He further explained that, "the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."

    He fulfilled his mission "to serve as Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters," and stressed that it is the responsibility of others to consider his report in determining whether criminal charges are appropriate.

    The responsibility falls to Congress whose duty now is to assess the revelations in the report and uncover any additional information relevant to what he made clear is its decision.









     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  20. sec

    sec Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Messages:
    31,639
    Likes Received:
    7,735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    out there?

    there was no crime to be investigated
    the investigation was unwarranted
    despite all of that, the investigation continued and for anyone honest, the outcome was no surprise.
    The idea was to hopefully find something completely unrelated to the campaign in which to try and unseat the POTUS.
    Look to the charges that were filed that had nothing to do with the campaign.
    It's never ok to simply investigate a person and their associates in hopes of finding something from their past.

    I am actually shocked that any Amercian would find it to be ok.
     
  21. AKS

    AKS Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    10,471
    Likes Received:
    4,755
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is disingenuous drivel. Of course the question to impeach is political. DUH...
     
  22. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have that backwards, my friend... the investigations into the Trump campaign began BECAUSE of things from their recent pasts...

    Trump simply collected them all in one place, for some undetermined reason.... Well, actually that reason was determined, but since there was no "tacit agreement", it wasn't apparently illegal..

    Don't believe everything you read on TheConservativeTreehouse....
     
  23. icehole3

    icehole3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2017
    Messages:
    8,414
    Likes Received:
    10,869
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    PLEASE DON'T TRY TO IMPEACH, I CAN'T AFFORD ANY MORE POPCORN
     
    Creasy Tvedt likes this.
  24. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trump Tax Scam, right? I feel your pain!
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
  25. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As opposed to.....?
     

Share This Page