Robert Mueller Begs Congress to Impeach President Trump

 

Today Special Counsel Robert Mueller gave a statement in which he begged Congress to impeach President Trump: “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president of wrong doing.” Please impeach, in other words.

I think Mueller is a disgrace. Take for example his insistence that Trump is guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty. “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” he said during his statement, repeating a line from the written Mueller Report. This is a direct assault on the entire American idea of justice, which is that the accused do not have to prove their innocence. Rather the government must prove their guilt. Mueller did not spend some $30 million trying to prove Trump “clearly did not commit a crime.” His mandate was to prove Trump’s guilt.

Accordingly, Mueller spent two years trying his hardest to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency. He hired partisan Democrat donors. One was the former legal counsel to the Clinton Foundation! Another attended Clinton’s election night party. He used police-state tactics, such as sending dozens of over-armed agents to break down doors at 5AM. He issued 2,800 subpoenas and interviewed 500 people. But because there was no crime, and no collusion, he failed in his goal. There was no reason for his investigation and he likely knew it from the start.

Mueller claims that the only reason he didn’t indict Trump is that a memo from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, issued in 2000, states that a sitting president can not be indicted. The real reason Mueller didn’t indict Trump is that Trump did nothing wrong. Trump’s only true crime has always been that he was elected president.

To Mueller and other deep state goons, that is an impeachable offense.

There are 55 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    That is precisely what I heard in Mueller’s speech: he was trying to hand them an impeachment case on a silver platter. The problem is, there’s no case. The two minor take-aways were that Barr is the one apparently who will decide what else will be released besides the redacted report (and the report that languishes somewhere with additional information unveiled). Also, he won’t be testifying on the Hill which gives me a certain satisfaction. But he never should have said anything at all about obstruction if he had no case. Everyone I’ve followed said it was unacceptable for a prosecutor to do that.

    Maybe Mueller really is working secretly for the Republicans, who will watch the Democrats implode if they go for impeachment. Remember how Comey thought he was doing the right thing just before the election?

    • #1
  2. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Max Ledoux: I think Mueller is a disgrace. Take for example his insistence that Trump is guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty. “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” he said during his statement, repeating a line from the written Mueller Report. This is a direct assault on the entire American idea of justice, which is that the accused do not have to prove their innocence. Rather the government must prove their guilt. Mueller did not spend some $30 million trying to prove Trump “clearly did not commit a crime.” His mandate was to prove Trump’s guilt.

    Max,

    Mueller is willfully distorting the truth to the American people. His job as a prosecutor was specifically to indict or not to indict. He said that there weren’t grounds to indict and that this had nothing to do with the question of indicting a sitting President, there were no grounds to indict. All of this was in the report. Now he has intentionally distorted his own report and created a false impression. After it’s over, he says that charging Trump was never an option anyway so it doesn’t count. Pure garbage.

    This is the worst kind of sophistry and by a supposed granite solid prosecutor whose integrity is not to be questioned. This is the most base behavior. This is rank partisan politics and nothing more. Mueller is retiring, no doubt as he has wrecked his reputation with this. We will no doubt soon see the golden parachute prepared for him by Democratic Party bagmen. I’m sure his “retirement” will be quite lucrative.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #2
  3. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    I strongly urge my fellow Ricochetti to listen to what Mueller says in his 9 minute address, and then to read the Introductions and Executive Summaries to Collusion and Obstruction.

    • #3
  4. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Disgraceful. Mueller is just trying to blow hot air into the collapsed Collusion Balloon, hoping to keep it afloat through 2020. But that balloon is as empty as it ever was. He refuses to appear before Congress, but he’ll go in front of the friendly cameras of the press because he knows they will promulgate the Narrative like good little propagandists.

    If there is justice in the world, he and Comey will both be behind bars before the year is out.

    • #4
  5. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Disgraceful. Mueller is just trying to blow hot air into the collapsed Collusion Balloon, hoping to keep it afloat through 2020. But that balloon is as empty as it ever was. He refuses to appear before Congress, but he’ll go in front of the friendly cameras of the press because he knows they will promulgate the Narrative like good little propagandists.

    If there is justice in the world, he and Comey will both be behind bars before the year is out.

    Have you read the Mueller Report?  Have you at least read the Introductions and Executive Summaries as to Collusion and Obstruction?

    Of note, Mueller did not exonerate Trump as to Collusion, he simply said that there was insufficient evidence.  

    I agree with Republican Justin Amash (R-MI) that there is a prima face showing of Obstruction which would support an Impeachment inquiry.  Of note, Representative Amash received standing ovations in a town hall in his district.

    • #5
  6. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    A quick question for my fellow Ricochetti.  Given Mueller’s report and statement, would you support censure?

    • #6
  7. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I strongly urge my fellow Ricochetti to listen to what Mueller says in his 9 minute address, and then to read the Introductions and Executive Summaries to Collusion and Obstruction.

    Gary,

    Some background for you to read.

    Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime

    Beria targeted “the man” first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence that emanates from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as set forth in Coffin vs. U.S. (1895).

    Unlike Beria’s paradigm, U.S. prosecutions start with the discovery of a crime. Then there’s an investigation to find or confirm the identity of the perpetrator and collect evidence to prove his or her guilt.

    However, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment and subsequent investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign appear to follow the Beria model, not the U.S. Constitution model.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #7
  8. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    censure

    Gary,

    Of Mueller? Of course, I would, but he’s busy being retired and paid off so there is no use censuring him.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #8
  9. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Of note, Mueller did not exonerate Trump as to Collusion, he simply said that there was insufficient evidence.

    Gary,

    Are you an American? Do you believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? How about double jeopardy? I think the fun of the Inquisition is over. You’ll just have to find another hobby to keep yourself occupied.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #9
  10. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Malarkey. 

    The government has to prove guilt at trial not during an indictment which is by definition an accusation by the prosecutor. Muller was precluded from issuing any accusations because of department guidelines, and they began their investigation with that in mind. Issues of violation of federal statutes are not cut and dry. At some point a judgement call needs to be made if the facts discovered rise to the possible level of violating the law in the eyes of the prosecutor. This is how it works with everyone. But that prosecutorial assessment is not final in anyway, because ultimately that decision is made by a jury who will hear the prosecutor’s case and the defendant’s counter arguments. Prosecutors don’t determine guilt, they make accusations that they then defend in court. If they aren’t allowed to make accusations (ie. issue indictments) what else can they do other than stay silent and present the facts to allow others to determine for themselves or say that they found no evidence of possible wrong doing?

    The American justice system is working just fine, but Trumpers just don’t like the fact that an analysis of the evidence provides plenty of facts that are reasonably interpretable as obstruction of justice under US legal codes, as demonstrated by the fact that numerous ex-federal prosecutors (republican and democrat), and even Fox TV annalists like Judge Napolitano, and Republican Congressmen like Justin Amash have interpreted them that way. You are sticking to your Trump is guilty of nothing narrative, what else can a partisan do?  But, essentially you are like the Clinton defenders in the 90’s hiding behind legal ambiguities and smearing investigators to taint the public discourse. 

     

     

    • #10
  11. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Prosecutors don’t determine guilt, they make accusations that they then defend in court. If they aren’t allowed to make accusations (ie. issue indictments) what else can they do other than stay silent and present the facts to allow others to determine for themselves or say that they found no evidence of possible wrong doing?

    Val,

    This is infantile circular reasoning. A prosecutor’s job is to determine if a case is strong enough to be brought to trial at all! Mueller didn’t make any such indictment. Now we hear nonsense about guidelines. Well gosh if your case is so weak it doesn’t meet basic minimum guidelines set by your own department then I guess that means your case is so weak it shouldn’t move forward.

    It all means the case should be dropped! Period!!

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #11
  12. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Podhoretz had a good take in the Post:

    The “I couldn’t exonerate him” point is discomfiting for another reason, which is: Since when do prosecutors exonerate people? That isn’t a prosecutor’s job. . . they usually drop charges on grounds of insufficient evidence, not positive proof of innocence.

    So why even mention it? The fact people are willing to go along with the “guilty until proven innocent” mindset is frightening to see in America. But then, they don’t like the president’s personality so, there’s that. Probably time to search the Constitution for the missing “said mean things on Twitter” clause.

    • #12
  13. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I strongly urge my fellow Ricochetti to listen to what Mueller says in his 9 minute address, and then to read the Introductions and Executive Summaries to Collusion and Obstruction.

    Agree. All fair-minded people will conclude that Mueller is a disgrace.

    • #13
  14. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Mueller’s job was to establish that Trump had committed a crime, not that Trump “clearly had not committed a crime.” It is a slap in the face of all Americans to flip the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head. All Americans should be disgusted by Mueller’s theory that Trump is guilty because Mueller couldn’t exonerate him. Mueller wasn’t trying to exonerate Trump, he was trying to indict him.

    • #14
  15. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    Actually, I find this latest Mueller exercise to be useful – to finally and totally disqualify Robert Mueller as any sort of investigator or SA, or rational person, at all.  In my over 30 years of conducting investigations, had I ever submitted such a report to any attorney, I would have had it, to be gentle, rejected.  

    One of the cardinal rules of logic is that it is impossible to prove a negative.  The most I can say – the only thing I can or would say, or have ever said, is, “I found no evidence of (fill in the blank).”  Anything more than that disqualifies me as an objective observer.  Anything more renders me untrustworthy, and worthless as a reporter of anything.  See paragraph 1 above. 

    Of course, a competent investigator reports everything and anything s/he has found, in detail.  If there was nothing reported, then there was nothing to report.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I agree with Republican Justin Amash (R-MI) that there is a prima face showing of Obstruction which would support an Impeachment inquiry. Of note, Representative Amash received standing ovations in a town hall in his district.

    Prima facie evidence?  If he has such evidence, then why didn’t he report it to Mueller, say, two years ago?  I’m calling his bluff.

    I couldn’t care less who gave whom a standing ovation.  I’ve witnessed far too many standing ovations given to complete idiots, and sometimes admitted felons.  I learn much from such events – about the audiences.

    • #15
  16. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Have you read the Mueller Report? Have you at least read the Introductions and Executive Summaries as to Collusion and Obstruction?

    Of note, Mueller did not exonerate Trump as to Collusion, he simply said that there was insufficient evidence.

    Gary, I’ve addressed this at length.  Mueller’s job was not to decide whether or not to “exonerate” the President.  His job was to investigate, make prosecution or declination decisions, and issue a confidential report explaining those decisions to the AG.  This is stated in the first darned paragraph of Mueller’s report — both Vol. I (collusion) and Vol. II (obstruction):

    “[A]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he . . . shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached.”

    The prosecution or declination decisions that Mueller was supposed to make are governed by the standard set forth on pages 8-9 of Vol. I of the report itself:

    “The standard set forth in the Justice Manual is whether the conduct constitutes a crime; if so, whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain a sustain a conviction; and whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately served by prosecution elsewhere or through non-criminal alternatives.”

    Mueller found no basis for making a prosecution decision in either Vol. I (collusion) or Vol. II (obstruction).  He properly made a declination decision regarding collusion in Vol. I.  That closes the case on collusion (with the technical caveat that it is possible for the AG to overrule such a declination decision).

    Mueller’s reprehensible conclusion is on page 2 of Vol. II (on obstruction), in which he rejects the use of the prosecution/declination standard quoted above, and instead stated (emphasis added):

    Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.  Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.  The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.  Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

    The final sentence unequivocally means that declination is the only proper decision, under the Justice Manual standard quoted above.  If you do not conclude that the President committed a crime, then you cannot conclude that “admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain a sustain a conviction.”

    I find it outrageous that, instead of reaching the decision required by the conclusion of his own report, Mueller and his team expressed opinions based on what amounts to a “guilty until proven innocent” standard.

    • #16
  17. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bob Mueller Runs and Hides in Eight Minutes to Avoid Having to Answer One Key Question

    Excerpt:

    Robert Mueller’s eight- to nine-minute statement Wednesday morning at the DOJ was designed for one thing only: to avoid having to answer one key question in his testimony. When did you know there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?

    If the answer, as many, including Andrew C. McCarthy, are indicating, is somewhere in Fall 2017, what in the Sam Hill was Mueller doing putting the country through two years of prolonged agony? It’s not likely he did all this to prop up CNN’s faltering ratings.

    Was it, just by chance, to induce obstruction from one Donald J. Trump who — like a relatively normal person but with a shorter fuse than most, justifiable in this case — would react like a stuck pig to being falsely charged for so long? That would have been essentially entrapment.

    He won’t appear before Congress, but he’ll pull stunts like this.

    Time to subpoena him, I guess.

    • #17
  18. Badger Inactive
    Badger
    @DavidBoley

    If I had confidence that Robert Mueller was clearly not a pedophile, I would say so.

    • #18
  19. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Expressions of frustration by an innocent man that a nominally good-faith investigation was in fact a protracted partisan witch hunt designed to destroy a presidency is not obstruction.  No misleading statements were made.  No material fact, document or evidence was withheld.  There was no interference with access or process.  Telling subordinates he wished this would go away is not obstruction.  The very fact we know about these communicated sentiments is because Trump directed that all such communications be made available.

    I am bloody sick of never-Trumper faux reverence for Robert Mueller.  Mueller has no personal honor and no integrity. He knowingly let four innocent men rot in jail rather than tarnish the FBI and his own image.  That malfeasance cost taxpayers $100 million in damages.  He hounded an innocent man in the post-9/11 anthrax case including illegal leaks designed to destroy life and livelihood.  (There were only two suspects and Mueller managed to pick the wrong one and unlawfully abused him.) That only cost us $10 or 20 million in damages.

    And now he has wasted millions more while knowingly allowing half the country to believe their President might be a traitor for two years when he knew that was not the case almost immediately upon beginning this corrupt enterprise.  He ruined innocent men will process crimes.  He jailed Trump affiliate Manafort but expressly immunized the equally sleazy Podesta.  He staged PR stunt raids, assaulted attorney-client privilege, assembled a partisan hit squad when common sense and simple honor required a more balanced staffing policy.  

    And now we get this whiny press conference in which he still can’t say what the crime was and refuses in advance to assist the lawful finders of fact as to how this whole sordid mess originated.  The complete and utter BS that he can’t specify the crime pursuant to DOJ guidelines is (a) not true and (b) rich coming from a man whose whole career is littered with overt abuse of law and process.  Mueller is yet again protecting corrupt establishment interests to the last while striking a false pose of probity. 

    Anybody who wants to make a serious argument about obstruction needs to specify the facts, the statute implicated and demonstrate that they have read Andy McCarthy’s exhaustive analyses of all this already.  Vague, pious intonations about complex issues is posturing and an unacceptable substitute for actual legal analysis.

    I am old enough to remember the virulence with with people hated LBJ and Nixon.  But the reliance on such hatred to justify malevolent manifest stupidity has reached new heights with Trump.

    • #19
  20. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Disgraceful. Mueller is just trying to blow hot air into the collapsed Collusion Balloon, hoping to keep it afloat through 2020. But that balloon is as empty as it ever was. He refuses to appear before Congress, but he’ll go in front of the friendly cameras of the press because he knows they will promulgate the Narrative like good little propagandists.

    If there is justice in the world, he and Comey will both be behind bars before the year is out.

    Have you read the Mueller Report? Have you at least read the Introductions and Executive Summaries as to Collusion and Obstruction?

    Of note, Mueller did not exonerate Trump as to Collusion, he simply said that there was insufficient evidence.

    I agree with Republican Justin Amash (R-MI) that there is a prima face showing of Obstruction which would support an Impeachment inquiry. Of note, Representative Amash received standing ovations in a town hall in his district.

    Obstruction of justice would be a very difficult case to make with no underlying crime to obstruct, but when the full story of the Obama DOJ/FBI/IC malfeasance as it relates to falsely creating the Trump/Russian collusion narrative is fully laid out,  an obstruction of justice case against Trump will be an impossible to case to make …. and any competent unbiased legal professional knows this.

    • #20
  21. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I strongly urge my fellow Ricochetti to listen to what Mueller says in his 9 minute address, and then to read the Introductions and Executive Summaries to Collusion and Obstruction.

    I did read the damn report.  I read the specific list of non-accusations.  In essence, Mueller found no crime, nothing that would be prosecuted for obstruction for a non-President investigation subject or witness.  The sleazy maneuver he deployed was to say that if there were a crime, only Congress could act–indictment would not stand.  Therefore, because Congress is free to do what ever it wants in this regard, Mueller can pretend that this is a complex unresolved matter to be handled by Congress rather than admit he’s got nothing worth prosecuting and that his failure to provoke material interference from Trump should be replaced by fanciful interpretations of obstruction.

    Gary, in lieu of pious entreaties to read this or listen to that as if the suggested content offered a substantive basis for obstruction, please make the case yourself.  In what material respect was this partisan prosecutorial farce hindered in any way by Trump?  And explain how an innocent man can be said to have the requisite criminal intent by harboring and possessing and expressing a desire this farce come to an end?

    • #21
  22. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Meh, probably just trying to gaslight his way out of his own indictment, just like all the rest of the rats on the sinking ship Coup d’Etat.

    • #22
  23. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Mueller creating this food fight at this time tells me:

    The IG Report is about to drop.

    Enjoy the impeach Trump narrative while it lasts …. the story is about to go 180 on you hard.

    • #23
  24. Lensman Inactive
    Lensman
    @Lensman

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Have you read the Mueller Report? Have you at least read the Introductions and Executive Summaries as to Collusion and Obstruction?

    Of note, Mueller did not exonerate Trump as to Collusion, he simply said that there was insufficient evidence.

    Gary, I’ve addressed this at length. Mueller’s job was not to decide whether or not to “exonerate” the President. His job was to investigate, make prosecution or declination decisions, and issue a confidential report explaining those decisions to the AG. This is stated in the first darned paragraph of Mueller’s report — both Vol. I (collusion) and Vol. II (obstruction):

    [SNIP]

    Mueller found no basis for making a prosecution decision in either Vol. I (collusion) or Vol. II (obstruction). He properly made a declination decision regarding collusion in Vol. I. That closes the case on collusion (with the technical caveat that it is possible for the AG to overrule such a declination decision).

    Mueller’s reprehensible conclusion is on page 2 of Vol. II (on obstruction), in which he rejects the use of the prosecution/declination standard quoted above, and instead stated (emphasis added):

    Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

    The final sentence unequivocally means that declination is the only proper decision, under the Justice Manual standard quoted above. If you do not conclude that the President committed a crime, then you cannot conclude that “admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain a sustain a conviction.”

    I find it outrageous that, instead of reaching the decision required by the conclusion of his own report, Mueller and his team expressed opinions based on what amounts to a “guilty until proven innocent” standard.

    You absolutely nailed it. There was no attempt by Mueller to do the job he was given by DOJ. Instead he decided to be a stalking horse for partisan Democrats who want any excuse to impeach President Trump.

    I just posted on the Member Feed the question of whether Robert Mueller should be charged with a violation of the ethical obligations that a prosecutor has under the applicable Code of Professional Responsibility (formerly called “Canons of Ethics”).

    That is expressly not a rhetorical question. I have never been around a case where a prosecutor felt that he could make public pronouncements about the guilt or innocence of a person without filing a criminal information or seeking an indictment.

    Maybe I’m old fashioned, but Mueller’s conduct today would have been call McCarthyism 50 years ago. Joe McCarthy defamed Americans from a Senate hearing room with impunity. I guess Robert Mueller thinks that he is so popular with Democrats in Washington that he can get away with hinting that Donald J. Trump committed a crime, without offering any evidence to support an accusation. “We cannot exonerate” is a case of weasel wording where I come from.

    • #24
  25. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Malarkey.

    The government has to prove guilt at trial not during an indictment which is by definition an accusation by the prosecutor. Muller was precluded from issuing any accusations because of department guidelines, and they began their investigation with that in mind. Issues of violation of federal statutes are not cut and dry. At some point a judgement call needs to be made if the facts discovered rise to the possible level of violating the law in the eyes of the prosecutor. This is how it works with everyone. But that prosecutorial assessment is not final in anyway, because ultimately that decision is made by a jury who will hear the prosecutor’s case and the defendant’s counter arguments. Prosecutors don’t determine guilt, they make accusations that they then defend in court. If they aren’t allowed to make accusations (ie. issue indictments) what else can they do other than stay silent and present the facts to allow others to determine for themselves or say that they found no evidence of possible wrong doing?

    The American justice system is working just fine, but Trumpers just don’t like the fact that an analysis of the evidence provides plenty of facts that are reasonably interpretable as obstruction of justice under US legal codes, as demonstrated by the fact that numerous ex-federal prosecutors (republican and democrat), and even Fox TV annalists like Judge Napolitano, and Republican Congressmen like Justin Amash have interpreted them that way. You are sticking to your Trump is guilty of nothing narrative, what else can a partisan do? But, essentially you are like the Clinton defenders in the 90’s hiding behind legal ambiguities and smearing investigators to taint the public discourse.

     

     

    Actually a decision to prosecute is cut and dried.  It is an entirely binary choice.  If Mueller had found evidence of grand theft or homicide by Trump do you seriously believe he would said DOJ guidelines prevent him from making specific recommendations to Congress?  This ambiguity crafted by Mueller is him saying I got nothing but you always have the power to impeach for whatever grounds to discover (or invent) so go for it.  

    There was no question Clinton committed a crime.  The issue was whether it was a “high crime” of the kind deserving of impeachment.

    With Trump, we now know there was no crime. I am at a loss to identify the specific “reasonably interpretable” instances of obstruction of a scandalously executed bad-faith protracted investigation.  Trump was innocent but dared to be expressly unhappy about unwarranted accusations and two years of defamation and harassment?  What exactly was obstructed?

    • #25
  26. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Prosecutors don’t determine guilt, they make accusations that they then defend in court. If they aren’t allowed to make accusations (ie. issue indictments) what else can they do other than stay silent and present the facts to allow others to determine for themselves or say that they found no evidence of possible wrong doing?

    Val,

    This is infantile circular reasoning. A prosecutor’s job is to determine if a case is strong enough to be brought to trial at all! Mueller didn’t make any such indictment. Now we hear nonsense about guidelines. Well gosh if your case is so weak it doesn’t meet basic minimum guidelines set by your own department then I guess that means your case is so weak it shouldn’t move forward.

    It all means the case should be dropped! Period!!

    Regards,

    Jim

    Have you not read or heard Muller’s explanation of this? The guidelines he spoke of are ones that determined that it would be unconstitutional (at least according to the departments internal logic) for a prosecutor operating under the AG to issue an indictment of a sitting president, irrespective of the level of evidence that would be used to substantiate that indictment. In the executive summary that Muller wrote to his report, he states that because of these guidlines they were never going to issue a normal prosecutorial decision or say what they would have done if Trump weren’t president.  So who is being childish here, Mr. Poop-poo pants. 

    • #26
  27. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Of note, Mueller did not exonerate Trump as to Collusion, he simply said that there was insufficient evidence.

    You can’t be a little bit pregnant; either you are or are not. Insufficient evidence means just that. 

    • #27
  28. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    Mueller’s job was to establish that Trump had committed a crime, not that Trump “clearly had not committed a crime.” It is a slap in the face of all Americans to flip the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head. All Americans should be disgusted by Mueller’s theory that Trump is guilty because Mueller couldn’t exonerate him. Mueller wasn’t trying to exonerate Trump, he was trying to indict him.

    Exactly. Furthermore, I was shocked that he gave so little time this morning to discuss how the Russians had attempted to influence the election. 

    • #28
  29. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Have you not read or heard Muller’s explanation of this? The guidelines he spoke of are ones that determined that it would be unconstitutional (at least according to the departments internal logic) for a prosecutor operating under the AG to issue an indictment of a sitting president, irrespective of the level of evidence that would be used to substantiate that indictment. In the executive summary that Muller wrote to his report, he states that because of these guidlines they were never going to issue a normal prosecutorial decision or say what they would have done if Trump weren’t president.

    The guidelines do not preclude Mueller from presenting whatever evidence was found, without regard to the issuing of an indictment.  And based on everything else we’ve seen out of the Mueller bunch, it is incomprehensible that they didn’t do just that.  I seem to remember a case recently where the FBI developed all sorts of blatant violations of numerous federal felonies, laid out tons of evidence, then announced that “they” found no reason to indict her.  

    No.  It’s long past time to put up or shut up.  

    • #29
  30. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Here is the link to the Introductions and Executive Summaries to Collusion and Obstruction.  http://ricochet.com/615718/the-mueller-report-in-four-summaries/

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.