"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[Arcangl86]

You guys keep missing the point. The point isn't that Mueller could have indicted the president. He could have said the president committed a crime. He didn't.

Because he didn't think it would be ethical to accuse Trump of a crime if he couldn't be vindicated in court.

 

[rjs330]

He COULD have appointed himself judge jury and executioner and decided to publicly flog Trump. But he didn't. He COULD have stated that Trump is a saint and did nothing at all wrong and everyone who says otherwise is a liar. He COULD have done all sorts of things.

What he COULD have done is not relevant to what he thinks he should do. He has spelled out his position pretty clearly - He does not think it is appropriate for him to claim that a Trump committed a crime since his office is not going to indict a sitting president, and it's up to congress to deal with the presented evidence and make a judgement on that.

And the fact that Congress is not doing that is telling.

 

[Allandavid]

You guys keep missing the point. The point isn't that Mueller could have indicted the president.

No, he couldn’t...he believed he was constrained by DOJ policy. It’s YOU who misses the point...Mueller is an unusual character in the age of Trump...he’s a straight shooter who plays by the rules.

He could have said the president committed a crime. He didn't.

No, he couldn’t. As he explains, to make such a statement without going ahead and seeking an indictment would be to place Trump in an unfair position of not having his ‘day in court’ to clear his name...

I know, it’s hard to believe, but there is still at least one man left with a set of ethics guiding his behaviour....

 

[Allandavid]

And the fact that Congress is not doing that is telling.

YET.....!

 

[Allandavid]

Now, this is where you rinse and repeat....”but Mueller didn’t charge the President with a crime...!”...........the Fox strategy..

 

[stevil]

You guys keep missing the point. The point isn't that Mueller could have indicted the president. He could have said the president committed a crime. He didn't.

Why didn't he?
Do you know the answer to that?

I do.

 

[rjs330]

YET.....!

Yes just like we were just waiting for Mueller to find the criminal activity Trump did. Only he didn't.

You guys are going to be so disappointed.

 

[rjs330]

Why didn't he?
Do you know the answer to that?

I do.

He didn't because he decided not to. Instead he used some sort of unheard of nonsense like we could prove he didn't commit a crime. Yep, that written all over the legal code. That our new standard. We can't show people didn't commit a crime.

Mueller absolutely could have said he believed Trump committed a crime. Even if he believed he couldn't indict. There is nothing in the law or policy that forbade him from doing so.

 

[Allandavid]

Yes just like we were just waiting for Mueller to find the criminal activity Trump did. Only he didn't.

You guys are going to be so disappointed.

Well, he did actually...

You haven’t bothered to read Vol II of his report, have you...?

 

[Allandavid]

Mueller absolutely could have said he believed Trump committed a crime. Even if he believed he couldn't indict. There is nothing in the law or policy that forbade him from doing so.

There’s nothing in law....but there is in ethics. But, in this era of Trump, you might not see that so easily....

 

[stevil]

He didn't because he decided not to. Instead he used some sort of unheard of nonsense like we could prove he didn't commit a crime.

Mueller referred to it as "fairness"
If you consider fairness to be nonsense, then that's upto you.
But Mueller and his SC team got to decide that they would utilise "fairness" and that was with respect to being fair for Trump. So he acted in a way which was beneficial to Trump. You, being a Trump supporter should be happy.

 

[LostMarbels]

I have started my freworks season. We have to be ready per our permits/licensure by the 11th. So I am mad busy. I will get back to answer you guys in a day or 2.

 

[KCfromNC]

LOL.

Since i am an independent and didnt vote for trump or clinton, maybe i am not blinded by personal ideology.

I didn't say anything about who you voted for or what you claim to believe. I just mentioned that your posts seem to contain consistent repetition of certain right wing talking points.

It strikes me though, that you did not quote the part of my post, that stated a good argument could be made, that obstruction occured.

Thanks for sharing, I guess. About as useful to me as it being striking that Mueller didn't so something he wasn't allowed to do by his employer, but oh well.

I do think there is much more to this story though and my focus is on the entire story and not some overwhelming desire, to see one thing happen. If wanting an investigator who gathered evidence to be cross examined is over the top for you, so be it.

Yep, good example of repeating the claims of right-wing news sources - here we see the meme that there was some sort of conspiracy by law enforcement and counter-intelligence agencies against Donald and his employees because they investigated the contact with Russian agents one of his employees was bragging about.

 

[KCfromNC]

Now, this is where you rinse and repeat....”but Mueller didn’t charge the President with a crime...!”...........the Fox strategy..

Don't forget the other far-right RNC narrative - the FBI are the bad guys for investigating an organization that has people bragging about their contact with foreign agents with a history of interference in US elections. Lock them up!

 

[Pommer]

I have started my freworks season. We have to be ready per our permits/licensure by the 11th. So I am mad busy. I will get back to answer you guys in a day or 2.

Have a tremendous season!
(Let’s hope them tariffs on Chinese wares don’t devastate your profits!)

 

[rambot]

I CANNOT believe that we are 535 posts into this thread and some posters still believe things that Mueller has DIRECTLY and CLEARLY spoken on; has provided a clear and concise, easy to understand ENGLISH explanation of his actions, did not occur.

Or that Mueller himself is misguided and wrong.

I appreciate everyone's "stick-to-it"ness though because this is my longest threat ever!

In the meantime, this thread feels like an example of "leading horses to water".

 

[LostMarbels]

Have a tremendous season!

Ty, I surely hope so. It is my bread and butter. Literally 2/3 of our yearly income.

(Let’s hope them tariffs on Chinese wares don’t devastate your profits!)

Costco Says ‘Prices Will Go Up’ Because of China Tariffs

If you pay attention and invest in mitigating a problem before it arises you will have much easier time once that situation arises. Preplan, and address hypothetical issues that might actualy happen affecting your business, and you always end up in a better spot.

 

[rjs330]

Well, he did actually...

You haven’t bothered to read Vol II of his report, have you...?

Did he accuse Trump of criminal activity? Nope.
I don't have to read the entire report as others have posted the quotes of all the relevant information on this subject. You know what no one has posted? Mueller accusing Trump of committing a Criminal Offense. No one including you.

 

[rjs330]

I CANNOT believe that we are 535 posts into this thread and some posters still believe things that Mueller has DIRECTLY and CLEARLY spoken on; has provided a clear and concise, easy to understand ENGLISH explanation of his actions, did not occur.

Or that Mueller himself is misguided and wrong.

I appreciate everyone's "stick-to-it"ness though because this is my longest threat ever!

In the meantime, this thread feels like an example of "leading horses to water".

I find it interesting that 535 posts or more people still are trying to say that Mueller couldn't accuse Trump of committing an offense.

 

[rjs330]

Mueller referred to it as "fairness"
If you consider fairness to be nonsense, then that's upto you.
But Mueller and his SC team got to decide that they would utilise "fairness" and that was with respect to being fair for Trump. So he acted in a way which was beneficial to Trump. You, being a Trump supporter should be happy.

So now it's fair to say the we couldn't prove that a person didn't commit an offense. Well I can't prove you have beaten your significant other either. But I guess that's fair.