Mueller speaks about the Russia investigation

This was and is being covered by every news organization on earth. No one had to come here to find out about it.

But the pack of Democrat lawyers doing the investigating did not have that confidence at the start, either, so it is safe to say that what Mueller is explaining now amounts to exactly what the President has said about it--there is no there there. Nothing.

tulc said:

Mueller: If we had confidence the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so
just happened a little bit ago.
tulc(just thought people would be interested)

Click to expand...

I watched.

I had my questions about Mueller's motives once he assembled the team that he did, and he convinced me today that he is a totally unethical and unprincipled person.

Lawrence Walsh, special counsel in the Iran/Contra investigation, concluded that both President Reagan and Vice President Bush had violated rules/broken the law, but they were crimes for which there were no penalties. In other words, there was no point in prosecuting them. I don't even remember what those infractions were and don't care enough to look it up.

Ken Starr did not indict or suggest President Clinton should be indicted. But in his report he clearly indicated 13 specific crimes committed by President Clinton along with his evidence for that. It was then left up to Congress what to do with it.

Mueller had two years and millions of dollars to use to investigate. The White House provided him 1.4 million documents and refused him none. No executive privilege was evoked to prevent him from interviewing people or otherwise seeking evidence. He interviewed 500 people and indicted several--none for crimes that had anything to do with President Trump--dragged their names through the mud, broke them financially, ruined them professionally, and put unconscionable stress on their families trying to get some dirt on the President. And he had the most maliciously partisan team hostile to President Trump and pro Hillary that he could have assembled.

And with all that, he could not point to any specific crime that President Trump had committed? He didn't have to indict. All he had to say is that he concluded that President Trump and/or members of his campaign colluded with Russians here and here and here. President Trump obstructed justice here and here and here. Mueller didn't do that.

But what he did do this morning was pour gasoline on the fire practically insisting that the Democrats keep up their witch hunt and go after the President.

That was dirty, slimy, unethical, and evil. Whatever respect I had for the man based on others' opinion of him is completely gone now.

Albion said:

But the pack of Democrat lawyers doing the investigating did not have that confidence at the start, either, so it is safe to say that what Mueller is explaining now amounts to exactly what the President has said about it--there is no there there. Nothing.

Click to expand...

That's not at all what was said.

"If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so... under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider." -- Robert Mueller

In other words, all the evidence is there to say that Trump committed obstruction of justice, but Mueller could not do anything per DOJ rules.

JosephZ said:

In other words, all the evidence is there to say that Trump committed obstruction of justice, but Mueller could not do anything per DOJ rules.

Click to expand...

No, he didn't say that.

Albion said:

No, he didn't say that.

Click to expand...

Mueller said that if Trump wasn't guilty he would have said so. He didn't say so.

JosephZ said:

Mueller said that if Trump wasn't guilty he would have said so. He didn't say so.

Click to expand...

But he also said that, Justice department policy not withstanding, if a crime had been committed in their opinion, they would have said so. They didn't. Your post was incorrect.

JosephZ said:

Mueller said that if Trump wasn't guilty he would have said so. He didn't say so.

Click to expand...

But Mueller did say:

“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.....That is the office’s final position.”

Logic Over Emotionalism said:

But Mueller did say:

“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.....That is the office’s final position.”

Click to expand...

Here is a little more context to add to that sentence.

Under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited...

...the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing...

...we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime.

Charging President Trump with a crime was never an option as it was against DOJ policy and would have been unconstitutional. It was never even a consideration for the DOJ to charge him with a crime. Had he not been president, he would have surely been indicted along with the other 34 people during this investigation.

The key sentence in the above quote is "the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."

Only congress can do something when it comes to a sitting president committing crimes. So now it is up to congress if they want to pursue further action.

The bottom line; the DOJ couldn't reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime, because it was prohibited from doing so.

Foxfyre said:

I watched.

I had my questions about Mueller's motives once he assembled the team that he did, and he convinced me today that he is a totally unethical and unprincipled person.

Lawrence Walsh, special counsel in the Iran/Contra investigation, concluded that both President Reagan and Vice President Bush had violated rules/broken the law, but they were crimes for which there were no penalties. In other words, there was no point in prosecuting them. I don't even remember what those infractions were and don't care enough to look it up.

Ken Starr did not indict or suggest President Clinton should be indicted. But in his report he clearly indicated 13 specific crimes committed by President Clinton along with his evidence for that. It was then left up to Congress what to do with it.

Mueller had two years and millions of dollars to use to investigate. The White House provided him 1.4 million documents and refused him none. No executive privilege was evoked to prevent him from interviewing people or otherwise seeking evidence. He interviewed 500 people and indicted several--none for crimes that had anything to do with President Trump--dragged their names through the mud, broke them financially, ruined them professionally, and put unconscionable stress on their families trying to get some dirt on the President. And he had the most maliciously partisan team hostile to President Trump and pro Hillary that he could have assembled.

And with all that, he could not point to any specific crime that President Trump had committed? He didn't have to indict. All he had to say is that he concluded that President Trump and/or members of his campaign colluded with Russians here and here and here. President Trump obstructed justice here and here and here. Mueller didn't do that.

But what he did do this morning was pour gasoline on the fire practically insisting that the Democrats keep up their witch hunt and go after the President.

That was dirty, slimy, unethical, and evil. Whatever respect I had for the man based on others' opinion of him is completely gone now.

Click to expand...

What Mueller did today was what any good American should do. Tell the truth.

Yarddog said:

What Mueller did today was what any good American should do. Tell the truth.

Click to expand...

I would bet a pretty good steak dinner is that he did not tell the truth today, or at least he buried it under so much obfusication and distortion that nobody would be able to discern the truth from it.

Foxfyre said:

I would bet a pretty good steak dinner is that he did not tell the truth today, or at least he buried it under so much obfusication and distortion that nobody would be able to discern the truth from it.

Click to expand...

The distortion has been painted by the Trump team as they twist and rewrite their narrative of what the investigation found. Trump has gone from praise to condemnation of the report and back again, on a weekly basis.

Albion said:

But the pack of Democrat lawyers doing the investigating did not have that confidence at the start, either, so it is safe to say that what Mueller is explaining now amounts to exactly what the President has said about it--there is no there there. Nothing.

Click to expand...

Mueller seems to disagree, noting that his investigation came up with a number of attempts at obstruction of justice. Since it's not possible to indict a sitting president, that will have to be resolved after the next election.