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

[bhsmte]

I understand that's your position. Mueller interpreted the DOJ policy differently.

He did and again, that didnt mean he could still not draw a conclusion. Someone is lying about why he stood moot on whether obstruction occured. One person has testified under oath and one hasnt.

Leaves a big gap for me.

 

[bhsmte]

Or Barr probably ordered Mueller to interpret DOJ policy that way.

All the more reason, for mueller to answer questions, under oath.

 

[KCfromNC]

Someone is lying about why he stood moot on whether obstruction occured.

What makes you believe this?

 

[rjs330]

No, I get it. You're either falling for or playing along with the whole "but if Mueller didn't bring charges on something he couldn't bring charges on, that means Donald is innocent" narrative. It isn't convincing.


Bolding mine ... Found your answer for you.

Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Mueller did not present a case that said we believe Trump committed this crime and here's our evidence. There is much wishy washy in this one

 

[bhsmte]

What makes you believe this?

Explained that clearly, in at least two posts.

 

[Pommer]

There is zero evidence of Mueller being loyal to anyone. Zero.

Thank teh gods!
From what I understand he swore “the Oath” to “protect and defend the Constitution”.
Good on him for that!

 

[Pommer]

Democrats are left with no choice but to impeach.

Ahhh, but “when?” is the key here.
Pelosi will allow such during Primary season, I’d wager.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Trump directed his lawyer to commit campaign finance violations and tried to obstruct justice but Mueller is the bad guy for being "wishy washy".

 

[Pommer]

Mueller’s statement concludes his participation in the effort to delegitimize the voters’ choice.

Funniest thing I read all week!

 

[Pommer]

Obstruction?
Thought the whole premise of the investigation was collusion.
Ok
So what evidence of obstruction exactly are you referring to?

You must be just chock-full of bliss!

 

[Sparagmos]

Funniest thing I read all week!

Plus, technically he wasn’t the voters choice! He won fair and square by the rules of the electoral college, but not because he was the voters’choice.

 

[Go Braves]

Of all of the things that Mueller could have highlighted from that 400+ page report, what did he emphasise...?

1. The Russians directed a wide-ranging attack on the US electoral system, in favour of the Trump candidacy.
2. Even if they’d wanted to, the Mueller team could not bring charges against a sitting president.
3. They could not declare the president innocent of obstruction charges.
4. That it was up to ‘other bodies’ to pick up where Mueller left off.

His message couldn’t be clearer....

Problem is, folks have to actually listen to the message for themselves. Read for themselves. Think critically for themselves. Instead of just going by what Donald's tweet tantrums have falsely claimed.

 

[stevil]

One more time; there is no policy, that prevented mueller from reaching a conclusion on his own investigation. Prosecutors dont indict, grand juries do.

READ: Robert Mueller's full remarks on the special counsel investigation - CNNPolitics
"And beyond Department policy, 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."

 

[stevil]

Probably?
I think this whole thing is based on probably. So far there hasn't been any press concerning exactly what "evidence" is being interpreted as solid... just "read the report" or Op Eds one way or another.... just opinion pieces that have no legs to stand up in court.

Here from Fox News

 

[USincognito]

Please do your fellow CFers the courtesy of actually reading the thread before posting a bunch of talk radio poppycock. This post reminds me of the women interviewed after Rep. Amash's town hall where say said she didn't know Mueller had found Trump had done anything wrong and that she got her news from Conservative sources.

All this effort, money spent, 500 witnesses subpoenaed ,26 lawyers and no solid evidence. What is left is innuendo, supposition and biased opinion.

This is a falsehood. Mueller basically said that if Trump wasn't a sitting president he'd be in handcuffs and over 1000 former DOJ prosecutors agree.
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

If there is a solid case then show the solid evidence to support it. But after these years of investigation with nothing but political opinion as a result

You haven't read the report. I don't even need to pose that as a question because it's obvious that you haven't.

I suppose letting go of the dream to overturn the legal vote of the people can be difficult.

This talking point is one of the most tiresome and inane out there. It's on par with chanting "no collusion" over and over like a mantra.

Mueller’s statement concludes his participation in the effort to delegitimize the voters’ choice. What ensues from here is nothing more than a smear campaign against Trump and the people who support and voted for him.

Vacuous histrionics devoid of substance or content. Screaming like Sean Hannity is not the same as making, or even having, a point.

The electoral college protects the peoples’ voice from being dominated solely by high population areas.
There is much wisdom in this.

Indeed. How terrible that actual people elect presidents rather than rocks and trees.

 

[stevil]

I would tend to think, the person actually in charge of the investigation, make a conclusion and be willing to go under oath and answer questions about the same.

If he isnt willing, it gives me pause and sort of takes away the credibility just a bit.

He's given the reason's why he didn't make a criminal claim in the case of Trump as sitting president, due to policy. He as also stated that he could not claim Trump's innocence due to the evidence rather than policy.

Also, the special council reported to the Attorney General. Which were politicians hand picked by Trump.
Bar and Rossenstien were quick to say they looked at the report and have come to the conclusion that Trump didn't obstruct justice. They would never have let Mueller submit a charge against Trump.
BTW Barr also claimed to know that Spying went on, but there was no such mention in the report.

The ridiculousness of Barr and Rossenstien publicly making a conclusion is shown up when Mueller states that making a charge against a sitting president must fall outside of the Department of Justice processes.

 

[USincognito]

No policy or law stopped mueller, from stating his investigation found enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction. Just as ken starr, concluded with clinton when he investigated.

President Clinton was not criminally charged with obstruction of justice. He impeached on that count.

As far as the policy, you can read this memo from the Watergate era.
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf

The important part is excerpted here:
Why can’t a sitting president be charged with a crime?

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the 1973 guidance, written when President Richard Nixon was facing obstruction of justice charges.​

 

[USincognito]

Obstruction?
Thought the whole premise of the investigation was collusion.

No it was not. This is what happens when folks listen to the "no collusion... no collusion... no collusion" mantra on talk radio and Fox News. The Special Counsel was never tasked with investigating " collusion" because there is no such crime as "collusion". That is the first part of the report you haven't read where it details the that while there was plenty of shady activity on the part of the Russians and Trump gladly benefited from it and used it to his advantage, there was no overt conspiracy.

So what evidence of obstruction exactly are you referring to?

The report has been out for weeks now. How can one be unaware of the evidence for obstruction unless one watches Fox all day? Go back and read the link to the letter signed by 1000 former prosecutors. It has a nice succinct summary.

 

[USincognito]

Meanwhile, Trump reacts - admitting for the first time Russia helped him :

“Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0b4105f7ca0_story.html?utm_term=.d182d92061b0

He was unfit for office before inauguration. He's only become more unhinged as time has passed. The Tweets will only get more maniacal as time passes. I can only imagine what will happen if he's impeached.

 

[bhsmte]

President Clinton was not criminally charged with obstruction of justice. He impeached on that count.

As far as the policy, you can read this memo from the Watergate era.
https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf

The important part is excerpted here:
Why can’t a sitting president be charged with a crime?

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the 1973 guidance, written when President Richard Nixon was facing obstruction of justice charges.​

I understand all that, but that does not preclude mueller from stating, our investigation concluded there is enough evidence ton conclude obstruction occured.