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

[bhsmte]

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.

Trumps behavior was and is, highly predictable, based on his past behavior. IMO, good likelihood he resigns, if impeachment is imminent. He will then claim it is everyone elses fault.

 

[Pommer]

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

It was never Mueller’s call (whether the President “committed a crime”).
That responsibility belongs to the House.

 

[bhsmte]

It was never Mueller’s call (whether the President “committed a crime”).
That responsibility belongs to the House.

I disagree and why you appoint a special council to begin with. He cant indict, but he can make a conclusion, based on his own investigation.

 

[NotreDame]

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

Not entirely accurate. There are 5 specific acts of conduct in the Report in which Mueller presents a strong case of obstruction, and of those 5 at least one if not two reads as Mueller telegraphing Trump obstructed as a very strong conclusion.

 

[USincognito]

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..

That's because you're watching Fox...

Op Eds one way or another.... just opinion pieces that have no legs to stand up in court.

Which is ironic since Fox is nearly all opinion.

Useful maybe for moving the needle concerning Trump's job approval perhaps? Where he stands now impeachment would be near impossible with those numbers. Now, if they were in the low 20's or high teens then maybe impeachment would stand a chance.

Will you please do some homework before posting this nonsense. President Clinton was sitting at about 65% job approval rating (much higher than Trump's 43%) when he was impeached. This isn't that hard to look up.
Presidential Approval Ratings -- Bill Clinton

 

[USincognito]

Ok, so why is Nadler investigating for obstruction if the evidence is out there for all to see? Two years of investigating not enough?

Were you similarly upset about the 4 years of the Starr investigation or the 8 years of Iran-Contra? What about the 14 different Benghazi hearings that produced nothing?

Has anyone ever done a comparison between the Starr report and the Mueller report? The Starr report was very explicit about evidence uncovered. But the Mueller report is mostly food for one's opinion. The Starr report was so revealing that the democrats passed laws about how much could be made public... unredacted.

You haven't read any of the report! How would you know the part in bold?

 

[USincognito]

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

That's how the DOJ operates. They're low key and they don't make pronouncements. They just lay out the evidence and then let the evidence speak for itself.

 

[stevil]

I disagree and why you appoint a special council to begin with. He cant indict, but he can make a conclusion, based on his own investigation.

The Special Council made a large amount of indictments against several "non president" people. Many of whom are spending time in jail right now.

Mueller has stated that he was not going to present a criminal case against the President, even if the President, in Mueller's opinion, had committed crimes.
Instead he has laid the evidence bare without any opinion or conclusion with regards to criminal wrong doing by the President.

We can argue whether he should have offered his proffessional opinion or not, but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't offer his opinion on the matter of the president.
He has left it upto processes outside the Justice System.

 

[Fantine]

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.

Oops, I clicked "agree" but then I realized that he didn't win "fair and square." Russian interference. Voter suppression, particularly in Wisconsin, where 200,000 were thrown off the voter rolls and Trump squeaked by with 11,000 votes. Gerrymandering. Comey. The Koch Brothers, Adelsons, and Mercers.

 

[Sparagmos]

Oops, I clicked "agree" but then I realized that he didn't win "fair and square." Russian interference. Voter suppression, particularly in Wisconsin, where 200,000 were thrown off the voter rolls and Trump squeaked by with 11,000 votes. Gerrymandering. Comey. The Koch Brothers, Adelsons, and Mercers.

You got me there!

 

[Always in His Presence]

1) Does this statement from Mueller's press conference today change your understanding of the report?

2)If it does: How?
If it does not: Why not?


Personally, it doesn't change my understanding as this is what I have understood from the beginning.

He quoted the report? Why would anything change

 

[mark kennedy]

1) Does this statement from Mueller's press conference today change your understanding of the report?

2)If it does: How?
If it does not: Why not?


Personally, it doesn't change my understanding as this is what I have understood from the beginning.

It was like when Comey was fired and Trump.kept saying the FBI was in chaos. I didn't need to hear Comey call it a lie to know it was, I juat needed to hear him say it. I didn't believe Sarah Sanders when she said they heard from countless FBI agents who were disgruntled. I just took special pride seeing her admit it was a lie when confronted by Mueller. Mueller said repeatedly this isn't new information but I loved hearing him confirm the obvious.

 

[rambot]

He quoted the report? Why would anything change

Because some choose to, or simply don't understand what Mueller is saying

 

[stevil]

He quoted the report? Why would anything change

Due to the statements made by AG Barr (both pre release and post release) as well as Trump's tweets post release of the SC Report, there was confusion with regards to why the SC did not indict the President and why the SC Report did not make a claim of criminal wrong doing by the President.

AG Barr claimed (under oath) that if the SC had found evidence of criminal wrong doing by the President then a claim would have been included in the report.
Trump claimed that the report totally exonerates him personally from collusion and obstruction.

Mueller's public statement made it clear that the report was never going to make any claim of criminal wrong doing by the sitting president (even if the SC team determined that the president had done criminal wrong doing).
Mueller also made it clear that the report does not exonerate the President of obstruction because it could not be determined that the President hadn't obstructed.
Mueller was clear that any claims of criminal wrong doing by the sitting president, would not come from the Department of Justice and would have to come via other avenues.

So, as it turns out, either AG Barr and the President where behaving likes Pigeons playing chess (knocking over all the pieces and rushing home to claim victory).
Or they were intentionally deceiving the public (and in the case of Barr, intentionally deceiving congress - a criminal act in itself) in order to cover-up.
Also with regards to the Democrat leaders, they appear to have been cowering like scared little children, waiting to be given permission by big daddy (Mueller) to act on the evidence submitted in the report.

Now it seems the Democrat leaders realise they need to decide for themselves (hopefully with the help of legal council) whether to act on the evidence and accuse the President of criminal behaviour.Basically, they need to grow a pair...

One would think the Republican supporter can now see that they have been mislead by Barr and Trump. But mostly they probably won't.
Would the impeachment trials change their minds?????

 

[Pommer]

He has left it upto processes outside the Justice System.

Where it belongs.
Mueller did his job.
He might be irked that Congress doesn’t seem up to the task, but I think that he’s satisfied with the job he, himself, has done.
His testimony will be dull.
He won’t go beyond quoting his report.
If pressed he may lash out at the poor Congress-critter poking the lion.

 

[stevil]

Where it belongs.
Mueller did his job.
He might be irked that Congress doesn’t seem up to the task, but I think that he’s satisfied with the job he, himself, has done.
His testimony will be dull.
He won’t go beyond quoting his report.
If pressed he may lash out at the poor Congress-critter poking the lion.

I agree that the report stands as a complete account of a thorough investigation, and provides enough detail for Congress to decide (with the help of legal council) whether to accuse the president of a crime and try to make him accountable.

The only point I can see in having Mueller testify, is with regards to assessing if Barr lied or mislead congress.

I do wonder on a few things.
1. If they go through the impeachment process and show in convincing fashion that the President committed a crime, would the Republicans be willing to hold him accountable or would they protect him at all costs? Essentially, are they happy having a leader who operates illegally, and do they support this behaviour?
2. Would the voters who are Republican supporters care that this party supports criminal behaviour, or would they then decide to no longer support that party. i.e. Will the Republican party, support of a criminal leader and criminal activity have any enduring effect on the reputation and future prospects of this party/brand?
3. If the Republicans in the Senate decide to ignore the impeachment, does this mean that Trump is let off the hook? Would it still be possible to put these criminal charges onto him once he eventually leaves office?
4. If they don't try to impeach the president, does it make it more likely that he will meet his due under the Justice System once he eventually leaves office?

ALSO, by the way, it seems Trump and Barr's strategy going forward is to attack Mueller's credibility. Trying to start an argument about whether Mueller should have made a criminal judgement and hence not making that judgement makes Mueller out to be weak and incompetent.
They are publicly decreeing that Mueller's position "It would be unfair to claim criminal activity if the president has no means to make his case in court" as being a position of weakness and incompetence, rather than one of high integrity, professionalism and compassion.

They see integrity, professionalism and compassion as being weakness.

 

[Allandavid]

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

Mueller went further than the OLC guidelines though. As strange as it might seem in these times, he also employed a ‘fairness doctrine’ in his statements. He considered it unfair to even make the conclusion that you describe, as the person so accused would not have the opportunity to seek redress of such a claim.

So, you could charge him with being too fair, perhaps...?

And remember, he does actually list and describe a number of obstructive acts committed by Trump....

 

[mark kennedy]

Mueller said specifically, based on the policy of the DOJ, it's unconstitutional to charge a sitting President. That just might change should Trunp gets voted out. Biden leads Trunp by double digits. On the Conspiracy investigation he found insufficient evidence. Obstruction is another matter and Trunp is blocking the House from obtaining relavent documents, actually stonewalling. This is far from over, boasting no obstruction is premature at best.

 

[Go Braves]

It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but per department rules we're not allowed to label it as a waterfowl.

 

[rjs330]

Due to the statements made by AG Barr (both pre release and post release) as well as Trump's tweets post release of the SC Report, there was confusion with regards to why the SC did not indict the President and why the SC Report did not make a claim of criminal wrong doing by the President.

AG Barr claimed (under oath) that if the SC had found evidence of criminal wrong doing by the President then a claim would have been included in the report.
Trump claimed that the report totally exonerates him personally from collusion and obstruction.

Mueller's public statement made it clear that the report was never going to make any claim of criminal wrong doing by the sitting president (even if the SC team determined that the president had done criminal wrong doing).
Mueller also made it clear that the report does not exonerate the President of obstruction because it could not be determined that the President hadn't obstructed.
Mueller was clear that any claims of criminal wrong doing by the sitting president, would not come from the Department of Justice and would have to come via other avenues.

So, as it turns out, either AG Barr and the President where behaving likes Pigeons playing chess (knocking over all the pieces and rushing home to claim victory).
Or they were intentionally deceiving the public (and in the case of Barr, intentionally deceiving congress - a criminal act in itself) in order to cover-up.
Also with regards to the Democrat leaders, they appear to have been cowering like scared little children, waiting to be given permission by big daddy (Mueller) to act on the evidence submitted in the report.

Now it seems the Democrat leaders realise they need to decide for themselves (hopefully with the help of legal council) whether to act on the evidence and accuse the President of criminal behaviour.Basically, they need to grow a pair...

One would think the Republican supporter can now see that they have been mislead by Barr and Trump. But mostly they probably won't.
Would the impeachment trials change their minds?????

He also didn't conclude that Trump had committed a crime as you point out. If the point wasn't to investigate and determine if a crime had occurred or not then what was the point?

Why do this if you couldn't say there was wrongdoing? Was the point to say 'we couldn't exonerate?" I don't think that was the mandate. The mandate was for him to find wrong doing including if Trump cooperated, collaborated etc with the Russians. Trump is innocent until.proven guilty. Innocent means innocent. And Mueller dis not present any evidence of a crime nor did he state he believed a crime had been committed.