What the Mueller Hearing Was Really About

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Neither the Democrats nor Republicans were seeking any information or clarification. Mueller said that he would not go outside the language or information already provided in his report. And he was true to his word on this.

The Democrats put this thing together in order to create a groundswell of support for impeachment proceedings among the public. They knew that Americans don't read, and they especially don't read boring stuff. Americans didn't read the Mueller report. So they wanted 3 hours of airtime to rehearse what they view as the most damaging info from the Mueller report in the hopes that America could get the audio version.

There's no question now that the Democrats want to move in the direction of impeachment proceedings. The question is were they successful in stirring up momentum and support for such proceedings through today's theatrics. What do you think?

It was a dud.

The formerly fawning media were hateful in their description of Mueller as "having lost a step or two", or perhaps having been a "respectable front" for the real puppeteers. This was their hero and what appeared in the hearing was an ageing man who projected no sense of the gravitas he had in still images.

Meanwhile, Trump keeps on truckin' and DOING the things he said he would do (or that he can do, seeing that he is boxed in on some issues, such as The Wall).

 

[Yekcidmij]

Mueller's report followed regulations.

From Ratcliffe and Turner's points it's not clear to me that they did. Or, it may be that the regulations themselves are sufficiently vague so that the Office of Special Council couldn't consistently follow them despie their best efforts.

It was not intended for the public but for the Attorney General. It was to present the facts to the AG who would make the determination if charges would be filed. Mueller made no decision whether to charge or exonerate Trump for his part in the investigation because DOJ rules keep sitting Presidents from being charged with a crime.

One of Ratcliff's points was that the Office of Special Council didn't have the power to declare someone exonerated or not as those are not a legal statuses. Nobody, including the AG, has a power to exonerate or not-exonerate people. Yet the report declares that the President is not exonerated.

I'm not exonerated or non-exonerated. You're not exonerated or non-exonerated. We're simply innocent unless proven guilty.

 

[Yarddog]

From Ratcliffe and Turner's points it's not clear to me that they did.

That's because neither of these gentlemen brought those up. They asked questions which not applicable to the DOJ report. It was Mueller's place to exonerate the president, it was his place to give the evidence to the AG. He gave Barr is opinion on the evidence. Ratcliffe and Turner never touched on that. Their intention was to make their base believe that Mueller did something improper while he followed DOJ regulations.

Or, it may be that the regulations themselves are sufficiently vague so that the Office of Special Council couldn't consistently follow them despie their best efforts.

They aren't vague but if but if misleading questions are asked, vagueness is the appearance.

One of Ratcliff's points was that the Office of Special Council didn't have the power to declare someone exonerated or not as those are not a legal statuses.

And Mueller didn't.

Nobody, including the AG, has a power to exonerate or not-exonerate people.

The AG did neither. The AG does have the authority to file charges against someone that they believe the evidence is sufficient to take them to trial. The court system can then convict or exonerate.

Yet the report declares that the President is not exonerated.

Yes and there is nothing legally wrong with Mueller telling the AG that the evidence doesn't exonerate the president. It is the opinion of the Special Counsel which he gave to Barr. Both Ratcliffe and Turner know this but that wasn't the message that they wanted their base to hear.

I'm not exonerated or non-exonerated. You're not exonerated or non-exonerated. We're simply innocent unless proven guilty.

To the Court system you are. That, though, isn't how law enforcement looks at it. They are to follow the evidence and present the evidence to the courts. If Law enforcement cannot prove you guilty, you are innocent under the law regardless if you were actually guilty.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here’s what Mueller said:

Russia interfered in our election to help Trump.

Russians made numerous contacts with the campaign.

Campaign welcomed their help.

No one reported these contacts or interference to FBI.

They lied to cover it up.

Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct the investigation. (which is a crime in itself)

 

[The Barbarian]

To the Court system you are. That, though, isn't how law enforcement looks at it. They are to follow the evidence and present the evidence to the courts. If Law enforcement cannot prove you guilty, you are innocent under the law regardless if you were actually guilty.

And of course, voters just decide for themselves. Which is the double whammy of the Mueller testimony. It hurts his re-election chances, and if he's not re-elected, he becomes open to indictments for various criminal acts.

During the House Judiciary half of the hearing, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) asked Mueller about a potential Trump indictment on obstruction of justice charges. Specifically, he asked if Trump could potentially be indicted after he leaves office, when OLC ruling on indicting sitting presidents no longer protects him.

The former special counsel’s answer was simple: “Yes.”

This probably is not the answer the GOP members of the committee wanted. One of the key GOP arguments was that because Mueller didn’t indict Trump, he should be considered exonerated due to “the presumption of innocence” in the criminal justice system. Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) was the most forceful advocate of this view.

But if Mueller still thinks Trump could be tried after he leaves office, this analysis no longer makes sense. Mueller didn’t conclude that there was insufficient evidence to try Trump, but rather that Trump could not legally be prosecuted. It’s also really bad for Trump personally: It’s now firmly established that if he loses the 2020 election, he could be charged if the next president’s Justice Department opts to pursue it.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/24/20708503/robert-mueller-testimony-winners-losers

And of course, there are a number of state AGs waiting until he's out of office to begin criminal proceedings.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Their intention was to make their base believe that Mueller did something improper while he followed DOJ regulations.

This is going to sound bad, but I think you give the base more credit than I was doing. I doubt the base watching really cares about legal musings about "exoneration" or powers delegated to the AG by the US Code or the delegated powers to the Spec Council by documented authority. I could be wrong though.

 

[Yarddog]

This is going to sound bad, but I think you give the base more credit than I was doing. I doubt the base watching really cares about legal musings about "exoneration" or powers delegated to the AG by the US Code or the delegated powers to the Spec Council by documented authority. I could be wrong though.

Well, they heard what they wanted to hear. That Trump was improperly investigated. They weren't looking for the truth. Those videos like show up on every social media and right wing site but no one will provide the facts.

 

[Blade]

Heres something I read.. not sure why not posted 'Attorney General Bill Barr told Fox News on Tuesday that it was former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team who asked the Justice Department to send Mueller a letter telling him to keep his upcoming testimony to House lawmakers "within the boundaries" of the public version of his Russia probe report."

The simple truth. There was so much Mueller could have talked about with in the limits of this. Like one congress man said "WHY"? It seemed to me Mueller should get an acting job or he really didn't write that report. If you know about these things then you know Mueller if he wrote it..WOULD have gone over that report so many times before it was handed in. So Mueller wanted to stall.. or just had his name stamped on it.

Now.. it looks even more like Trump got treated unfairly. I still read about subpoenas and how the House is going after them that didn't listen to it. But one person was given a subpoena and didn't hand over the stuff.. deleted it.. smashed things.. destroyed hard drive. And what happen? Nothing. Was told to hand over Lap Top to who? The WHO said? "sorry that laptop? Got lost in the mail".

 

[The Barbarian]

Now.. it looks even more like Trump got treated unfairly.

Comes down to evidence. Mueller has substantiated the findings I listed above. Anyone who wasn't president would be indicted now. As soon as he leaves office, he's no longer immune to any of those charges.

And convoluted conspiracy theories aren't going to change any of the evidence.

 

[parousia70]

Meanwhile, Trump keeps on truckin' and DOING the things he said he would do (or that he can do, seeing that he is boxed in on some issues, such as The Wall).

I take umbrage to this use of Truckin'

 

[Alien Lotus]

A lot of misinformation surrounded the Special Council's investigation and final report. Mueller didn't write the report. Which is why he simply referred to what was in the report when asked, and didn't provide any direct information as pertained to pages, or sections.

Furthermore, a Democrat in the panel asked Mueller to reiterate that he did not exonerate Trump in his report. Well, no kidding. Mueller doesn't have the authority to either convict nor exonerate. His was an investigation. And President Donald Trump is fully protected by the presumption of innocence till proven guilty in any investigation.

What did happen that was under Mueller's jurisdiction is, he found no evidence of either collusion or obstruction of justice by Donald Trump or anyone related to his campaign or other interests.

That settles the whole matter. Because that's all Mueller was charged with finding out and all that he could arrive at as a conclusion, by law.

If Russia collusion and obstruction of justice were a fair intent for an open investigation , we know there is plenty to find on the other side of the aisle. Starting with our former President Obama, down to his appointed Secretary of State who served the office at his pleasure, down to Comey, who is one of Mueller's best friends, and onward.

Will that investigation with actual evidence get underway? Not likely. But at least this fiasco is over and done with.
Poor Mueller. He was failing terribly in that five hour circus. But at least he can go home and stay retired now.
God be with him.

 

[parousia70]

A lot of misinformation surrounded the Special Council's investigation and final report....

What did happen that was under Mueller's jurisdiction is, he found no evidence of either collusion or obstruction of justice by Donald Trump or anyone related to his campaign or other interests.

Speaking of misinformation, What Law governs collusion exactly?

Oh, and there were 10 examples of evidence of obstruction he found, If you believe correcting misinformation is truly important in all of this.

 

[childeye 2]

Neither the Democrats nor Republicans were seeking any information or clarification. Mueller said that he would not go outside the language or information already provided in his report. And he was true to his word on this.

The Democrats put this thing together in order to create a groundswell of support for impeachment proceedings among the public. They knew that Americans don't read, and they especially don't read boring stuff. Americans didn't read the Mueller report. So they wanted 3 hours of airtime to rehearse what they view as the most damaging info from the Mueller report in the hopes that America could get the audio version.

There's no question now that the Democrats want to move in the direction of impeachment proceedings. The question is were they successful in stirring up momentum and support for such proceedings through today's theatrics. What do you think?

I think it moved the needle a little.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Neither the Democrats nor Republicans were seeking any information or clarification. Mueller said that he would not go outside the language or information already provided in his report. And he was true to his word on this.

The Democrats put this thing together in order to create a groundswell of support for impeachment proceedings among the public. They knew that Americans don't read, and they especially don't read boring stuff. Americans didn't read the Mueller report. So they wanted 3 hours of airtime to rehearse what they view as the most damaging info from the Mueller report in the hopes that America could get the audio version.

There's no question now that the Democrats want to move in the direction of impeachment proceedings. The question is were they successful in stirring up momentum and support for such proceedings through today's theatrics. What do you think?

It may have failed however it was enlightening to those who love the truth.

 

[The Barbarian]

A lot of misinformation surrounded the Special Council's investigation and final report.

Here's what Mueller said about the results of his investigation found in the report:

• Russia interfered in our election to help Trump.
• Russians made numerous contacts with the campaign.
• Campaign welcomed their help.
• No one reported these contacts or interference to FBI.
• They lied to cover it up.
• Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct the investigation. (which is a crime in itself)

Since it's highly unlikely that the senate republicans will vote to convict, I expect we'll see an increasingly crippled presidency stagger on to the election. Unless he does something soon, he is likely to be turned out of office, and if that happens, he'll be indicted for the crimes Mueller documented in the report.

 

[childeye 2]

It may have failed however it was enlightening to those who love the truth.

I think it was important to point out the obvious opportunity for blackmail that was made possible by lying about the communications with Russia that they said had never occurred.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think it was important to point out the obvious opportunity for blackmail that was made possible by lying about the communications with Russia that they said had never occurred.

That is perhaps the most troubling revelation. I don't know if it happened, but Putin certainly had the lever if he wanted to use it.

 

[Alien Lotus]

Speaking of misinformation, What Law governs collusion exactly?

Excellent. Thank you. That's one alleged impeachable issue that won't float.

Oh, and there were 10 examples of evidence of obstruction he found, If you believe correcting misinformation is truly important in all of this.

Oh, but you forgot this part in Mueller's report. Mueller evaluated 10 episodes for possible obstruction of justice, and said he could not conclusively determine that Trump had committed criminal obstruction.

 

[The Barbarian]

Oh, but you forgot this part in Mueller's report. Mueller evaluated 10 episodes for possible obstruction of justice, and said he could not conclusively determine that Trump had committed criminal obstruction.

He did, however document that Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct the investigation, each of which is a felony.

Mueller’s analysis of the evidence clearly points toward an attempt to obstruct justice in that circumstance. He established that Trump intended for McGahn to tell the Justice Department to remove Mueller, and that he did so out of concern that Mueller was looking into his firing of FBI Director James Comey. “Substantial evidence indicates that the president’s attempts to remove the special counsel were linked to the special counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the president’s conduct—and, most immediately, to reports that the president was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice,” Mueller wrote.
...
What’s more, Mueller even briefly addressed the prospect of charging a defendant with attempted obstruction of justice. “Under general principles of attempt law, a person is guilty of an attempt when he has the intent to commit a substantive offense and takes an overt act that constitutes a substantial step towards that goal,” Mueller explains in a two-paragraph analysis. He also quotes a recent ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals holding that prosecutors “need not prove that the due administration of justice was actually obstructed or impeded” when prosecution attempts to obstruct justice.
How to Get Away With Obstruction of Justice

 

[childeye 2]

That is perhaps the most troubling revelation. I don't know if it happened, but Putin certainly had the lever if he wanted to use it.

Combined with the blatant obstruction, I highly doubt that it's incompetence. In fact Trump may still be compromised by things the investigation didn't look into...