Live discussion of Robert Mueller's testimoony today - hopefully respectful

[Felis Leo]

Did he exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice? Don't think so; and that question remains open, no matter how you try to spin it.

But that is a nonsensical question, snakestretcher.

I am sure that I will not be the first person or last person on this thread and elsewhere to pedantically point out that in the United States neither state nor federal prosecutors can "exonerate" someone they are investigating or prosecuting. They can refuse to bring charges, and they can dismiss the charges after having them filed if they believe the defendant was wrongly charged after the fact. But they cannot deem someone "not guilty" of a crime through acquittal or exoneration because they have the power to do neither. Perhaps in the United Kingdom, the prosecution has the power to acquit or exonerate the accused of any crime. But in the United States, it is the power of the Court. Only a Court of Law can acquit or exonerate the criminally accused. A prosecutor cannot acquit or exonerate a defendant any more than a prosecutor can pardon someone; only a governor or President may do so.

So to say with any sense of satisfaction or triumph that "Mueller did not exonerate Trump" makes about as much sense as saying "Mueller did not pardon Trump." Within his office, he does not have the power to do either.

 

[veritas1]

Did you LISTEN to the commentary?

Trump ABSOLUTELY attempted to interfere in the investigation. It's in plain english.

He bullied witnesses, he dangled pardons, he ordered firings.

Are you just being willingly blind?

No, I'm simply not a party to the ongoing get Trump effort. There never should have been any special counsel investigation into so called collusion and it only happened because of Comey's illegal leaking of documents to his friend who then took them to Brennan who gave them to Harry Reid. The whole thing has been cooked up from the start as far as Trump's role in it. But, like I said, impeach if you insist.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Ms Sewel doesn't like that she cannot get Mueller to say what she wants. He several times said he could not accept her characterization of incidents.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Exoneration. Slippery slope. Can the AG exonerate. Mueller doesn't answer. Will not answer. This is not a good look for Mueller.

 

[Obscurity]

No, I'm simply not a party to the ongoing get Trump effort. There never should have been any special counsel investigation into so called collusion and it only happened because of Comey's illegal leaking of documents to his friend who then took them to Brennan who gave them to Harry Reid. The whole thing has been cooked up from the start as far as Trump's role in it. But, like I said, impeach if you insist.

Wrong. You apply two sets of standards, one for Trump, one for everyone else.

If you go and try to impede in a police investigation, you'd be arrested. Trump attempted to impede a lawful and duly ordered investigation into Russia illegally attempting to alter our electoral process. You completely ignore that the "collusion" narrative was not the genesis of this investigation.

Get out of your ****ing soundbox, jesus christ, the nation is tearing itself apart at the seems and folks like you can't even be bothered to be honest about the genesis of the report, and apply an absurd standard to the president that makes them absolutely above the law.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Mr. Turner good job. Mueller you messed up but I doubt Mueller put that statement into the report. I suspect he didn't know it was there until after the fact. His 19 lawyers who hate Trump did put it in there and left Mueller holding the bag.

 

[Mycroft]

Exoneration. Slippery slope. Can the AG exonerate. Mueller doesn't answer. Will not answer. This is not a good look for Mueller.

Mueller was saved by the bell in that round.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The one thing this hearing is good for. Showing the American people just how far off the rails the politics in this country have gone.

 

[daeler]

Don't vote, and participate, you don't have the right to then bitch about that which you do not agree. Pretty simple concept.

So do you disagree with the first amendment then? I ask because I don't want to just assume something without verification.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Democrats making lots of statements Mueller cannot agree with.

 

[veritas1]

Wrong. You apply two sets of standards, one for Trump, one for everyone else.

If you go and try to impede in a police investigation, you'd be arrested. Trump attempted to impede a lawful and duly ordered investigation into Russia illegally attempting to alter our electoral process. You completely ignore that the "collusion" narrative was not the genesis of this investigation.

Get out of your ****ing soundbox, jesus christ, the nation is tearing itself apart at the seems and folks like you can't even be bothered to be honest about the genesis of the report, and apply an absurd standard to the president that makes them absolutely above the law.

The ONLY thing that speaks to this is the Mueller Report and Mueller DOES NOT reach the conclusions that you do. This is simply a fact. Whether you refuse to acknowledge that fact is your business. Trump isn't above the law. That being so, you must impeach if you think he broke one.

 

[tres borrachos]

No, I'm simply not a party to the ongoing get Trump effort. There never should have been any special counsel investigation into so called collusion and it only happened because of Comey's illegal leaking of documents to his friend who then took them to Brennan who gave them to Harry Reid. The whole thing has been cooked up from the start as far as Trump's role in it. But, like I said, impeach if you insist.

Why hasn't anyone indicted Comey for this "illegal leaking" that happened years ago?

 

[veritas1]

Mueller was saved by the bell in that round.

Turner was great. Exonerate was put in there simply to sow doubt, most likely by the Hillary supporters writing the report. It has no basis in law.

 

[Pound4abrown]

So do you disagree with the first amendment then? I ask because I don't want to just assume something without verification.

I am not the government, I cannot stop her from saying anything. The 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." My assertion does none of those, and I am not part of Congress. So I stand by my assertion that if you don't vote, and you don't respect the right of voting, you don't get to question how government is running. Have some skin the game or leave the arena.

 

[Obscurity]

The ONLY thing that speaks to this is the Mueller Report and Mueller DOES NOT reach the conclusions that you do. This is simply a fact. Whether you refuse to acknowledge that fact is your business. Trump isn't above the law. That being so, you must impeach if you think he broke one.

No. You're being dishonest.

Trump ordered the firing of the special counsel. That in and of itself explicitly shows he attempted to impede a lawful investigation.

You need to admit facts before you try and say you're being factual.

Again. Say it.

Trump ordered Mueller fired. Say it.

 

[HumblePi]

The head of the investigation should at least be familiar with the content of their own summary, no? :roll:

Muller mysteriously only had the ability to answer the Democrat questions, which he had been coached on, and floundered when asked questions he was not prepped on.

It's looking to be very likely that the reason for the week long delay AND the last minute inclusion of Adam Zebley was that the Democrats were in a panic by how unprepared Mueller was... AND it is now clear why Mueller requested that this day never come in the first place... he just had little to do with the report.

If you go back and compare the questions from the right and left, it's clear that democrats have asked questions that only confirm what has already been documented in the Mueller report. Conversely, republicans went outside those lines and questioned him about the credibility of witnesses or the validity of other claims that were not within the confines of the investigation. Subsequently, it appears to the partisan eye that he was not clear about answers to questions obviously contrived by republicans to make Mueller appear that he either didn't know the answer or was evading the answer and that not an accurate conclusion.

 

[Obscurity]

Turner was great. Exonerate was put in there simply to sow doubt, most likely by the Hillary supporters writing the report. It has no basis in law.

And there it is.

You're a completely blind partisan and we have nothing further to discuss on this topic.

 

[veritas1]

Why hasn't anyone indicted Comey for this "illegal leaking" that happened years ago?

Perhaps it will come. That it was illegal is not in doubt. Comey's notes made as part of his duties are not his property. They are FBI property and he had no authority to give them to a civilian.

 

[Obscurity]

If you go back and compare the questions from the right and left, it's clear that democrats have asked questions that only confirm what has already been documented in the Mueller report. Conversely, republicans went outside those lines and questioned him about the credibility of witnesses or the validity of other claims that were not within the confines of the investigation. Subsequently, it appears to the partisan eye that he was not clear about answers to questions obviously contrived by republicans to make Mueller appear that he either didn't know the answer or was evading the answer and that not an accurate conclusion.

The idiot republicans are asking questions outside the report to try and make Mueller look uncredible even though the DOJ told Mueller he cannot stray from the report.

It's insanity.

The republican party has absolutely gone completely insane.

 

[Mr Person]

Did he exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice? Don't think so; and that question remains open, no matter how you try to spin it.

But that is a nonsensical question, snakestretcher.

I am sure that I will not be the first person or last person on this thread and elsewhere to pedantically point out that in the United States neither state nor federal prosecutors can "exonerate" someone they are investigating or prosecuting. They can refuse to bring charges, and they can dismiss the proceeding. But they cannot deem someone "not guilty" of a crime. Perhaps in the United Kingdom, the prosecution has the power to acquit or exonerate the accused of any crime. But in the United States, it is the power of the Court. Only a Court of Law can acquit or exonerate the criminally accused. A prosecutor cannot acquit or exonerate a defendant any more than a prosecutor can pardon someone; only a governor or President may do so.

So to say with any sense of satisfaction or triumph that "Mueller did not exonerate Trump" makes about as much sense as saying "Mueller did not pardon Trump." Within his office, he does not have the power to do either.

Word games. Pure semantics.

You know exactly what snakestretcher was referring to, namely Trump's claim (repeated by right wing media and most DP right wingers) that Mueller "completely exonerated him." And you know this is not a legal term of art when used by Trump and then Trump's statements are discussed. Rather, "exonerate" as used here means "to say he [Mueller] did not believe Trump was guilty of" or somesuch configuration.

For example, part of what Mueller today said was:

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. . . . We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

The same article contains:

In his opening statement, Mueller also addressed the question of obstruction: Did Trump try to interfere with the probe? “We investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation,” he said. “Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.” He was pressed on this in the first question offered by Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). “Director Mueller,” Nadler asked, “the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?” “Correct,” Mueller replied. “That is not what the report said.”

Nadler quoted from a section of the report in which Mueller’s team wrote that it would have exonerated Trump on the question of obstruction if it could. But, the report says, it couldn’t. “So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?” Nadler asked. “That is correct,” Mueller replied. “And what about total exoneration? Did you totally exonerate the president?” Nadler continued. “No,” Mueller said. “Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked. “Yes,” Mueller replied.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...no-obstruction-mantra/?utm_term=.8de3e2778d44



snakestretcher's question was not nonsensical. You just decided to take an obviously colloquial statement and treat it as a statement relying on legal terms of art, then you used that to pidgeonhole him and simply side-step his point: as to obstruction, Mueller did not exonerate Trump. Again, in the sense Trump/everyone has been using it that means Mueller did not say he believed Trump did not commit obstruction. In fact, elsewhere in his testimony, he said Trump could be charged after he leaves office (the question did not mention statutes of limitation).

Rather he laid a mount of evidence of obstruction, noted that DOJ policy barred him from indicting Trump and by extension so much as saying he is guilty, and thus left the decision to congress on impeachment.

Depending on when Trump leaves office and when acts occurred, he could still be charged with obstruction. But that's a question for later.

 

[veritas1]

And there it is.

You're a completely blind partisan and we have nothing further to discuss on this topic.

Right, the Mueller team was made up entirely of partisan Democrats, some closely connected to Hillary Clinton but I'm the blind partisan. Too damn funny.

 

[Integrityrespec]

No. You're being dishonest.

Trump ordered the firing of the special counsel. That in and of itself explicitly shows he attempted to impede a lawful investigation.

You need to admit facts before you try and say you're being factual.

Again. Say it.

Trump ordered Mueller fired. Say it.

No Collusion, you say it. It's what started the entire mess. Say it.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Rep. Lieu: "The reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President, correct?"

Mueller: "That is correct."

Muller corrected his statement in the Judiciary hearing... Lieu's statement was NOT correct!

 

[Athanasius68]

Wrong. You apply two sets of standards, one for Trump, one for everyone else.

If you go and try to impede in a police investigation, you'd be arrested. Trump attempted to impede a lawful and duly ordered investigation into Russia illegally attempting to alter our electoral process. You completely ignore that the "collusion" narrative was not the genesis of this investigation.

Get out of your ****ing soundbox, jesus christ, the nation is tearing itself apart at the seems and folks like you can't even be bothered to be honest about the genesis of the report, and apply an absurd standard to the president that makes them absolutely above the law.

There is a different standard though for Trump AS PRESIDENT-- even Mueller affirmed it when he mentioned that it would be unconstitutional to prosecute Trump as president --- than you are I.
A job of the the president is to enforce the laws. So he absolutely has a right to involve himself in investigations and prosecutions.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The idiot republicans are asking questions outside the report to try and make Mueller look uncredible even though the DOJ told Mueller he cannot stray from the report.

It's insanity.

The republican party has absolutely gone completely insane.

Mueller will not answer question within the scope of the Investigation.