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

[HumblePi]

No, it doesn’t. It means he COULD be. Not that he WOULD be.

That was exactly what Robert Mueller meant, no doubt about it. As he stated, under OLC rules, he, as special counsel conducting an investigation could not indict. He has evidence of obstruction of justice and that was quite clearly laid out for all to hear. What he said is that if Trump was not the president, then yes, he would most certainly be indicted for those crimes, which are felonies.

 

[iguanaman]

who told Trump he was under investigation? NYT? huh?

Read the report it is quite clear on this matter.

 

[Josie]

Tres didn't say that, which is naturally why you had to include the caveat "in other words."

Nor did I say what she's assuming after her own "in other words" directed to me. You see?

If you want someone who did say it in their own words rather than your words, go ahead and have a go at the OP over here:

Trump was not exonerated by my report, Robert Mueller tells Congress

I'm fully aware that Mueller said that. That hasn't changed since his full report came out. He also said he couldn't determine if Trump committed a crime.

 

[Pound4abrown]

LOL. Try reading what I said. He has made a self defeating argument wherein the first half of his statement destroys the only source for the second half of his statement.

Nah, I don't think he is saying that there isn't a danger to our democracy and he sure as hell isn't walking back his thoughts about Trump being lawless.
But nice try.

 

[gdgyva]

So you think the laws should be changed for Trump? In obstruction cases the attempt IS the crime. That is the law.

obstruction isnt like attempted kidnapping, or bank robbery

in this case...Trump WANTED to fire Mueller...that is true

he even ordered a subordinate to fire him....but his people talked him down from the ledge

no firing happened....the investigation continued....

it was BEFORE the crime was to have occured....

so no...i am not changing the law

if Trump had fired Mueller, you would have a case...right?

If his subordinates hadnt stopped him, you would have a case...right?

no law was broken, no crime committed, because the firing never took place

and yes....the american people will see it that way

but impeach away.....if you dont believe me.....

 

[jmotivator]

The law is written about obstruction not speeding or "lusting in your mind" either. Besides Trump did not just "think" about firing Mueller her ordered it multiple times in multiple ways.

Nope.

You know how I know? Because it didn't happen. Saying you want something done and having it done are two separate things.

 

[Craig234]

Mueller doesn't say he would be, though. He said he couldn't reach a conclusion on it.

Mueller didn't say that, either. He said that he chose NOT to reach a conclusion - and the only reason he'd do that is because of the guidelines. So it wasn't that the evidence didn't support a conclusion, it's that the guidelines said not to reach one - something Barr lied about when he said Mueller was free to reach a conclusion. Mueller said the guidelines prohibited him form doing so. But he provided the evidence clearly showing the right conclusion.

 

[Mr Person]

So in other words, you didn't watch the exchange with Buck. Yes.

So, in other words, you want the word "could" to be interpreted as "would". He didn't say he WOULD charge him with a crime, but that he COULD. That's true of any president. Mueller has said that they did not reach a conclusion that Trump committed a crime. Listen and comprehend the actual words instead of imagining he said what you wanted him to say.

Tres didn't say that, which is naturally why you had to include the caveat "in other words."

If you want someone who did say it in their own words rather than your words, go ahead and have a go at the OP over here:

Trump was not exonerated by my report, Robert Mueller tells Congress


"Could" means, at most specific, that Mueller thinks it possible a grand jury would return an indictment that would survive a motion to dismiss. That indeed is not the same as "would", but it's also not nothing.

Nor did I say what she's assuming after her own "in other words" directed to me. You see?
I'm fully aware that Mueller said that. That hasn't changed since his full report came out. He also said he couldn't determine if Trump committed a crime.

We aren't talking about what you claim to be aware of. We are talking about your claim that tres wants "could" to be interpreted as "would", and no amount of quote-chopping will change that.

Now maybe your intent was merely to aggravate her by snottily throwing "so in other words" back at her, but when you used that phrase you ended up accusing her of saying something she didn't say, which puts you in the wrong. See how that works?


And, PS, Mueller laid out the evidence of obstruction. He did not say it the way you described. He explained that DOJ policy - I actually posted a link to it several pages back - bars him from seeking to indict the president and thus it would be improper for him to say the president is guilty (or "would" be charged or any other wording) without providing him a forum to defend himself. However, he ALSO said that the report "does not exonerate" him.

"Does not exonerate" + "I can't say he's guilty or charge him" =/= "I can't determine."

What it means is "I can clear him on conspiracy but I cannot clear him on obstruction. However, I also cannot say he is guilty of obstruction. Here, congress, deal with the evidence. [448 pages of evidence]. Peace."

 

[jmotivator]

Nah, I don't think he is saying that there isn't a danger to our democracy and he sure as hell isn't walking back his thoughts about Trump being lawless.
But nice try.

I didn't say he was. Again, read what people actually write. I didn;t say he didn't believe the second half of his statement, only that you dumbass torpedoed his only source for his beliefs.

 

[Trump]

Read the report it is quite clear on this matter.

so clear Pelosi's decided no impeachment vote

 

[Craig234]

You know how I know? Because it didn't happen. Saying you want something done and having it done are two separate things.

Since you weren't there, whether it happened or now is not how you know whether it happened or not. As I understand, the report shows trump ordering the firing, an action attempting to obstruct justice, not asking a question whether he should. Trying to shoot someone and missing or the gun not firing is still a crime. Ordering someone to shoot someone illegally is still a crime even if the person refuses.

 

[HumblePi]

No it means as a matter of law could you charge a President after out of office, not he would charge. They were discussing legal precedent and what they could do legally. Strategically its totally something else, could you or would you, based on evidence of a crime you could prosecute.

Most certainly, a United States president that cooperated with Russia having full knowledge that Russia was interfering in our US election makes him complicit at the very least. That's treason in my book.

 

[Josie]

That was exactly what Robert Mueller meant, no doubt about it.

You're putting your own bias into it, Pi. He meant exactly what he said. He COULD charge the president with a crime after he's out of office. You can charge ANY president with a crime when he's out of office. You WANT him to be saying that Trump DID commit a crime and SHOULD and WILL be charged when he's no longer president. That's not what Mueller said.

As he stated, under OLC rules, he, as special counsel conducting an investigation could not indict. He has evidence of obstruction of justice and that was quite clearly laid out for all to hear.

And he said he couldn't determine if Trump had committed a crime.

What he said is that if Trump was not the president, then yes, he would most certainly be indicted for those crimes, which are felonies.

No, Pi. You're imagining the words you want to hear. 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."

 

[jmotivator]

Since you weren't there, whether it happened or now is not how you know whether it happened or not. As I understand, the report shows trump ordering the firing, an action attempting to obstruct justice, not asking a question whether he should. Trying to shoot someone and missing or the gun not firing is still a crime. Ordering someone to shoot someone illegally is still a crime even if the person refuses.

... WTF?! You are asking how I would know that Mueller wasn't fired?

Oooooooookaaaaay. :shock:

 

[Craig234]

So, in other words, you want the word "could" to be interpreted as "would". He didn't say he WOULD charge him with a crime, but that he COULD. That's true of any president. Mueller has said that they did not reach a conclusion that Trump committed a crime. Listen and comprehend the actual words instead of imagining he said what you wanted him to say.

You're right about could and would; and you're wrong in your omission of Mueller's presentation of clear evidence trump is guilty of the crimes, and your omission that over a thousand justice officials said the evidence shows trump guilty of crimes. Listen and comprehend the actual words of the evidence and the DoJ officials instead of imagining he said what you wanted him to say.

 

[Athanasius68]

Wrong. Both are 'constitutional'.

The firing of Comey would stand. And if the purpose was illegal - for a bribe, over the race of the person, to obstruct justice - that's a crime. And Congress can decide whether to impeach.

There was nothing to obstruct. There was no conspiracy

 

[Josie]

Most certainly, a United States president that cooperated with Russia having full knowledge that Russia was interfering in our US election makes him complicit at the very least. That's treason in my book.

Pi -- Mueller said no American - including Trump or anyone in Trump's administration - colluded with Russia in their interference in the election. You're living in a warped fantasy world here.

 

[Athanasius68]

Mueller didn't say that, either. He said that he chose NOT to reach a conclusion - and the only reason he'd do that is because of the guidelines. So it wasn't that the evidence didn't support a conclusion, it's that the guidelines said not to reach one - something Barr lied about when he said Mueller was free to reach a conclusion. Mueller said the guidelines prohibited him form doing so. But he provided the evidence clearly showing the right conclusion.

The OLC guidelines can be waived by the AG.

 

[Craig234]

... WTF?! You are asking how I would know that Mueller wasn't fired?

OK, if you're talking about whether Mueller was fired, rather than whether trump ordered him to be fired, that's fine. You ignored the rest of my post.

 

[Craig234]

There was nothing to obstruct. There was no conspiracy

Wrong. There was an investigation to obstruct, which trump did repeatedly, as over a thousand DoJ officials said was proven.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Terry Moran, ABC legal analyst, declares: "Impeachment's Over."

Will the Democrats finally accept the loss? Prolly not...

I checked your link. All he's saying is Pelosi doesn't want to impeach because she knows Repubs will all vote no so it's a waste of time.

The only loss here is the Republican's party loyalty to the rule of law.

 

[Trump]

Most certainly, a United States president that cooperated with Russia having full knowledge that Russia was interfering in our US election makes him complicit at the very least. That's treason in my book.

lotta lies in that there book of yours

 

[Athanasius68]

Since you weren't there, whether it happened or now is not how you know whether it happened or not. As I understand, the report shows trump ordering the firing, an action attempting to obstruct justice, not asking a question whether he should. Trying to shoot someone and missing or the gun not firing is still a crime. Ordering someone to shoot someone illegally is still a crime even if the person refuses.

Its not illegal for the president to order a subordinate to fire Mueller.
The analogy fails.

 

[Craig234]

The OLC guidelines can be waived by the AG.

Perhaps they can, perhaps they can't, but Mueller said he was following them - there's no evidence they were waived.

 

[Craig234]

Its not illegal for the president to order a subordinate to fire Mueller.

It is illegal for a president to order a subordinate to fire Mueller for the purpose of obstructing an investigation, and other illegal purposes.