BREAKING: Robert Mueller is speaking right now, for the first time since the report was released

Starr was under a different directive. Look it up.

 

I'm hoping St. Louis because they deserve it and I cant stand Marchand. LOL

 

The fact that 1. He wasn't the first to testify and 2. When they do ask Mueller to testify it's a vastly different process than anyone else. Nadler basically says " Check your calendar and see if you can squeeze us in and if not that's cool too"....... That's pretty telling imo

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

I think we can take the elements of this two year long saga and craft a large number of explanations and conclusions. But the bar for impeachment is so high (or at least it I think should be) that can something like an alleged attempted obstruction really justify the process which removes a President from office? I think the answer is a firm no and I'll give you two good reasons as to why.

First, obstruction isn't anything new to politics. Years back almost 50 of the then-current inspectors general concluded that President Obama's administration had committed multiple acts of obstruction of justice on a number of investigative projects that I wont rehash. The TLDR of it was that after over a year and almost a dozen various court orders and a few judgements the administration continued to withhold evidence and the House Oversight basically got bored and started ignoring the IG's pleas. That was a multi-office orchestrated obstruction event and yet due to politics the only thing that even came close to enforcement was AG Holder getting a pointless contempt sanction. Now it wasn't that the defense was claiming obstruction wasn't happening but rather that the acts in question were privileges of the Executive Branch and thus even though they blocked investigative efforts into the Executive Branch they were not criminal in nature. Congressional Democrats and MSM agreed.

Second, all of our last few Presidents have committed serious offenses that one would figure should have brought about impeachment but didn't because that's how high the bar is. President Obama had the illegal war in Libya, the illegal treaties, the illegal rewrites of parts of the ACA. President Bush 43 had Iraq, nuf said. Pres Clinton had Whitewater and the FBI file leaks - and yea he was impeached in the house for perjury and obstruction but if you recall the Starr report actually concluded he was guilty of these things.

So clearly the bar for acting on obstruction and/or going after a President from crimes is pretty high or we would have had a lot of convictions and impeachments in the last 30-ish years. That or all of this legal ideology is just bullshit and it comes down to the politics. /shrug

 

The adviser came out 2 months before Robert Ray presented Clinton with the indictment. The charge can be made, the prosecution of the charge is what must await his leaving office by whatever means. And again it is an advisory, it is not a law, it is not a regulation and no court has ever ruled on the matter. Mueller was free to do just as Starr did and SHOULD HAVE if he believed a crime had been committed. He should have stated the crime and presented the evidence and said to the Congress here it is now ball in your court remove now and I will immediately prosecute or don't and I'll wait just as Starr did. But he punted, he was derelict in his duty and said "don't blame me I couldn't indict him or accuse or anything anyway".

So what was this all about then? If Mueller knew as his role as a prosecutor he could not indict or charge the person he was investigating why was he investigating that person? Why didn't he say on day one "OK I'll investigate but I can't charge him with anything"?
Why have you and others been saying "just wait, he's going to jail when Mueller releases his report"? Espionage, obstruction of justice just wait till the charges come!!!

The were no charges, no indictments awaiting, no conclusion on OOJ by Mueller. His bosses made the call with the advice of the OLC and that call had nothing to do with the advisory opinion on indicting a sitting President. It was strictly based on the evidence Mueller presented.

 

The Democrats said a prima facie case of perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice for which Clinton was fined $90,000 did not reach that bar. They let him stay in office and then IC Robert Ray, as Clinton left office, presented him with the charges and the indictment his office had written up and told him he could plea bargain it giving up his law license to the Arkansas bar for five years having already paid $900,000 to the plaintiff in addition to the court fine in the lawsuit in which he committed his felonies.

So why do the Democrats now say "possible" obstruction of justice when no justice was obstructed in a criminal investigation which found no crime is grounds for impeachment and removal from office? Especially when the Department of Justice says unequivocally no obstruction of justice occurred.

 

1. Yes, specifically what? Mueller said there was no collusion, none of the contacts reached that standard
2. I'm not the one blustering
3. Why did you stop at 1 and not answer the rest of my points?
4. The best argument I can make in Trump's defence is there's no evidence any of what you say ever happened.
5. The attack on the investigators is perfectly legitimate but even if they were incredibly biased they STILL couldn't find anything damning on Trump.
6. What 'facts' are you trying to penetrate Trumpsters with because there's certainly a paucity of them here? What obvious things are they ignoring? And when have they been forced to back down?

The thing about TDS sheep they make a lot of noise but it's all smoke and mirrors, no substance, their arguments vanish like dew in the sun.

 

And how many were off the opposite view?

 

thats right. No collusion, no obstruction, just never-ending hate for Trump.

 

Could have Mueller recommended to Congress to indict Trump?

 

Muller addressed your concerns. You must have missed it.

Mueller, May 29: The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you. First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

This is exactly why a lot of people want Mueller to testify. It is much easier to watch the movie than to read the book,

 

Congress doesn't indict people. The DOJ does.

 

SPECULATION. He had no probable cause of anyone else obstructing justice, no one else was accused of obstructing justice, there was no conspiracy that's all in his head. TRUMP was the target of the obstruction of justice which did not occur. Why during his confirmation hearing did he not inform the committee that if he could never charge Trump with anything, he could not even accuse Trump of anything no matter what he found? Why have you on the left for two years been clamoring about Mueller was going to charge Trump and his family with all these crimes? And no the Constitution does not say that, it says the only way to remove a President from office is through impeachment and that that party is STILL subject to prosecution after the impeachment and removal. It was for Mueller to determine if Trump violated the law and report it to the AG who would then inform the Congress they have charges waiting, up to them whether it gets prosecuted sooner or later.

 

You can listen to his speech on line. You really should do it. If you did hear it you should still do it again or we will have to call you Kool-aid Man.

 

he explained that, he was not gonna pronounce him guilty, his job was to report to congress, not to indict the President and sense he could not indict he felt it unfair to say he thought he was guilty, but also said if he thought he was innocent, he woudl of said so.... so read between the lines there

 

Mueller is full of ****, my friend. His splanation is good for children and Liberals. Read between the lines? Don’t make me laugh.

 

regardless what you think, the Barr summary was a lie, we heard from Mueller himself, so now the truth is out there

 

Isn't it amazing how far we've come? For two years and in no uncertain terms Congressional Democrats and their media surrogates flat out asserted that this President was a Russian agent. Their only justification for this was their rage that he had dared to take away Hillary's rightful turn as President away. This has spectacularly blown up in their faces after their champion inquisitor, with unlimited power and funding, couldn't come up with any proof of this claim. So now they pivot to this nonexistent claim of an alleged attempted obstruction.

You ask why they do this and I can think of three good reasons: 1) they want power but have nothing to offer by way of reasons to vote for them, 2) they fear what will happen as the investigations now turn towards them and their apparent coup, and 3) the age of prosperity that Pres Trump's leadership has brought is deconstructing the systems of social and economic oppression that they have spent over a decade crafting.

 

Yes, the truth is out there and my truth is very different from your truth.

 

Whatever. Could Mueller have recommended to indict Trump?

 

what Muller said is what he said, you can't change that, you can disagree with him though if you wish

 

No. Not unless he violated the DOJ rules. I think that is a firing offence.

 

That's a paddlin'

 

Or, as Trump would call it... Treason.