Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Mueller to Deliver Statement at 8am on Russian Probe

Recommended Posts

Just now, alum93 said:

Mueller reiterated the finding in his report, saying if his office "had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

Any questions?

He also said that they approached it in a manner that they couldn’t charge him with a crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I think the most important takeaway here is that Russia interferes with our election, it was serious, and it needs to be dealt with. 

Perhaps you missed our fearless leader cowering next to Putin and saying he believes Russia over our intelligence agencies.  One of the many glorious moments of his presidency, top 10 at least.  He'll now call Hannity to ask how he should comment or tweet on Mueller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I think the most important takeaway here is that Russia interferes with our election, it was serious, and it needs to be dealt with. 

I agree with this statement and I do not like that Trump refuses to acknowledge it.  It also concerns me that the president at the time (won’t name names) did absolutely nothing to stop it despite the intelligence saying they were ramping it up in 2014. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, retrofade said:

He also said that they approached it in a manner that they couldn’t charge him with a crime. 

"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime," he said.

Mueller then explained, citing Department of Justice policy, that a President "cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional."

"Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider," he said.

So next time your hear a knucklehead say no obstruction or he was never charged,  including the knucklehead in the WH, Mueller explains in his own words why.  Not that he should have to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mugtang said:

I agree with this statement and I do not like that Trump refuses to acknowledge it.  It also concerns me that the president at the time (won’t name names) did absolutely nothing to stop it despite the intelligence saying they were ramping it up in 2014. 

Well one of those presidents is no longer in the WH, and one is.  I know what concerns me more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else that will probably get a lot of play is that Mueller didn’t say “no collusion” like Trump claims. He said that there was insufficient evidence with which to charge a conspiracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said nothing that wasn't in the report, but I think he said what he wanted to repeat, or emphasize..."wasn't my place to charge the Trump, that is up to other processes. Here's ten things for those other processes to look at. Although, I could not charge Trump, I could have exonerated him, and I did not (are you listening congress?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Something else that will probably get a lot of play is that Mueller didn’t say “no collusion” like Trump claims. He said that there was insufficient evidence with which to charge a conspiracy. 

Even more irritating is Barr parroting Trump's campaign line of "no collusion" while ignoring the more precise legal terminology in the report.  Anyone who claims Barr is a legit AG is deluded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Orange said:

Even more irritating is Barr parroting Trump's campaign line of "no collusion" while ignoring the more precise legal terminology in the report.  Anyone who claims Barr is a legit AG is deluded.

His statement came across as an implicit rebuke of Barr as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, retrofade said:

His statement came across as an implicit rebuke of Barr as well

Which is all the more stinging considering they're (or were) good friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alum93 said:

Mueller reiterated the finding in his report, saying if his office "had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

Any questions?

So guilty until proven innocent for you?

Barr and Rosenstein reviewed and analyzed the Mueller report, along with all of the support behind it, and concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a charge of obstruction.  Mueller didn't say he agreed with, or disagreed with, this.  All he said is he doesn't question Barr's decision and believes it was made in good faith.  Mueller chose his words very carefully, even saying that he did.

This is where Mueller failed in my opinion.  He should have came to, and reported his conclusion on this matter.  If he feels Trump was guilty of conclusion he should have said so, followed by we can't indict because Trump's a sitting president.  The DOJ and AGs offices need to address and correct these investigations going forward in this regard.  We can't allow a special council and investigator to ride the fence on issues like this.

Without giving us any additional evidence one way or the other, Mueller significantly turned up the heat on Nancy.

You have to hold onto "innocent until proven guilty".  Mueller is clearly leaving it to the circus.  Buckle up, pop some popcorn.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, alum93 said:

Perhaps you missed our fearless leader cowering next to Putin and saying he believes Russia over our intelligence agencies.  One of the many glorious moments of his presidency, top 10 at least.  He'll now call Hannity to ask how he should comment or tweet on Mueller.

Did Mueller conclude that Trump and Putin were correct and Strzok & Page were wrong?  None of us like saying Putin was right, but he was, right?

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pokebball said:

So guilty until proven innocent for you?

Barr and Rosenstein reviewed and analyzed the Mueller report, along with all of the support behind it, and concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a charge of obstruction.  Mueller didn't say he agreed with, or disagreed with, this.  All he said is he doesn't question Barr's decision and believes it was made in good faith.  Mueller chose his words very carefully, even saying that he did.

This is where Mueller failed in my opinion.  He should have came to, and reported his conclusion on this matter.  If he feels Trump was guilty of conclusion he should have said so, followed by we can't indict because Trump's a sitting president.  The DOJ and AGs offices need to address and correct these investigations going forward in this regard.  We can't allow a special council and investigator to ride the fence on issues like this.

Without giving us any additional evidence one way or the other, Mueller significantly turned up the heat on Nancy.

You have to hold onto "innocent until proven guilty".  Mueller is clearly leaving it to the circus.  Buckle up, pop some popcorn.

I think the whole intent was to give Congress the evidence it needed.  Congress can now decide, starting with the Nancy lead House, if the smoke is indeed a fire.  Here is your 400+ pages of evidence gathered.  Do you or do you not believe it is worthy of impeachment?  Elections matter.  That is why this is even a discussion at this point, because Dems won the House.  Otherwise the report would have meant nothing.  As it is,  i can see the House split enough to not come to an agreement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Something else that will probably get a lot of play is that Mueller didn’t say “no collusion” like Trump claims. He said that there was insufficient evidence with which to charge a conspiracy. 

“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,”

They did not attempt to determine a crime.  However the report would have shown if any specific wrongdoing was done by Trump, If they had any evidence whatsoever that Trump conspired with Russia in any way, it would be in the report regardless if it was a crime or not. 

Trump haters can parse words as much as they like but it all comes down to evidence (not anti-Trump accusations) and any evidence would be indicated in the report. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pokebball said:

So guilty until proven innocent for you?

Barr and Rosenstein reviewed and analyzed the Mueller report, along with all of the support behind it, and concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a charge of obstruction.  Mueller didn't say he agreed with, or disagreed with, this.  All he said is he doesn't question Barr's decision and believes it was made in good faith.  Mueller chose his words very carefully, even saying that he did.

This is where Mueller failed in my opinion.  He should have came to, and reported his conclusion on this matter.  If he feels Trump was guilty of conclusion he should have said so, followed by we can't indict because Trump's a sitting president.  The DOJ and AGs offices need to address and correct these investigations going forward in this regard.  We can't allow a special council and investigator to ride the fence on issues like this.

Without giving us any additional evidence one way or the other, Mueller significantly turned up the heat on Nancy.

You have to hold onto "innocent until proven guilty".  Mueller is clearly leaving it to the circus.  Buckle up, pop some popcorn.

 

Nope. He specifically addressed that.  Can't do that because he can't be tried by the DOJ.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Did Mueller conclude that Trump and Putin were correct and Strzok & Page were wrong?  None of us like saying Putin was right, but he was, right?

We didn't need the report to know Russia interfered to the benefit of Trump.  The intelligence agencies had already stated that.   Trump refused to accept that, and stated so in front of Putin the very next week.  Now the report, and Mueller in his own words today, stated once again that Russia interfered.  I am not sure what you are arguing.  Here is what i wrote above.

Perhaps you missed our fearless leader cowering next to Putin and saying he believes Russia over our intelligence agencies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pokerider said:

“We concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,”

They did not attempt to determine a crime.  However the report would have shown if any specific wrongdoing was done by Trump, If they had any evidence whatsoever that Trump conspired with Russia in any way, it would be in the report regardless if it was a crime or not. 

Trump haters can parse words as much as they like but it all comes down to evidence (not anti-Trump accusations) and any evidence would be indicated in the report. 

You're not understanding the meaning of that sentence.  They wouldn't reach a determination for PROCEDURAL reasons, not substantive reasons, i.e. they believed you could not indict a sitting president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alum93 said:

I think the whole intent was to give Congress the evidence it needed.  Congress can now decide, starting with the Nancy lead House, if the smoke is indeed a fire.  Here is your 400+ pages of evidence gathered.  Do you or do you not believe it is worthy of impeachment?  Elections matter.  That is why this is even a discussion at this point, because Dems won the House.  Otherwise the report would have meant nothing.  As it is,  i can see the House split enough to not come to an agreement.  

The bar for impeachment is much lower than a criminal charge.  See Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.

Impeachment is political and doesn't really even require any solid evidence.  It's political and emotional.

Do I think it's worthy of impeachment?  I'm not a Dem, so no.

I'm a Repub that doesn't like Trump's character.  I think impeachment charges could be just what I need to see a different GOP POTUS in 2020.  In that sense, I'm for it.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...