Robert Mueller investigation

[GwynnInTheHall]

"If we had confidence the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." Bob Mueller

Mueller essentially said........We cannot say Trump did NOT commit a crime and we can't say he did because we cannot charge a sitting President with a crime while in office.

So because he's the President, Trump gets away with Obstruction.

Spin it any way you'd like, but the President of the United States tried to stand in the way of our Government's effort to determine if there was russian interference in the 2016 election (Which there was) which specifically damaged Clinton and helped Trump to the White House (which there was and it did) and if he were not the President right now, he'd have been indicted with Obstruction and headed to prison.

Some of you must be so proud..............

[frae]

Mueller essentially said........We cannot say Trump did NOT commit a crime because we cannot charge a sitting President with a crime while in office.

So because he's the President, Trump gets away with Obstruction.

Spin it any way you'd like, but the President of the United States tried to stand in the way of our Government's effort to determine if there was russian interference in the 2016 election (Which there was) which specifically damaged Clinton and helped Trump to the White House (which there was and it did) and if he were not the President right now, he'd have been indicted with Obstruction and headed to prison.

Some of you must be so proud..............

I added the second quote to mine a minute ago...

“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider". The DOJ could not do it only Congress can.

[In the Corn]

Some of you must be so proud..............

I don't think there are many here that voted for Trump...

[Bernie Brewer]

I added the second quote to mine a minute ago...

“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider". The DOJ could not do it only Congress can.

Speaking for those of us who, I assume GITH thinks, voted for Trump and; therefore, should be “so proud,” my question is what exactly changed today? What is the new news, besides Mueller speaking versus his written report? He “essentially” didn’t say what GITH implied, other than Russia attempted to interfere in the election and they wanted Hillary to lose (you say Trump to win), six of one half a dozen of the other. Fact is if Jen Bush had been the GOP candidate, they would have still wanted Hillary to lose.

Mueller gave a verbal summary of his report.

His exact words were "If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Everyone seemingly assumes that statement implies there was some crime. They seem to leave out his next sentence: "We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime." Yes he did add the DOJ rules don’t allow charging the President while in office with a crime, but he didn’t say there was an actual crime to charge him with. Because he didn't investigate it. And if investigated, it would be unfair to the President because he couldn’t use the court to defend himself.

[frae]

Speaking for those of us who, I assume GITH thinks, voted for Trump and; therefore, should be “so proud,” my question is what exactly changed today? What is the new news, besides Mueller speaking versus his written report? He “essentially” didn’t say anything that GITH implied other than Russia attempted to interfere in the election and they wanted Hillary to lose (you say Trump to win). Fact is if Jen Bush had been the GOP candidate, they would have still wanted Hillary to lose.

Mueller gave a verbal summary of his report.

His exact words were "If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Everyone seemingly assumes that statement implies there was some crime. They seem to leave out his next sentence: "We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

We did not make a determination is a far cry from the totally exonerated claims that came from the President when Barr's summary came out.

I doubt much changed and remain on the fence about how impeachment plays out politically. I think what Mueller said is it remains to him unclear if the President committed a crime. I find it damning that our President may have committed obstruction of justice. He wouldn't submit himself for an interview and choose to answer questions in a written statement many times claiming he had no recollection of events. For me pairing Trump's I don't remember answers, a refusal to submit to a one on one interview, and the evidence around him makes me believe he committed obstruction but I agree we didn't get a gotcha moment today.

Honestly, the biggest difference is people won't read even the Barr summary in detail vs listening to Muller's three big quotes. I just feel like the Presidents visual and twitter message of no collusion and no obstruction stuck better than the quote in the Barr report about not clearing the President. We got basically the same quote today, but it feels like maybe it will stick more.

1, we didn't define the president as innocent.

2 We couldn't charge him even if we wanted to.

3. Russia did it and they will do it again...And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systemic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.

I don't know what benefits my goals of him losing in 2020 best when it comes to obstruction and impeachment, but I do know that it is time to get serious on Russia and it would be nice to hear the President address that more seriously.

[Bernie Brewer]

We did not make a determination is a far cry from the totally exonerated claims that came from the President when Barr's summary came out.

I doubt much changed and remain on the fence about how impeachment plays out politically. I think what Mueller said is it remains to him unclear if the President committed a crime. I find it damning that our President may have committed obstruction of justice. He wouldn't submit himself for an interview and choose to answer questions in a written statement many times claiming he had no recollection of events. For me pairing Trump's I don't remember answers, a refusal to submit to a one on one interview, and the evidence around him makes me believe he committed obstruction but I agree we didn't get a gotcha moment today.

Honestly, the biggest difference is people won't read even the Barr summary in detail vs listening to Muller's three big quotes. I just feel like the Presidents visual and twitter message of no collusion and no obstruction stuck better than the quote in the Barr report about not clearing the President. We got basically the same quote today, but it feels like maybe it will stick more.

1, we didn't define the president as innocent.

2 We couldn't charge him even if we wanted to.

3. Russia did it and they will do it again...And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systemic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.

I don't know what benefits my goals of him losing in 2020 best when it comes to obstruction and impeachment, but I do know that it is time to get serious on Russia and it would be nice to hear the President address that more seriously.

This comment is not intended to be snarky, at least towards you, but because I’m now a known “Trump voter and defender who knows with certainty and is also proud that our President committed a crime,” this next part may come as a complete shock to you. I agree completely and totally with what you just wrote. Your comments are reasonable and accurately reflect where I am in this. I agree he wasn’t exonerated, as well.

I’ll admit that there was pretty clearly an obstructive pattern of behavior, but that’s not new. Trump is who he is; he’s unpresidential and ill equipped for the office he holds. And, since Helsinki, my opinion of him hasn’t changed. Prior to that I tried to give him the benefit of doubt, but... I was wrong.

I have no interest in seeing him reelected. I’ve always been a never Trumper, I’ll always be a never Trumper. I just hope the Democrats don’t find a candidate that is too far left of center, otherwise we’re going to get more of Trump. That ain’t good.

[frae]

This comment is not intended to be snarky, at least towards you, but because I’m now a known “Trump voter and defender who knows with certainty and is also proud that our President committed a crime,” this next part may come as a complete shock to you. I agree completely and totally with what you just wrote. Your comments are reasonable and accurately reflect where I am in this. I agree he wasn’t exonerated, as well.

I’ll admit that there was pretty clearly an obstructive pattern of behavior, but that’s not new. Trump is who he is; he’s unpresidential and ill equipped for the office he holds. And, since Helsinki, my opinion of him hasn’t changed. Prior to that I tried to give him the benefit of doubt, but... I was wrong.

I have no interest in seeing him reelected. I’ve always been a never Trumper, I’ll always be a never Trumper. I just hope the Democrats don’t find a candidate that is too far left of center, otherwise we’re going to get more of Trump. That ain’t good.

Should we have a beer now and hate on the rest of the NL Central?

What to do with this is a difficult political calculation for Pelosi. I would imagine most of the base favors impeachment and a good chunk of her caucus, but I think we can safely say that there is almost nothing they will find that would lead to the senate convicting him. So from a win in 2020 and what is best for the party I don't know the answer. Do moderates or independants want to see the Democrats push for answers when in the end they can't get a conviction or do they want the country to move forward? Are their parts of the Democratic party that would vote 3rd party if we don't push for impeachment? I don't know, but the safest route is probably don't push for impeachment, try to rally the party, but she is going to feel the heat here. Schumer will feel it some too, but he wields much less power on this one is mostly on Pelosi.

Outside of Bernie Sanders, who is too far left for you? Biden isn't for sure. Harris really isn't. Warren has policies you may think are too far left, but she is really smart. Mayor Pete has not really shown me that he is way out there. You get outside of that group and into Booker and Beto who both strike me as typical Democratic candidates. I'd say politically outside of Sanders the group isn't running on anything so far left of anything most Democratic nominees run on.

[Bernie Brewer]

Should we have a beer now and hate on the rest of the NL Central?

What to do with this is a difficult political calculation for Pelosi. I would imagine most of the base favors impeachment and a good chunk of her caucus, but I think we can safely say that there is almost nothing they will find that would lead to the senate convicting him. So from a win in 2020 and what is best for the party I don't know the answer. Do moderates or independants want to see the Democrats push for answers when in the end they can't get a conviction or do they want the country to move forward? Are their parts of the Democratic party that would vote 3rd party if we don't push for impeachment? I don't know, but the safest route is probably don't push for impeachment, try to rally the party, but she is going to feel the heat here. Schumer will feel it some too, but he wields much less power on this one is mostly on Pelosi.

Outside of Bernie Sanders, who is too far left for you? Biden isn't for sure. Harris really isn't. Warren has policies you may think are too far left, but she is really smart. Mayor Pete has not really shown me that he is way out there. You get outside of that group and into Booker and Beto who both strike me as typical Democratic candidates. I'd say politically outside of Sanders the group isn't running on anything so far left of anything most Democratic nominees run on.

I’ll buy you an MGD and you grab my a Yingling. Done deal, we’ll hate the Cards and Cubs together.

I actually said in the Election thread that the Mayor Pete is becoming very interesting to me. Klobushar is also of interest. Although Harris and Warren seem to be Board favorites here, I couldn’t vote for either. Warren is anti-banks (the CFPB is an abomination) and Harris overplays her prosecutorial hand in the Judiciary Committee, in a very partisan manner, at least to my view. If Booker were Corey Booker of two years ago, he’d be of interest. I would also strongly consider Biden, although I’d have to hold my nose just a little because I wasn’t a fan of the Obama administration.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Speaking for those of us who, I assume GITH thinks, voted for Trump and; therefore, should be “so proud,” my question is what exactly changed today? What is the new news, besides Mueller speaking versus his written report? He “essentially” didn’t say what GITH implied, other than Russia attempted to interfere in the election and they wanted Hillary to lose (you say Trump to win), six of one half a dozen of the other. Fact is if Jen Bush had been the GOP candidate, they would have still wanted Hillary to lose.

Mueller gave a verbal summary of his report.

His exact words were "If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Everyone seemingly assumes that statement implies there was some crime. They seem to leave out his next sentence: "We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime." Yes he did add the DOJ rules don’t allow charging the President while in office with a crime, but he didn’t say there was an actual crime to charge him with. Because he didn't investigate it. And if investigated, it would be unfair to the President because he couldn’t use the court to defend himself.

Fist to answer you and ITC, I said some, not all, not many, but some and you cannot argue that point as you and I both know we can name a few posters who did indeed vote for Trump and some of those who still support him today.

I do find it confusing that you would think I would be insinuating that You were one of those I was alluding to. I have criticized two groups of people in here for essentially the same reason. Clinton supporters and those who voted for/still support Trump. I'm well aware you are neither of those.

As toy uor point regarding what I mentioned regarding Mueller's comments today.

Trump announce his intention to run in JUne of 2015 which was coincidentally the first time there was direct contact with RU officials, the actual interference which has been divided into 2 major parts 1. The social media campaign and 2. Hacking. Both started in early 2016 after Trump had taken the lead of a remaining field of 4-5. The bulk of the RU interference happened after Trump secured the nomination. Jeb Bush was already out of the race prior to it starting. Through it all both multiple time prior, during and after, Trump officials continued to meet with Russian officials.

Did Trump know?, who can say, but there isn't much that goes on in his life that he's ignorant about. No collusion? We knew that going in, it is difficult to prove and some would say-That's politics and so it may be.

But did Trump obstruct? We of course he did. BUT, since he cannot be charged, they didn't even look at it. They DID say--was cannot say he did NOT. It's easy to reach the conclusion that HAD the President been allowed to be charged, they would have pursued it and if they couldn't say he DIDN'T Obstruct and given the evidence at hand, it's not a big leap to see how he did and would have been charged if possible by law.

It's strange that some (now I am including you) want to parse away what is a very logical conclusion by couching your words the way you have. I'm curious because I don't see you as someone who'd teach/advocate those who live with you, work for you are consider themselves friends, to ignore the ethical if a technicality allows you to. This is what I see you doing with this, you know, as most all of us do, inh your heart that this man has done NOTHING to earn the benefit of the doubt and that Mueller did indeed essentially say what I posted above.

Again, if you can make the leap that I possible included YOU in the group of those who are dancing a jig right now (and there's a hole being jigged into a carpet in Waco right now) You can make the leap that most the rest of the rational world has and acknowlegde, that had not Trump been protected from prosecution he would have been indicted along with others long ago.

[Bernie Brewer]

Fist to answer you and ITC, I said some, not all, not many, but some and you cannot argue that point as you and I both know we can name a few posters who did indeed vote for Trump and some of those who still support him today.

I do find it confusing that you would think I would be insinuating that You were one of those I was alluding to. I have criticized two groups of people in here for essentially the same reason. Clinton supporters and those who voted for/still support Trump. I'm well aware you are neither of those.

I did make that assumption, and I did so incorrectly, it appears. Be that as it may, I’m sure you can understand why I made this assumption, being one of few right or right leaning posters.

As toy uor point regarding what I mentioned regarding Mueller's comments today.

Trump announce his intention to run in JUne of 2015 which was coincidentally the first time there was direct contact with RU officials, the actual interference which has been divided into 2 major parts 1. The social media campaign and 2. Hacking. Both started in early 2016 after Trump had taken the lead of a remaining field of 4-5. The bulk of the RU interference happened after Trump secured the nomination. Jeb Bush was already out of the race prior to it starting. Through it all both multiple time prior, during and after, Trump officials continued to meet with Russian officials.

My point is that regardless of who the GOP candidate ultimately was, Putin despised Hillary Clinton and Russia was going to interfere in the election anyway. What ought to be the take away from this investigation is Mueller’s final comments: "There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American."

Did Trump know?, who can say, but there isn't much that goes on in his life that he's ignorant about. No collusion? We knew that going in, it is difficult to prove and some would say-That's politics and so it may be.

But did Trump obstruct? We of course he did. BUT, since he cannot be charged, they didn't even look at it. They DID say--was cannot say he did NOT. It's easy to reach the conclusion that HAD the President been allowed to be charged, they would have pursued it and if they couldn't say he DIDN'T Obstruct and given the evidence at hand, it's not a big leap to see how he did and would have been charged if possible by law.

We’re going to continue to disagree on this point. I think we can all agree that a pattern of obstructive behavior took place, but it is how Trump has always operated and how he operates to this day.

He didn’t fire Mueller, nor did he stop or limit the investigation, fire Rod Rosenstein, or assert Executive Privilege over the final Mueller Report. All of these received lots of partisan hand wringing, lots of media speculation, lots of Democrat bloviating for the past two years. None occurred. Where are the all the long anticipated indictments of Trump’s immediate family members? Those were coming any day, since Mueller was appointed.

Of the campaign officials and hangers on that were indicted, not one was indicted or plead guilty to the myriad of crimes they were certain to go down for. Sure there were several indictments to Russians and Russian entities, but none to any of the suspects in the Trump universe. Sure, Manafort was found guilty but it was for unrelated crimes and lying to Congress. Cohen was found guilty of unrelated crimes, lying to Congress, and a campaign finance violation. Gates plead guilty for unrelated crimes and lying to Congress. Flynn and Papadopolis plead for lying to Congress. Hardly the treasure trove of convictions that Democrats told us everyday were certain to follow.

For certain, Trump made made many decisions, statements or social media posts that could appear to be obstruction. He did fire Comey. He refused to sit for a deposition (knowing their client’s likelihood to make grandiose, false, or misleading statements, what attorney would let their nincompoop client testify?). His twitter account is a nightmare. He made threatening statements to potential witnesses. We can conclude that he’s a scumbag. Got it. In this we can agree.

Regarding Comey, before the investigation, Democrats were all over the idea of firing Comey for the damage he inflicted on Hillary right before the election. When the winds changed and it became politically expedient to stand up for Comey, suddenly he must be saved! That is the hypocrisy of politics, not obstruction.

It's strange that some (now I am including you) want to parse away what is a very logical conclusion by couching your words the way you have. I'm curious because I don't see you as someone who'd teach/advocate those who live with you, work for you are consider themselves friends, to ignore the ethical if a technicality allows you to. This is what I see you doing with this, you know, as most all of us do, inh your heart that this man has done NOTHING to earn the benefit of the doubt and that Mueller did indeed essentially say what I posted above.

Again, if you can make the leap that I possible included YOU in the group of those who are dancing a jig right now (and there's a hole being jigged into a carpet in Waco right now) You can make the leap that most the rest of the rational world has and acknowlegde, that had not Trump been protected from prosecution he would have been indicted along with others long ago.

Parsing words is what everyone is doing today after Mueller spoke and has been doing since Barr issues his first four page summary of findings. By your own admission, you clearly had to parse words to come to your steadfast and certain belief of Trump’s guilt of obstruction. I just disagree and so do the majority of Americans who are telling (through polling) Pelosi that impeachment isn’t the route to go.

And, If by “rational world“ you mean largely Democrats, you might be right. By that statement, one can assume, that you (and those of your mindset) believe the irrational world is anyone who isn’t a Democrat. According to 538 in April 2019 81% of Democrats believe Trump obstructed the investigation, while only 13% of Republicans believe it.

[gcstomp]

Just as a point of contrast, how striking is it to hear Mueller, a completely non partisan just the facts type who, for the 1st time in 2 years takes stage to lowkey state without hyperbole, this is the set of how/what/when/why, as laid out in report. My testimony if called will be as stated in this work. It is frustrating to both sides, but he is what the position should be, a head down public servant who fulfilled his duties.

[Judge Jude]

what he should have done was made clear right after he was hired that under no circumstances - no matter the evidence - would be able to charge a sitting President with anything. that would have saved a LOT of melodrama.

there is legal precedent for that stance, but his failure to make clear his position for two years was properly slammed by both the left and the right yesterday. his apparent lack of curiosity about the provenance of the evidence that produced the FISA warrants in the first place also seems odd, given that tax evasion and unscrupulous taxi medallion scams were not deemed too far afield.

[Bernie Brewer]

Just as a point of contrast, how striking is it to hear Mueller, a completely non partisan just the facts type who, for the 1st time in 2 years takes stage to lowkey state without hyperbole, this is the set of how/what/when/why, as laid out in report. My testimony if called will be as stated in this work. It is frustrating to both sides, but he is what the position should be, a head down public servant who fulfilled his duties.

On this we agree. I think he made it clear he wants no part of partisan politics.

[onejayhawk]

what he should have done was made clear right after he was hired that under no circumstances - no matter the evidence - would be able to charge a sitting President with anything. that would have saved a LOT of melodrama.

there is legal precedent for that stance, but his failure to make clear his position for two years was properly slammed by both the left and the right yesterday. his apparent lack of curiosity about the provenance of the evidence that produced the FISA warrants in the first place also seems odd, given that tax evasion and unscrupulous taxi medallion scams were not deemed too far afield.

Barr testified under oath that he had asked Mueller on multiple occasions if the guidelines were the only block. Each time Mueller said that they did not matter because there there was not sufficient evidence. Mueller said exactly the opposite in the press conference. Clearly, Mueller wants to keep everyone happy and it isn't working.

On this we agree. I think he made it clear he wants no part of partisan politics.

I think it's that he wants no part of the cross examination he would get from Republicans. Plus, he has no more bones to throw to the Democrats. This has turned into a nightmare for him. I think he saw a chance at some personal payback for not getting the Directorship at FBI. Instead, his career is over and his reputation shattered.

J