Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge him

[_Kevin Graham]

“The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress" - Robert Mueller today

Uh, excuse me?

So you've made a report telling Congress to take over but you absolutely refuse to help in any of that. Congress can impeach you say, but impeachment involves further eye witness testimony from the experts who have been investigating. But you won't help in any of that. You refuse to comply with a Congressional subpoena beyond answering questions you believe have already been answered? That doesn't sound like someone who is interested in seeing justice done. He sounds very much like the idiots in Right Wing media who are preemptively attacking and assuming any further questions are just grandstanding and using him as a "prop." I think Mueller showed his stripes today and where his loyalties lie.

This stinks to high heaven. Everyone on the Right is refusing to comply with subpoenas, even those who testified under oath about Trump committing crimes. They'll say it behind closed doors under oath because perjury is a crime, but they know it will get buried in a 400 page report that no Trump voter will ever read. But they refuse to testify before Congress publicly and the only reason is because in their hearts their loyalties are to the Republican party and this would prove devastating to that.

[_Res Ipsa]

“The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress" - Robert Mueller today

Uh, excuse me?

So you've made a report telling Congress to take over but you absolutely refuse to help in any of that. COngress can impeach you say, but impeachment involves further eye witness testimony from the experts who have been investigating. But you won't help in any of that. You refuse to comply with a Congressional subpoena beyond answering questions you believe have already been answered? That doesn't sound like someone who is interested in seeing justice done. He sounds very much like the idiots in Right Wing media who are preemptively attacking and assuming any further questions are just grandstanding and using him as a "prop." I think Mueller showed his stripes today and where his loyalties lie.

This stinks to high heaven. Everyone on the Right is refusing to comply with subpoenas, even those who testified under oath about Trump committing crimes. They'll say it behind closed doors and it will get buried in a 400 page report that no one on the Right will ever read. But they refuse to testify before Congress publicly and the only reason is because in their hearts their loyalties are to the Republican party and this would prove devastating to that.

You're reading way too much into a single sentence that uses the word "would." Mueller's expert opinion is irrelevant in an impeachment inquiry. The facts are the facts. And Congress determines whether the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Mueller is saying that he put everything that he has to say in terms of evidence and legal analysis in his report, and he thinks the report is clear on its face. He didn't say he wouldn't appear and he didn't say he wouldn't answer a question that genuinely seeks clarification of his report (as opposed to the grandstanding by both sides that would happen at an open hearing.

You're doing just what you say the right-wing media is doing. As long as Mueller acts the way you want him to, he's a credible individual. But when he doesn't, you piss all over the man. I don't think you'd recognize integrity if it bopped you on the nose.

[_Res Ipsa]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Nothing whatsoever. It's always where it was - a binding principle on the actions of the justice system, which can impose no penalty on anybody who has not been convicted of an offence. (I.e. the court cannot say "you don't seem to have broken any law, but you are nasty piece of work so we are sending you to jail for a week just to teach you a lesson.")

On the other hand, it has no binding effect on the practical and prudential judgements that we all make in life about whether to trust people: you may, for instance, be pretty damn sure on the basis of close observation that person X is robbing your business, but you can't get enough evidence to convince a jury. If that person asks you for a reference for another job, you are under no obligation to give them one. Or you may have heard quite enough from other parents to convince you that a young man's attitude to girls is (shall we say) a little coercive in sexual matters. When it comes to giving your daughter permission to go out with him, you certainly don't have to treat him as innocent until he actually gets a rape conviction.


(We seem to have to explain this to someone about once every couple of months. Maybe this time it will stick?)

And you certainly don't have to encourage people to vote for a politician who comes out of the Mueller enquiry like Trump has.

I doubt it will stick. Apparently for those who slept through American Government class, "presumed innocent" is a bar to investigating potential crimes. Boy would that empty our prisons lickety-split.

[_Kevin Graham]

You're reading way too much into a single sentence that uses the word "would."

No, but you apparently are if you think this means he actually would testify before Congress in the context of saying he would not.

Mueller's expert opinion is irrelevant in an impeachment inquiry.

What has escaped you is that there is a list of questions pertinent to Congress's charge to impeach which haven't been answered in the report and Mueller just said he won't answer anything not already outlined in the report. The day of the report's release every news outlet hosted Democrats from the House detailing all the questions they desperately want to ask Mueller, and none of it had to do with his personal opinion.

According to you, Mueller gets to declare how much information is needed for Congress to do their job and he's already given all that information in the report. But that isn't up to Mueller, it is up to Congress to determine what questions they need answered. Likewise, it isn't up to the Treasury dept to say they don't have to comply with Congressional subpoena because they thing it requires a legitimate legislative purpose.

The facts are the facts.

You don't say. Well hell, why subpoena anyone for that matter since "facts are facts." Such powerful insight there Res.

And Congress determines whether the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

They can't determine anything if everyone called to testify is obstructing justice by refusing to comply. Mueller is doing precisely the same thing he complained about with Trump witnesses who refused to comply.

Mueller is saying that he put everything that he has to say in terms of evidence and legal analysis in his report, and he thinks the report is clear on its face.

Your non-expert opinion here is contradicted by the fact that Mueller has released several post-report statements in an attempt to clear confusion which you say doesn't exist because the "report is clear on its face." Ya, that's why idiots all over mainstream media keep talking about exoneration, the report being a dud, and "no collusion". Because there is no confusion and facts are facts, right?

He didn't say he wouldn't appear and he didn't say he wouldn't answer a question that genuinely seeks clarification of his report (as opposed to the grandstanding by both sides that would happen at an open hearing.

He said he has no intention to appear even though we already know he has been asked to several times by Nadler. Again:

“I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself — no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter,” Mueller said.

“The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress,” Mueller stated.

Seems pretty clear to me.

You're doing just what you say the right-wing media is doing.

Really? I'm ignoring what Mueller said? I've read the report. They haven't. I also see Mueller being a friggin weirdo about this in a way that can only be best explained by his politics. He also said he couldn't indict the President because that would be unConstitutional. DOJ policy doesn't equate to the Constitution. That's not true but that sounds precisely like what Barr had said in the past.

As long as Mueller acts the way you want him to, he's a credible individual.

I've said nothing about him not being credible, so maybe you should take your Doc hat off and pay attention.

But when he doesn't, you piss all over the man.

I'm pissing all over the man by pointing out something obvious which no one in the media will say?

I don't think you'd recognize integrity if it bopped you on the nose.

I think integrity would be respecting Congress enough to answer their questions without worrying about politics.

[_Kevin Graham]

Moreover, Mueller makes it painfully clear in his report as well as his follow up clarifications that his decision not to indict the President was predicated on DOJ policy which prohibits that. However when Bob Barr released his four page summary and was giving his synopsis to the media, he said flat out that Mueller's decision not to indict had NOTHING to do with DOJ policy. This is no minor point. This is a crucial point because if Mueller is just following DOJ guidelines then it means President could still be guilty of a crime.

So what does Mueller do when he's being willfully misrepresented by Barr? He makes a public statement saying he says Barr was acting in Good Faith! And lo and behold, the Right wing Propaganda machine is eating it up. Mueller doesn't have any problem with that. But when Democrats in Congress try to get him to testify publicly he frets and balks, insisting he's already said all that he's going to so, following the ways of others who have refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas. But Barr flat out lies, and there is no way to get around this fact, he LIED in the most egregious way by insisting DOJ guidelines had no role in shaping Mueller's conclusions. And the fact that he lied isn't even newsworthy stuff anymore. Its just another blip in the long line of corruption and obstruction we've been seeing under this administration as the media moves on with another bogus narrative that minimizes the significance of law breaking.

Everyone remember Mueller breaking protocol and releasing a statement correcting Buzzfeed, just out of the blue? Well, Mueller has no problem letting Right Wing Media run with this false narrative that Democrats are simply trying to "redo the Mueller report." If Mueller is really saying Congress is now in charge of holding Trump accountable for obstruction crimes, then why not say this explicitly and unambiguously to Congress on national television? Because it hurts his party which is still the party in power. He probably doesn't like Trump, but he's still clearly a partisan who appears to hate the fact that his good work is being used as a weapon by the Democrats. That best explains his silly antics on camera, insisting he's done with nothing more to say. Well Screw you Bob, the American people have been waiting years for you to reach conclusions and they deserve more.

Also, Mueller said president, “cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional” And he noted, “Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.”

What in the ever living “F”? If we had known this were his view two years ago expectations would have been along the lines of what we'd expect from Barr, who was hand selected by Trump because he believes the President is basically above the law. Mueller's claim echos a Right Wing talking point that is obviously false. As Professor Ohlin explained:

Mueller is faithfully following DOJ policy, but the DOJ policy is just plain wrong. Mueller says that a president can be investigated but neither indicted nor accused. And his argument for not accusing him of a crime is that it would be “unfair” to accuse someone who does not have a courtroom to protest his or her innocence.

But that is completely absurd: The president doesn’t have a courtroom to vindicate his innocence only because the DOJ has decided that his office makes him immune from indictment in the first place. It’s a piece of circular reasoning that removes the president from the scope of generally applicable criminal laws. - Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University

Also,

To be clear, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Language from the Clinton v. Jones and US v. Nixon cases indicates that the president is not above the law. If federal prosecutors refuse to hold the president to the same legal standard as any other citizen, state attorneys general could certainly charge a president with a state crime with sufficient evidence. - Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, law professor, Stetson University

Also,

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. There is nothing in Supreme Court opinions that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. All we have is Department of Justice policy based largely on concerns over separation of powers.

On the other hand, there is an important principle guiding our legal system that no person is above the law. That principle is fundamentally undercut by the policy that a sitting president is immune from indictment. - Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School

But I'll let our integrity specialist Res Ipsa explain how no one cares about Mueller's opinion because, you know, "facts are facts." And obviously the facts of the Mueller report have been so overwhelmingly read and accepted and taken at face value so Mueller's testimony isn't needed right? Wrong. Instead, this false narrative about how the Democrats are trying to get a mulligan and a redo on the Mueller report are more pervasive than anything remotely factual.

Mueller's fairness doctrine raises this question: What would Mueller have done had he unearthed evidence that Trump conspired with Russia over election interference? How would he have communicated that criminality to the Justice Department, Congress and the public, given that he didn't think he could accuse Trump of crimes? He didn't have to grapple with that conundrum, because his investigation found insufficient evidence to establish such a conspiracy.

But on the question of the Trump campaign's dealings with Russia, that narrow finding was the only conclusion Mueller reached, despite laying out a mountain of evidence of suspicious contacts, back channels, business deals and approaches.

Did any of those contacts with Russians compromise national security? Did the Trump team report any of it to the FBI? Did the president have any business dealings with Russians beyond the proposal to build a tower in Moscow?

Mueller's report answers none of those questions, and Mueller made clear that he never will.

Because, you know.... INTEGRITY!

[_ajax18]

Why is he refusing to publicly address Congress?

He's refusing to address Congress because he doesn't want to be cross examined about the investigation by Republilcans in congress, the decisions he made, the people he hired, etc. He wouldn't even take any questions from reporters.

but at the same time here's a 400+ page report that is just ambiguous enough to make sure the media narratives are easily derailed by Right Wing commentators.

This has always been an investigation about impeachment rather than indictment.

Why not? Because Barr is Trump's new lapdog who has been given unlimited authority to "investigate the investigators." Mueller did his job and now wants out of the spotlight to return to private life with his family. Vexing the Trump administration would ensure that never happens.

I think we have something we can agree upon. Mueller is definitely afraid of the investigation being investigated.

[_Res Ipsa]

You're reading way too much into a single sentence that uses the word "would."

No, but you apparently are if you think this means he actually would testify before Congress in the context of saying he would not.

Now you're just misrepresenting what Mueller said. Mueller has already communicated to Congress that he would be willing to testify before Congress in a closed session. He did not say today that he "would not" testify.

Mueller's expert opinion is irrelevant in an impeachment inquiry.

What has escaped you is that there is a list of questions pertinent to Congress's charge to impeach which haven't been answered in the report and Mueller just said he won't answer anything not already outlined in the report. The day of the report's release every news outlet hosted Democrats from the House detailing all the questions they desperately want to ask Mueller, and none of it had to do with his personal opinion.

No, that hasn't escaped me. You're just so eager to piss all over a guy who didn't say what you wanted him to say that you aren't listening. Congress may have lots of questions that it wants answered in a pseudo impeachment inquiry, but that doesn't make Mueller a proper witness to give public testimony on those questions. Mueller was given a specific job, the parameters of which are laid out in Rosenstein's memo and Comey's testimony. Taking the questions in the source you linked:

Did any of those contacts with Russians compromise national security?

Mueller isn't a national security specialist. He wasn't asked to perform a counterintelligence investigation. His "opinion" on whether the contacts compromised national security is irrelevant and would require speculation on his part.

Did the Trump team report any of it to the FBI?

The report doesn't say they did. The Trump team has never claimed they did. The FBI has never reported that they did. This is grandstanding, not a question designed to get information.

Did the president have any business dealings with Russians beyond the proposal to build a tower in Moscow?

Mueller wasn't tasked with tracking down every business dealing Trump had with Russians. He was charged with investigating election interference and whether member of the Trump team conspired with those who interfered. This is a political question designed to try and rebut Trump's claims that he never did any business with Russia.

According to you, Mueller gets to declare how much information is needed for Congress to do their job and he's already given all that information in the report. But that isn't up to Mueller, it is up to Congress to determine what questions they need answered. Likewise, it isn't up to the Treasury dept to say they don't have to comply with Congressional subpoena because they thing it requires a legitimate legislative purpose.

Well now you've moved on to lying about what I said. Mueller is trying his best to keep his investigation from being dragged into the political mudpit (like you and Ajax are both trying to do.) Congress is a political body. It conducts political investigations. Muller acted as an officer of the Justice Department, which is not supposed to be a political body. If he testifies publicly, it will be a guaranteed three-ring circus, with both parties trying to make political hay out of every word he says. He's "hoping" and "expecting" that he won't be forced to do that. But he's never taken the position that he would refuse to honor a subpoena to testify before Congress. It's clear that, in his view, he's done what he can do as a member of the DOJ. What's left is political, and that's for Congress. If Congresscritters need to have the report clarified, a closed door session has the best chance of getting that done. And that's what Mueller is asking for.

The facts are the facts.

You don't say. Well hell, why subpoena anyone for that matter since "facts are facts." Such powerful insight there Res.

It's a simple insight, and you seem to skip over the simple things. You don't need Mueller to tell you the facts in the report because their, like, in the report. I've read the report, and the facts Mueller found are pretty damn clear. You don't need Mueller to tell you what the facts mean (other than whether he had grounds to indict) because that's what Congress has to decide (high crimes and misdemeanors). What you want Mueller to do is take your political side -- which is exactly what he shouldn't do.

There are lots of reasons to use subpoenas. It's perfectly reasonable, for example, to subpoena the exhibits to Mueller's report because they are being withheld. But the witnesses with relevant information are those who prepared the documents or were first hand witnesses to how those documents were used. Mueller has no personal knowledge about any of that. If Congress can't understand what a document says, there's no reason to as Mueller to explain it. He didn't write it. He wasn't there when it was used. The people with that knowledge are the people who were involved at the time -- not the guy who collected them.

And Congress determines whether the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

They can't determine anything if everyone called to testify is obstructing justice by refusing to comply. Mueller is doing precisely the same thing he complained about with Trump witnesses who refused to comply.

Once again, you are misrepresenting what Mueller said. He has not refused to comply with a subpoena. He is trying to negotiate the terms of his testimony, which is not an unusual occurrence. What other "Trump witnesses" do has nothing to do with Mueller.

Mueller is saying that he put everything that he has to say in terms of evidence and legal analysis in his report, and he thinks the report is clear on its face.

Your non-expert opinion here is contradicted by the fact that Mueller has released several post-report statements in an attempt to clear confusion which you say doesn't exist because the "report is clear on its face." Ya, that's why idiots all over mainstream media keep talking about exoneration, the report being a dud, and "no collusion". Because there is no confusion and facts are facts, right?

How many is "several"? Please list them for me. The report is clear, if you read it and you want to understand what it actually says. It's not Mueller's job to take sides in the spin wars. And, you'll note, all he said today is what the report says. He didn't clarify -- he reminded people about what the report says. by the way, exactly which mainstream media idiots are claiming exoneration? Confusion, to the extent it exists, is the result of partisan warfare.

He didn't say he wouldn't appear and he didn't say he wouldn't answer a question that genuinely seeks clarification of his report (as opposed to the grandstanding by both sides that would happen at an open hearing.

He said he has no intention to appear even though we already know he has been asked to several times by Nadler. Again:

“I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself — no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter,” Mueller said.

“The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress,” Mueller stated.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Yeah, clear. Well, except that he never said that he "has no intention to appear." Expressing hope or expectations is not a refusal to testify. When he disregards a subpoena, he'll have refused.

="Res Ipsa"]You're doing just what you say the right-wing media is doing.

Really? I'm ignoring what Mueller said? I've read the report. They haven't. I also see Mueller being a friggin weirdo about this in a way that can only be best explained by his politics. He also said he couldn't indict the President because that would be unConstitutional. DOJ policy doesn't equate to the Constitution. That's not true but that sounds precisely like what Barr had said in the past.

Yeah, just like the right wingers. When Mueller doesn't say something the way you want him to say it, he's a frigging weirdo Republican hack.

There is a legal opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel that says it would be unconstitutional to indict a sitting president. The DOJ has adopted it as policy. In his position as special counsel, he has to accept the legal opinion that it would be unconstitutional. He had no authority to override DOJ's interpretation of the Constitution. So, no, he's not a friggin weirdo. He's just doing his job rather than what you want him to do.

As long as Mueller acts the way you want him to, he's a credible individual.

I've said nothing about him not being credible, so maybe you should take your Doc hat off and pay attention.

If you find him credible, why don't you accept what the guy has to say: that he really has no testimony to add to what he said in the report.

But when he doesn't, you piss all over the man.

I'm pissing all over the man by pointing out something obvious which no one in the media will say?

Maybe the media doesn't say it because it's not true and you're full of crap. All you've done is made up reasons to discount Mueller as a partisan member of team R when there are completely understandable explanations for why a non-partisan would say and act as he had.

I don't think you'd recognize integrity if it bopped you on the nose.

I think integrity would be respecting Congress enough to answer their questions without worrying about politics.

Get back to me when he refuses to answer Congress's questions. And he should worry about politics -- staying out of politics and sticking to what he was tasked with doing.

The problem with you hyper-partisan types is that you refuse to consider that there are reasonable ways of saying and doing things that aren't the way you would say and do things. Either Mueller does and says what you want him to do, or he's a R hack that lacks integrity. There is a range of actions that would be reasonable for a special prosecutor to take in this matter. That's what I see Mueller doing, even though I don't think I would do it the way he is doing it. I happen to think he's wrong when he says that he would have no relevant information other than what's in the report. But I don't think it's unreasonable for him to argue that to the Congress. I simply think that your accusations of partisanship on these facts is disgusting and represents everything that's wrong with politics today. It's the same way I feel about Ajax's comments in this thread. In that respect, you're peas in a pod.

[_Res Ipsa]

Moreover, Mueller makes it painfully clear in his report as well as his follow up clarifications that his decision not to indict the President was predicated on DOJ policy which prohibits that. However when Bob Barr released his four page summary and was giving his synopsis to the media, he said flat out that Mueller's decision not to indict had NOTHING to do with DOJ policy. This is no minor point. This is a crucial point because if Mueller is just following DOJ guidelines then it means President could still be guilty of a crime.

Yes, Kevin. The report is painfully clear on that subject. Again, which follow up clarifications? What Barr said about the report has nothing to do with Mueller testifying before Congress. Like you said, it's "painfully clear."

So what does Mueller do when he's being willfully misrepresented by Barr? He makes a public statement saying he says Barr was acting in Good Faith! And lo and behold, the Right wing Propaganda machine is eating it up. Mueller doesn't have any problem with that. But when Democrats in Congress try to get him to testify publicly he frets and balks, insisting he's already said all that he's going to so, following the ways of others who have refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas. But Barr flat out lies, and there is no way to get around this fact, he LIED in the most egregious way by insisting DOJ guidelines had no role in shaping Mueller's conclusions. And the fact that he lied isn't even newsworthy stuff anymore. Its just another blip in the long line of corruption and obstruction we've been seeing under this administration as the media moves on with another bogus narrative that minimizes the significance of law breaking.

No, Mueller wrote a letter to Barr complaining about how he described the report. A letter that was then leaked to the press. And you're misrepresenting Mueller yet again: his "good faith" comment had to two with Barr releasing as much of the report as he did -- not Barr's original description of the report. As you said, Mueller made his reliance of the regulations "painfully clear" in the report. Countering misleading partisan spin is not his job.

Everyone remember Mueller breaking protocol and releasing a statement correcting Buzzfeed, just out of the blue? Well, Mueller has no problem letting Right Wing Media run with this false narrative that Democrats are simply trying to "redo the Mueller report." If Mueller is really saying Congress is now in charge of holding Trump accountable for obstruction crimes, then why not say this explicitly and unambiguously to Congress on national television? Because it hurts his party which is still the party in power. He probably doesn't like Trump, but he's still clearly a partisan who appears to hate the fact that his good work is being used as a weapon by the Democrats. That best explains his silly antics on camera, insisting he's done with nothing more to say. Well ____ you Bob, the American people have been waiting years for you to reach conclusions and they deserve more.

Sure, I remember. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics ... index.html Mueller has a reputation for not leaking information during the course of an investigation. The Buzzfeed article said a member of his team was the source of the information. The story created an impression that the team was selectively leaking information damaging to the president. (If true, it would have been evidence of suborning perjury.) I think it was absolutely appropriate to issue the denial of the story to try and protect the non-partisan nature of the investigation. The denial gave no information at all about the investigation, which was appropriate as the investigation is still under way.

At this point, the report is out. There is no need for Mueller to tell us what the report says, because the report tells us. It would be inappropriate for him to jump into the spin wars, as that is a partisan, political issue.

Also, Mueller said president, “cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional” And he noted, “Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.”

What in the ever living ____? If we had known this were his view two years ago expectations would have been along the lines of what we'd expect from Barr, who was hand selected by Trump because he believes the President is basically above the law. Mueller's claim echos a Right Wing talking point that is obviously false.

Where have you been for the last two years, Kevin? Sleeping? The Justice Department policy has been around for a long time, and I heard it discussed by the media on a number of occasions. More importantly, it's not a right wing talking point: It's Justice Department policy based on a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that precedes Trump by decades. It's not Mueller's prerogative to unilaterally change longstanding Justice Department policy.

As Professor Ohlin explained:

Mueller is faithfully following DOJ policy, but the DOJ policy is just plain wrong. Mueller says that a president can be investigated but neither indicted nor accused. And his argument for not accusing him of a crime is that it would be “unfair” to accuse someone who does not have a courtroom to protest his or her innocence.

But that is completely absurd: The president doesn’t have a courtroom to vindicate his innocence only because the DOJ has decided that his office makes him immune from indictment in the first place. It’s a piece of circular reasoning that removes the president from the scope of generally applicable criminal laws. - Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University

Also,

To be clear, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Language from the Clinton v. Jones and US v. Nixon cases indicates that the president is not above the law. If federal prosecutors refuse to hold the president to the same legal standard as any other citizen, state attorneys general could certainly charge a president with a state crime with sufficient evidence. - Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, law professor, Stetson University

Also,

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. There is nothing in Supreme Court opinions that prevents a sitting president from being indicted. All we have is Department of Justice policy based largely on concerns over separation of powers.

On the other hand, there is an important principle guiding our legal system that no person is above the law. That principle is fundamentally undercut by the policy that a sitting president is immune from indictment. - Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School

Yeah, law professors have opinions. Shocker. Does that mean the Dersh is right when he says Trump cannot obstruct justice because he is the head of the judicial branch? Yes, it's an open question. But separation of powers is a legitimate concern. Whether you agree with the policy or not, it's not Mueller's place to say "“F” it -- i'm doing it live."

[quote=Kevin Graham"]But I'll let our integrity specialist Res Ipsa explain how no one cares about Mueller's opinion because, you know, "facts are facts." And obviously the facts of the Mueller report have been so overwhelmingly read and accepted and taken at face value so Mueller's testimony isn't needed right? Wrong. Instead, this false narrative about how the Democrats are trying to get a mulligan and a redo on the Mueller report are more pervasive than anything remotely factual.

Oh, I never said people didn't care. Folks on both side of the aisle are itching to try and get Mueller to say something that they can score political points with. One more time: it's not Mueller's job to insert himself into the spin game. What the right is trying to do with the report is pure politics -- it has nothing to do with what Mueller's job was. Mueller spelled out his conclusions in the report, including how and why he reached them. He repeated them this morning. It would be absolutely inappropriate ask a question like: "Are the democrats trying to get a Mulligan on your report?" I suspect the answer is: I don't have an opinion on that.

Mueller's fairness doctrine raises this question: What would Mueller have done had he unearthed evidence that Trump conspired with Russia over election interference? How would he have communicated that criminality to the Justice Department, Congress and the public, given that he didn't think he could accuse Trump of crimes? He didn't have to grapple with that conundrum, because his investigation found insufficient evidence to establish such a conspiracy.

But on the question of the Trump campaign's dealings with Russia, that narrow finding was the only conclusion Mueller reached, despite laying out a mountain of evidence of suspicious contacts, back channels, business deals and approaches.

Did any of those contacts with Russians compromise national security? Did the Trump team report any of it to the FBI? Did the president have any business dealings with Russians beyond the proposal to build a tower in Moscow?

Mueller's report answers none of those questions, and Mueller made clear that he never will.

Because, you know.... INTEGRITY![/quote]

I already addressed the reporter's questions. The first seeks an opinion on something Mueller wasn't asked to investigate and isn't any kind of expert in. The second we know -- asking it would be sheer political grandstanding. The third is not within what Mueller was assigned to investigate.

Yeah, a Justice Department official doing his best to conduct a non-partisan criminal investigation is doing his best to protect the integrity of his work by not getting dragged into partisan wrangling. I think that shows integrity. You seem to have defined "integrity" as "support my team."

[_Gray Ghost]

TOTAL BS!!!!!

Ispa, you are sooooo un-informed. Mueller was not engaged to exonerate anyone. Prosecutors are never charges with such a task. They are engaged to seek out if a crime was committed and then to indict if they believe they have the evidence to do so.

And, unlike the Starr Report, the word guilty was never invoked by Mueller Report.

You are very naïve and should retire (again) from this and all other message boards!


The Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Nadler is such an idiot. I wish they would either impeach Trump or just shut the f up. They know they have no case and just want to milk this for 18 months just for political theatre. They are so weak and have no agenda to do anything constructive.

They are handing 2020 to Trump on a silver platter.

The word "guilty" appears multiple times in the Mueller report. In what context is the word used in the Starr Report? I'll wait.

[_canpakes]

ALLCAPS BS!!!!!

The word "guilty" appears multiple times in the Mueller report. In what context is the word used in the Starr Report? I'll wait.

You’ll be waiting for a while. Bach is incapable of answering questions. It’s some sort of intellect, honesty, or huevos issue.