Mueller Report Imminent

[Matt2496]

Basically the entire 2nd half of the Mueller report is just meat for the Democrat party. No criminal charges, no recommendations, just innuendo and op-ed research. It reads like something written by the NY times or CNN. It's a disgrace to the DOJ, a disgrace to the FBI, and a disgrace to law enforcement as a whole.

Also, this insufferable man Mueller has put AG Barr in a very uncomfortable place. He didn't have the balls to come out and say one way or the other whether or not Trump needed to be prosecuted.

I think Mueller wanted to set this entire charade up from the start.

If Mueller and Barr were friends before this **** show they probably aren't anymore.

 

[volfanjustin]

It's so funny this is still a thing, such desperation

 

[RockyTop85]

So are you saying he was not tasked to investigate whether Trumps conduct rose to the level of obstruction or not? If not then what the hell was he doing for two years? If the end product wasn’t actionable on its own merit why generate the information?

I don’t understand what you are talking about? In what way is it not actionable? In what way did he not do an investigation?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I don’t understand what you are talking about? In what way is it not actionable? In what way did he not do an investigation?

I was just about to reply. Here is Barr in his own words articulating it.

Barr hearing: AG reveals tensions with Mueller team over Russia report conclusion, no-obstruction punt

 

[Obsessed]

It's heating up:

Hot damn!

 

[Roustabout]

Both parties are constantly arguing that the other guys are so horrible while being exactly the same.

At leas the Republicans showed they can elect an unconventional candidate and call out the Rhinos.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Again, on Mueller testifying...

In her opening statement, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, called for Mueller to testify himself. Barr said he has no problem with Mueller testifying.

So invite him, subpoena him, or STFU already.

 

[AM64]

See, if i were a member of Congress my question to Mueller would be simple:

"Your report states that under DOJ policy the department cannot indict a SITTING President. Moreover, it would be unfair to do so because he cannot fight back in a court of law to clear the charge. So let me pose this hypothetical. If your report was coming out a month after President Trump left office, but still within the statute of limitations, would you have made a criminal charge or recommended a criminal charge against him for obstruction of justice?"

Pretty simple. Its either a timing issue or its not. From what I have read, I think Mueller would answer "yes" to that question.

What you are saying crosses the innocent unless proven guilty line. Mueller would be essentially the prosecutor, judge, and jury handing out a guilty verdict that would cripple a president who under your theory couldn't defend himself. The correct path would be impeachment ... if there were real charges, but impeachment is more often than not not about misdeeds but about political gain, corruption, and revenge ... and Hiliary still lost to a despicable human being because she was even worse.

 

[hog88]

I was just about to reply. Here is Barr in his own words articulating it.

Barr hearing: AG reveals tensions with Mueller team over Russia report conclusion, no-obstruction punt

Now what @RockyTop85

 

[AM64]

He did. DOJ won't commit though. Mueller is still employed with DOJ, otherwise he could do it on his own accord.

Mueller is always free to resign and say what he wants .... as long as it doesn't violate legal rules and confidentiality. Obviously Mueller doesn't have either the courage of his convictions or else there's nothing substantial to say. But likely the more correct answer is that you and a few others here simply didn't get the answer you wanted and you are looking for unicorns and windmills.

 

[Orangeburst]

Anybody that thinks any consequence will come out of this dog and pony show is only fooling themselves

 

[luthervol]

Mueller is always free to resign and say what he wants .... as long as it doesn't violate legal rules and confidentiality. Obviously Mueller doesn't have either the courage of his convictions or else there's nothing substantial to say. But likely the more correct answer is that you and a few others here simply didn't get the answer you wanted and you are looking for unicorns and windmills.

Windmills are real you know.

 

[Orangeburst]

Windmills are real you know.

Yes they are...but some see dragons
Keep tilting at windmills Luther

 

[AM64]

So are you saying he was not tasked to investigate whether Trumps conduct rose to the level of obstruction or not? If not then what the hell was he doing for two years? If the end product wasn’t actionable on its own merit why generate the information?

And isn’t your whole last paragraph a tacit description of him abdicating his responsibility?

Stretching it out over two years helped the Dims win some seats during the midterms ... because they could keep the whole mess in the headlines. Now with a nothing conclusion but a lot of fancy footwork and doubt courtesy of Mueller and his band, they have more fodder to keep things going for the next election ... a lot of hope, but hold the change.

 

[vols4sure]

Directly contradicts RockyTop85 argument no? So now we have to assume Barr is lying under oath (while recognizing anything and everything that Mueller wants public gets leaked) in order to believe esteemed counsel RockyTop85's interpretation of the Mueller report on this issue?

 

[GAVol]

Stretching it out over two years helped the Dims win some seats during the midterms ... because they could keep the whole mess in the headlines. Now with a nothing conclusion but a lot of fancy footwork and doubt courtesy of Mueller and his band, they have more fodder to keep things going for the next election ... a lot of hope, but hold the change.

Bingo... Even with the collusion exoneration, leaving the obstruction question flapping in the wind is a gift for 2020. It'll be "Look what he might have done. And if you vote for him, he may get impeached."

 

[Orangeslice13]

At leas the Republicans showed they can elect an unconventional candidate and call out the Rhinos.

The republicans do tend to break ranks more often than the Democrats.

 

[RockyTop85]

I was just about to reply. Here is Barr in his own words articulating it.

Barr hearing: AG reveals tensions with Mueller team over Russia report conclusion, no-obstruction punt

I’m not trying intentionally to be dense, but I still don’t see it. Why care that he didn’t say the words “we concluded that a crime had been committed?”

He says “If I didn’t think a crime was committed, I’d say so.” And in Volume I, he says “there’s not enough here to prosecute.”

He didn’t say either of those things about obstruction. He notes that the president is subject to prosecution after he leaves office. He remarks that he is preserving the evidence. He says “congress can use their authority to prevent the corrupt exercise of executive authority. Then he juxtaposes the law and the facts, element by element in a way that a casual observer should be able to make up their own mind.

What does his opinion/conclusion add to that that would outweigh the fuel it would give to Trump’s efforts to undermine his impartiality and the questions that would be raised about whether or not his presentation of the facts could be trusted by those who disagreed with his conclusion?

What is the negative in hot having the conclusion of Robert Mueller if all of the tools for drawing your own conclusion are already there?

 

[AM64]

Nah, the house can still hold impeachment hearings.

The more lucid and rational Dims are probably debating that exact thing. They can let the doubt over Trump continue, but look like the know they can't hang him because they know Mueller found nothing. Or they could impeach, and wind up demonstrating that Mueller had nothing and end up with egg on their faces before the election. Kinda like opening your mouth and removing all doubt when you know you've lost.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I’m not trying intentionally to be dense, but I still don’t see it. Why care that he didn’t say the words “we concluded that a crime had been committed?”

He says “If I didn’t think a crime was committed, I’d say so.” And in Volume I, he says “we couldn’t prove exoneration, but there’s not enough here to prosecute.”

He didn’t say either of those things about obstruction. He notes that the president is subject to prosecution after he leaves office. He remarks that he is preserving the evidence. He says “congress can use their authority to prevent the corrupt exercise of executive authority. Then he juxtaposes the law and the facts, element by element in a way that a casual observer should be able to make up their own mind.

What does his opinion/conclusion add to that that would outweigh the fuel it would give to Trump’s efforts to undermine his impartiality and the questions that would be raised about whether or not his presentation of the facts could be trusted by those who disagreed with his conclusion?

What is the negative in hot having the conclusion of Robert Mueller if all of the tools for drawing your own conclusion are already there?

I really don’t know what else I can say then. In reading Barr’s comments on the “non conclusion” I think it’s pretty fair to infer that’s an indictment of abdication by Mueller of his charter?

 

[hog88]

I’m not trying intentionally to be dense, but I still don’t see it. Why care that he didn’t say the words “we concluded that a crime had been committed?”

He says “If I didn’t think a crime was committed, I’d say so.” And in Volume I, he says “there’s not enough here to prosecute.”

He didn’t say either of those things about obstruction. He notes that the president is subject to prosecution after he leaves office. He remarks that he is preserving the evidence. He says “congress can use their authority to prevent the corrupt exercise of executive authority. Then he juxtaposes the law and the facts, element by element in a way that a casual observer should be able to make up their own mind.

What does his opinion/conclusion add to that that would outweigh the fuel it would give to Trump’s efforts to undermine his impartiality and the questions that would be raised about whether or not his presentation of the facts could be trusted by those who disagreed with his conclusion?

What is the negative in hot having the conclusion of Robert Mueller if all of the tools for drawing your own conclusion are already there?

LOL

At least you are dedicated.

 

[RockyTop85]

I really don’t know what else I can say then. In reading Barr’s comments on the “non conclusion” I think it’s pretty fair to infer that’s an indictment of abdication by Mueller of his charter?

I’m asking for a negative consequence of “breaking the charter.”

 

[hog88]

I really don’t know what else I can say then. In reading Barr’s comments on the “non conclusion” I think it’s pretty fair to infer that’s an indictment of abdication by Mueller of his charter?

Barr must not have read the Muells report. Probably needs to get ol @RockyTop85 to fill him in on how these things work.

 

[vols4sure]

Barr must not have read the Muells report. Probably needs to get ol @RockyTop85 to fill him in on how these things work.

Amazing how appropriate Curry is for RockyTop85's profile picture.

 

[volfanjustin]

Directly contradicts RockyTop85 argument no? So now we have to assume Barr is lying under oath (while recognizing anything and everything that Mueller wants public gets leaked) in order to believe esteemed counsel RockyTop85's interpretation of the Mueller report on this issue?

Yes of course it does. But the issue is they truly believe Barr is lying under oath to protect Trump. They just can't accept the 2016 or the Mueller report.