Mueller Report Imminent

[tvolsfan]

The Democrat Derangement Syndrome is real.

"Democratic hatred of Trump is out of control and we should kill them all!"

 

[ajvol01]

Which statement?

"The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime"

Full Transcript of Mueller’s Statement on Russia Investigation
Video



9:29







The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, made his first public comments about the Russia investigation.CreditCreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
By The New York Times

• May 29, 2019
• • 
    
  • 
    

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, made his first public comments on Wednesday about the Russia investigation that he took over two years ago.
The following is a transcript of his remarks, as prepared by The New York Times.
[Read our full coverage here.]
_________________
ROBERT S. MUELLER III, the special counsel: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
Now, I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel’s office, and as well, I’m resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life. I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself. Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cybertechniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks.
The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation, where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.
Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president.
The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. 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. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.
So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.
The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general’s good faith in that decision.
Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.
So beyond what I’ve said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it’s for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.
Now, before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the F.B.I. agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel’s office were of the highest integrity. And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

A version of this article appears in print on May 30, 2019, on Page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: Letting the Report ‘Speak for Itself’. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

 

[DC_Vol]

The Democrat Derangement Syndrome is real.

 

[zeppelin128]

"The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime"

They are hiding behind executive privilege and the fact that basically no sitting president can be indicted for a crime unless they are Bill Clinton and he hurts our feelz by schepling with an intern. I'll keep that ringing endorsement of no collushion, no Russir, very bad no good Democrats in mind.
It is pretty clear that he is guilty af, but they didn't want to indict a sitting President. When a liberal is in the White House again, I'll remember this. He couldn't even eat a sammich with Dijon mustard without someone calling for his head last time around.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Hannity viewers are okay with the hypocrisy. As long as the "right" people are locked up, or murdered by the State apparently per some of our other posters, that is cool. But don't you have a ship with a no-no name on it within view of Lord Red Hat.

It amazes me how you and the left don’t see your own hypocrisy in this.
It was stupid when Trump was having people chant “lock her up “. Now NP trying to use the same tactic because it worked (or appears too) work for trump is just as stupid.

NP knows that an attempt at impeachment gives 2020 to Trump. She knows there’s absolutely no chance of him going to jail (just like HRC) but she’s got to distract her own simple minded people to have any hope in 2020.

Nothing is going to to anyone in power.
Status quo

 

[BigOrangeD]

Mueller done messed up again. What a liar he is.

 

[hog88]

They are hiding behind executive privilege and the fact that basically no sitting president can be indicted for a crime unless they are Bill Clinton and he hurts our feelz by schepling with an intern. I'll keep that ringing endorsement of no collushion, no Russir, very bad no good Democrats in mind.
It is pretty clear that he is guilty af, but they didn't want to indict a sitting President. When a liberal is in the White House again, I'll remember this. He couldn't even eat a sammich with Dijon mustard without someone calling for his head last time around.

Umm, hate to mess up your rant but Bill Clinton was never indicted.

 

[zeppelin128]

It amazes me how you and the left don’t see your own hypocrisy in this.
It was stupid when Trump was having people chant “lock her up “. Now NP trying to use the same tactic because it worked (or appears too) work for trump is just as stupid.

NP knows that an attempt at impeachment gives 2020 to Trump. She knows there’s absolutely no chance of him going to jail (just like HRC) but she’s got to distract her own simple minded people to have any hope in 2020.

Nothing is going to to anyone in power.
Status quo

I don't see the hypocrisy. It was incredibly stupid, and telling, when the "lock her up" thing started. NP is doing the right thing and trying to steer it toward a vote in 2020.

 

[zeppelin128]

Umm, hate to mess up your rant but Bill Clinton was never indicted.

True. Ahh, so the House did what they were supposed to do and brought articles of impeachment against a sitting president.
Totally fine in that situation, because you know, Democrats.
Weird how some were okay with it then (looking at you, Lindsey), but now it is a soft coup.

 

[volfanhill]

True. Ahh, so the House did what they were supposed to do and brought articles of impeachment against a sitting president.
Totally fine in that situation, because you know, Democrats.
Weird how some were okay with it then (looking at you, Lindsey), but now it is a soft coup.

You guys control the house. You should place your anger on Pelosi’s door step.

 

[hog88]

True. Ahh, so the House did what they were supposed to do and brought articles of impeachment against a sitting president.
Totally fine in that situation, because you know, Democrats.
Weird how some were okay with it then (looking at you, Lindsey), but now it is a soft coup.

I’m fine with the Dems going through the impeachment process, they need to get to it and stop with the senseless bloviating.

 

[zeppelin128]

You guys control the house. You should place your anger on Pelosi’s door step.

Nancy is a far more intelligent politician than anyone on this board, including me. She is doing exactly what she needs to do.

 

[Grand Vol]

I’m fine with the Dems going through the impeachment process, they need to get to it and stop with the senseless bloviating.

Pelosi is doing the smart thing by not allowing it to go forward. She knows if they do it now, it will be a disaster at the polls in 2020.

She knows her own party can't control themselves long enough to bring forward facts and actual impeachable offenses. They'll resort to their feelz and orange man bad and a whole hoop of unrelated items.

Trump gets easily acquitted in the Senate and wins by the largest landslide since Reagan in 84.

 

[zeppelin128]

I’m fine with the Dems going through the impeachment process, they need to get to it and stop with the senseless bloviating.

It is pretty obvious what is going on. Dems are floating the Joe Biden, centrist route, while at the same time randomly mentioning impeachment to keep the far left of the party content. It is a losing strategy, even though Biden is polling above Trump in many key states. It won't stay that way.

 

[luthervol]

It amazes me how you and the left don’t see your own hypocrisy in this.
It was stupid when Trump was having people chant “lock her up “. Now NP trying to use the same tactic because it worked (or appears too) work for trump is just as stupid.

NP knows that an attempt at impeachment gives 2020 to Trump. She knows there’s absolutely no chance of him going to jail (just like HRC) but she’s got to distract her own simple minded people to have any hope in 2020.
Nothing is going to to anyone in power.
Status quo

I long for the days when the vote of the simple minded is once again split somewhere near the middle and not so heavily weighted to the right.

 

[RockyTop85]

"The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime"

Which part of that is antithetical to the constitutional requirement of proof of guilt before imposition of punishment?

Is Trump in jail? Has he had assets seized? Fined? I don’t even see an accusation. Has there been an accusation?

 

[zeppelin128]

Which part of that is antithetical to the constitutional requirement of proof of guilt before imposition of punishment?

Is Trump in jail? Has he had assets seized? Fined? I don’t even see an accusation. Has there been an accusation?

The only way Trump will ever see a jail cell is if the New York FBI office RICO's the hell out of him and his trash family. Fingers crossed.

 

[volfanhill]

Nancy is a far more intelligent politician than anyone on this board, including me. She is doing exactly what she needs to do.

So then what’s with the outrage? First you hissy fit about not being able to indict a sitting president even though Clinton was. And claim double standard. Hog points out he wasn’t indicted. So you change arguments and go with impeachment. Ok sure Clinton was. If that’s what has your panties in a twist write a letter to the Speaker.

 

[Grand Vol]

The only way Trump will ever see a jail cell is if the New York FBI office RICO's the hell out of him and his trash family. Fingers crossed.

Uh huh...

You really want your country thrown into chaos because of your feelz?

 

[zeppelin128]

Pelosi is doing the smart thing by not allowing it to go forward. She knows if they do it now, it will be a disaster at the polls in 2020.

She knows her own party can't control themselves long enough to bring forward facts and actual impeachable offenses. They'll resort to their feelz and orange man bad and a whole hoop of unrelated items.

Trump gets easily acquitted in the Senate and wins by the largest landslide since Reagan in 84.

Yep, Pelosi is far more adroit than people give her credit for. She's playing both sides, and will keep it up until voting time. She plays Trump like a cheap drum every day, then makes nice with the lefties. This isn't her first rodeo.

 

[zeppelin128]

Uh huh...

You really want your country thrown into chaos because of your feelz?

Nope. Just want people that broke the law held accountable for their actions. Same as you and I.

 

[Mick]

Uh huh...

You really want your country thrown into chaos because of your feelz?

Too late. The feelz about Hillary is what got us Trump.

 

[luthervol]

Uh huh...

You really want your country thrown into chaos because of your feelz?

The country was thrown into chaos in Nov. 2016. Everything since has been in response to that chaos.

 

[IPleadInsanity]

I’m fine with the Dems going through the impeachment process, they need to get to it and stop with the senseless bloviating.

They are in control of the house so America will have a good measure of what they have to offer when election time rolls around. So far its nothing but oppose Trump. I see their dilemma, if they allow him to fulfill his campaign promises he will win re-election easily. They can't oppose without hurting the American people so they try to divert attention. I don't think anyone is fooled at this point. The country wants legal immigration, its what he won on last time. Anyone opposed to it will lose. This is what it comes down to in the end as long as the economy is on fire.

 

[zeppelin128]

So then what’s with the outrage? First you hissy fit about not being able to indict a sitting president even though Clinton was. And claim double standard. Hog points out he wasn’t indicted. So you change arguments and go with impeachment. Ok sure Clinton was. If that’s what has your panties in a twist write a letter to the Speaker.

I don't have outrage, trying to do less of that these days. I'm not having a hissy fit either, trying to have less of that as well. I've said Trump will get away with all of it. I've said I was wrong thinking otherwise.