Mueller

[Merge]

For arguments sake let'ss they bring the articles of impeachment. At that point you have what amounts to a trial and evidence will have to be presented. The only evidence they will have to present will be the Mueller report.

That is not accurate. An impeachment inquiry would give them more power and they would not have to limit their inquiries to a legislative purpose. If they need access to something the white house is blocking, an impeachment inquiry would be able to open the door for them.

There is not enough in the mall report to conclusively show that a crime was committed. That not was standing some strong left leading Democrats will vote yes for impeachment. another group of Democrats will see that there is no conclusive evidence and will not support it. Republicans will have a very small majority that would support it. The odds of it getting out of the house are slim. Like it or not the House and Senate are in essence a large jury and the vote will not be decided on the merit of the case but on the political ramifications.

True, but like I said... that goes with the acknowledgement that any president from here on is essentially allowed do what they want and obstruct any investigation into their behavior. I am not comfortable with that, and I am sure you will agree once a democrat is back in office.

 

[Pirata]

that goes with the acknowledgement that any president from here on is essentially allowed do what they want and obstruct any investigation into their behavior.

I see no basis to support that statement.

Mueller could have explicitly stated that a crime(s) were committed and he did not. Had he done that, an impeachment would immediately follow and would have a high chance of ending in a conviction.

 

[Merge]

Mueller could have explicitly stated that a crime(s) were committed and he did not.

That is not true. He literally said it would not be possible for him to do that.

 

[Pirata]

Mueller was not able to charge him due to the OLC opinion that you can not charge a sitting president and even noted in the report

"The former FBI director had said in his report he never reached a decision on whether Trump could or should be charged with obstruction because of the OLC guidance.

In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to 'correct the record' on his exchange with Lieu.

'That's not the correct way to say it,' Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

 

[Merge]

Right. He originally said to Lieu he did not charge Trump because of the OLC opinion.
That statement would imply that Mueller believes Trump committed a crime.

Mueller's report is pretty explicit in that it was not possible to determine one way or the other if a crime was committed.

 

[Pirata]

That is not true. He literally said it would not be possible for him to do that.

Let me rephrase my post.

Had Trump committed a crime Mueller could have explicitly stated that a crime(s) were committed.

So yes, given he did not find a crime was committed, he could not say.

Literally. I Mean. Totally LOL

 

[Merge]

Had Trump committed a crime Mueller could have explicitly stated that a crime(s) were committed.

Again, you are wrong.

"but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."

It is as clear as day. If Mueller believed Trump committed a crime, he could not state that view.

 

[SPK145]

Again, you are wrong.

"but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."

It is as clear as day. If Mueller believed Trump committed a crime, he could not state that view.

That is not what he said when he was stuttering and confused about his own report (LOL) when under oath the other day.

 

[Merge]

That is not what he said when he was stuttering and confused about his own report (LOL) when under oath the other day.

I don't agree. Cite what you are referencing.

 

[SPK145]

I don't agree. Cite what you are referencing.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller said he needed to revise his testimony before Congress on July 24, asserting some earlier statements had been misleading.

Reappearing on Capitol Hill after a lunch break, Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee: “Before we go to questions, I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning.”

“I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by [Rep. Ted] Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller added.

“As we say in the report and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

 

[Merge]

Yes. I just addressed that above.

Mueller could not determine if Trump committed a crime or not because of the OLC opinion.
If he believed he did, he would not state so.

He had to clarify his statement to Lieu because he would be saying that Trump committed a crime which he was not permitted to do, and his clarification is exactly in line with his report.

 

[Merge]

I think the important part you guys are glossing over is the fact that Mueller was able to determine that Trump was not guilty of conspiracy in volume 1. He never mentioned the OLC policy in volume 1 because he didn't need to.

He couldn't do that in volume II and the questions as to why is where is was hesitant and carefully worded his answers.

He was prohibited from saying he believes Trump obstructed Justice.

 

[SPK145]

Yes. I just addressed that above.

Mueller could not determine if Trump committed a crime or not because of the OLC opinion.
If he believed he did, he would not state so.

He had to clarify his statement to Lieu because he would be saying that Trump committed a crime which he was not permitted to do, and his clarification is exactly in line with his report.

He's a prosecutor, if he did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime, in this country you are innocent.

 

[Merge]

He's a prosecutor, if he did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime, in this country you are innocent.

Sigh... We've come full circle.
Have you read the rest of this thread? That was my point.

Mueller, even if he believed Trump was guilty would not be able to say if Trump committed a crime. That means that the President can do whatever they want and obstruct any investigation into their behavior.

You're good with that?

 

[SPK145]

Mueller, even if he believed Trump was guilty would not be able to say if Trump committed a crime.

That was not the case here though. Per Mueller's testimony under oath, he did not determine that Trump committed a crime. In that case, you're considered innocent in this country. Had nothing to do with Mueller not being able to say Trump committed a crime, that is exactly the point Mueller made in his corrective statement.

That means that the President can do whatever they want and obstruct any investigation into their behavior.

You're good with that?

You know damn well I've NEVER been OK with that but we've allowed that to happen. Certain recent presidents have done as bad without a peep from the sheeple (running guns, deputizing the IRS, etc.) . And don't get me started on executive actions!!

The president is not supposed to make law, he's supposed to faithfully execute the laws as written. Presidents rarely do that, you OK with that??

 

[Merge]

That was not the case here though. Per Mueller's testimony under oath, he did not determine that Trump committed a crime. In that case, you're considered innocent in this country. Had nothing to do with Mueller not being able to say Trump committed a crime, that is exactly the point Mueller made in his corrective statement.

That absolutely was the case and he said so over and over again.
It wasn't that he did not... He COULD not.


"under the OLC opinion a sitting president cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional."

"Well, you don't know where the investigation's going to lie, and OLC opinion itself says that you can continue the investigation even though you are not going to indict the president."

"BUCK:

Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice?

MUELLER:

We did not make that calculation.

BUCK:

How could you not have made the calculation when the regulation...

MUELLER:

Because the OLC opinion -- the OLC opinion, Office of Legal Counsel, indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president. So one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there"

You know damn well I've NEVER been OK with that

So stop there for a second and imagine that Mueller believes (and I think you did too in another thread) that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. What would be your ideal path forward?
If it helps, pretend Trump is Obama...

 

[Stevie_H]

Equally as ridiculous as who cares what Hillary did, she’s not the president.

2 candidates who obstructed justice. Both should be held equally accountable. America deserves better.

I have no problem holding Hillary accountable. None. I don’t care what team you play for. How about you?

 

[SPK145]

MUELLER:

Because the OLC opinion -- the OLC opinion, Office of Legal Counsel, indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president. So one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there"

Mueller added:

“As we say in the report and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

if you were being investigated (and lord knows you should, LOL!!) and the prosecutor said that about you, wouldn't your case be dismissed?

So stop there for a second and imagine that Mueller believes (and I think you did too in another thread) that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice. What would be your ideal path forward?
If it helps, pretend Trump is Obama...

Better to compare to Bill Clinton.

Obstruction of justice in both of these instances did not/does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, hence neither should have gone/go through through the impeachment process.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

I have no problem holding Hillary accountable. None. I don’t care what team you play for. How about you?

I think you must have misread what I said. At no point did I ask your opinion. I gave a general statement of my belief that both should be held accountable. How about you is a question that makes no sense when I originally said both should held accountable. How many times do I have to say it?

 

[Merge]

Mueller added:

“As we say in the report and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

Again... the ONLY reason why they did not reach a determination was because of the OLC opinion.
Keep in mind they explicitly stated that if they did not have evidence that he committed a crime, they would have stated so.

Better to compare to Bill Clinton.

Obstruction of justice in both of these instances did not/does not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, hence neither should have gone/go through through the impeachment process.

Right, so in practice... this is what makes me uncomfortable. We are acknowledging that a future president can commit a crime, impede the investigation into that crime and not be held accountable while in office.

 

[SPK145]

Again... the ONLY reason why they did not reach a determination was because of the OLC opinion.

That is completely at odds with Mueller's corrective afternoon testimony.

Right, so in practice... this is what makes me uncomfortable. We are acknowledging that a future president can commit a crime, impede the investigation into that crime and not be held accountable while in office.

It should but we/congress etc. have ceded so much power to the presidency, it's a constitutional joke.

 

[Stevie_H]

I think you must have misread what I said. At no point did I ask your opinion. I gave a general statement of my belief that both should be held accountable. How about you is a question that makes no sense when I originally said both should held accountable. How many times do I have to say it?

So you believe Trump should be held accountable?

 

[Merge]

That is completely at odds with Mueller's corrective afternoon testimony.

It's not.

In all seriousness, did you watch it?

Im not sure where your confusion is if you did. He explicitly stated many times that he could not apply a standard to say Trump committed a crime. That was not possible because of the OLC opinion.

His correction was because he essentially did say to Lieu that Trump did commit a crime.

It should but we/congress

Right, so only Congress can decide if he committed a crime and the only way to investigate that is through impeachment proceedings.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

So you believe Trump should be held accountable?

Which part of both should be held accountable are you struggling with?

I think you're so stuck in your Never Trump world, that if someone supports anything the president does, that personal is by default an always Trumper. I'm not a never Trumper and I'm also not an always Trumper. But the President has done a lot of good things. If and when he does something wrong he should held accountable. It's called being fair, something nobody on the left is doing.

Read above I want the democrats to impeach him if it's the right thing to do. They took an oath to work on our behalf. If impeachment is the right thing to do, they should be on the right side of history. Sadly whether Pelosi thinks it is the right thing to do or not, she's worried about her own power and the effect impeachment will have on the 35 or so democratic representatives that won in Trump districts. If she loses those people she will be minority leader. When it comes down to doing the right thing or having power, she's choosing power.

 

[SPK145]

Im not sure where your confusion is if you did. He explicitly stated many times that he could not apply a standard to say Trump committed a crime. That was not possible because of the OLC opinion.

His correction was because he essentially did say to Lieu that Trump did commit a crime.

That is NOT what Mueller said. In the afternoon session, he corrected his earlier testimony that the OLC had anything to do with his not saying a crime was committed. He was correcting the point that the OLC was what prevented him from saying a crime was committed.

Right, so only Congress can decide if he committed a crime and the only way to investigate that is through impeachment proceedings.

If, after reading the special counsel's report, congress can choose to go through all that again.

We know how that will end. The democraps in the House will vote to impeach, the republicants in the Senate will reject it, and Trump's popularity will rise. Like Bill Clinton's.

 

[Merge]

That is NOT what Mueller said. In the afternoon session, he corrected his earlier testimony that the OLC had anything to do with his not saying a crime was committed. He was correcting the point that the OLC was what prevented him from saying a crime was committed.

That is not accurate. He told Lieu that he did not indict Trump because of the OLC opinion which is conflicting with his report as it means he is starting Trump committed a crime.

He corrected to say that he could not make a decision either way which is consistent with his report.

If you watched the hearing you would know your post doesn't make any sense. Just watch the questioning from Senator Buck. He explicitly stated that he did not have that prosecutorial tool available to him.

 

[Stevie_H]

Which part of both should be held accountable are you struggling with?

I think you're so stuck in your Never Trump world, that if someone supports anything the president does, that personal is by default an always Trumper. I'm not a never Trumper and I'm also not an always Trumper. But the President has done a lot of good things. If and when he does something wrong he should held accountable. It's called being fair, something nobody on the left is doing.

Read above I want the democrats to impeach him if it's the right thing to do. They took an oath to work on our behalf. If impeachment is the right thing to do, they should be on the right side of history. Sadly whether Pelosi thinks it is the right thing to do or not, she's worried about her own power and the effect impeachment will have on the 35 or so democratic representatives that won in Trump districts. If she loses those people she will be minority leader. When it comes down to doing the right thing or having power, she's choosing power.

To be honest, you’re difficult to follow as you’re frequently all over the place in posts. I’d go on, but more rabbit holes await.

I am Never Trump and the support for why I am is provided by Trump on an almost daily basis. If what you wrote about yourself holding him accountable were actually true, you’d have to explain a lot of posts that directly contradict that.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

To be honest, you’re difficult to follow as you’re frequently all over the place in posts. I’d go on, but more rabbit holes await.

I am Never Trump and the support for why I am is provided by Trump on an almost daily basis. If what you wrote about yourself holding him accountable were actually true, you’d have to explain a lot of posts that directly contradict that.

I don’t see him doing wrong a daily basis. His tweets can be stupid and not what you want from a President but the press isn’t exactly fair to him either. He’s done some good things along the way. To be Never Trump and not acknowledge those things because he’s Trump and you’re never Trump is simply unreasonable.

 

[Stevie_H]

I don’t see him doing wrong a daily basis. His tweets can be stupid and not what you want from a President but the press isn’t exactly fair to him either. He’s done some good things along the way. To be Never Trump and not acknowledge those things because he’s Trump and you’re never Trump is simply unreasonable.

Nope. That’s your framing of it.

 

[Pirata]

Which part of both should be held accountable are you struggling with?
I think you're so stuck in your Never Trump world, that if someone supports anything the president does, that personal is by default an always Trumper. I'm not a never Trumper and I'm also not an always Trumper. But the President has done a lot of good things. If and when he does something wrong he should held accountable. It's called being fair, something nobody on the left is doing.
Read above I want the democrats to impeach him if it's the right thing to do. They took an oath to work on our behalf. If impeachment is the right thing to do, they should be on the right side of history. Sadly whether Pelosi thinks it is the right thing to do or not, she's worried about her own power and the effect impeachment will have on the 35 or so democratic representatives that won in Trump districts. If she loses those people she will be minority leader. When it comes down to doing the right thing or having power, she's choosing power.

To be honest, you’re difficult to follow as you’re frequently all over the place in posts. I’d go on, but more rabbit holes await.
I am Never Trump and the support for why I am is provided by Trump on an almost daily basis. If what you wrote about yourself holding him accountable were actually true, you’d have to explain a lot of posts that directly contradict that.

Sounds like you don't have a 401k

 

[Merge]

Sounds like you don't have a 401k

I'm sure you were just as complimentary to Obama at this point in his term?

 

[Stevie_H]

Sounds like you don't have a 401k

I have a 401k (a pension too), a shred of integrity, and some standards. Do you wonder what the price of the GOP’s Faustian bargain will be?

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

I have a 401k (a pension too), a shred of integrity, and some standards. Do you wonder what the price of the GOP’s Faustian bargain will be?

The cost is probably nothing because of the Democrats push for open borders, healthcare for all, and a $15 minimum wage that Bernie is proving doesn’t work telling his workers they’ll make $15 but they have to work less hours lol. If the dems had normal policies lined up then the GOP should be worried.

 

[Pirata]

Again, you are wrong.

"but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."

It is as clear as day. If Mueller believed Trump committed a crime, he could not state that view.

No, you are WRONG!

Look at what you wrote.

"It is as clear as day. If Mueller believed Trump committed a crime, he could not state that view."

Yes, it is clear as day.

 

[Pirata]

Mueller could not determine if Trump committed a crime or not because of the OLC opinion.

Wrong!

He could not conclude a crime was committed because there was no evidence to support that.

 

[Pirata]

We are acknowledging that a future president can commit a crime, impede the investigation into that crime and not be held accountable while in office.

You must think logic is a city in northern Poland.

It is amazing how you come to these sweeping conclusions with nothing to support it.

"We" are acknowledging nothing of the sort. "You" maybe acknowledging it in your own alternate universe.

 

[Merge]

Wrong!

He could not conclude a crime was committed because there was no evidence to support that.

Lol, you're funny man.

Watch.

He said it. If he believed a crime was committed he would not be able to say so.

 

[Pirata]

I watched.

Go back to your alternate universe.

At no point did he say the president committed a crime.

 

[Merge]

I watched.

Go back to your alternate universe.

At no point did he say the president committed a crime.

Are you serious or just trolling?

That is not what I said. I said IF Mueller believed Trump was guilty of a crime that he would not be able to say so.

So when you say

Had Trump committed a crime Mueller could have explicitly stated that a crime(s) were committed.

You are wrong.

 

[Pirata]

That is not what I said. I said IF Mueller believed Trump was guilty of a crime that he would not be able to say so.

You can call me all the names you want.

Your account of what was said in that video is your opinion. I don't agree with it.

Mueller's exact words were "we did not make that calculation"

He went to say that they "did not make that calculation because of the OLC opinion"

That is not the same as what you say he is saying.

If you heard something different, cite the minutes and seconds point in time in the video that he said what you are saying he said. Perhaps you sent the wrong link?

There was nothing stopping him from stating that he thought Trump committed a crime.

You are putting words in his mouth, something you often do in your posts.