Justin Amash situation and townhall is interesting
- Thread starter WVUBRU
- Start date
Mueller really pissed you all off today didn't he? Oh well.
So, he thought it was unfair? Really, a SC who's original team included Peter S. and others who are known to bend the rules to keep Trump out of office. Come on, this is political theater and Muller is nominated for best supporting actor. The only question is what genre the final movie will be. My bet is a political double cross movie, I would guess you think it's going with a straight ole sheriff arrests the evil ranch owner stealing water from his neighbors land.
Whether you like it or not, this is from Mueller's statement: And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
That seems reasonable to me.
Actually, he made that request at mid-day on national TV. I saw it and laughed. You are dead wrong if you saw anything covert in that action. All of those talking pieces on TV repeated later on. If you are upset with that bit, I am sure you are boiling every time you hear a joke on the late-night shows
All due respect, but legal people make their careers by disagreeing. Mueller was running this investigation, and he determined at the outset that he could not indict a sitting president. He laid that out clearly in his statement, same as he did the report, and he was the legal person responsible for making that call.
That was actually a fair representation of what Mueller said in both the report and the statement.
Agreed, reasonable to you, me not so much. By not being political, he created a political situation. He employed political appointees for his original team and went out of scope to put pressure on people who would have turned on their mother if it would benefited them. Even then, the best they they came up with was Trump told his attorney to fire him! Peter S. knew that collusion was made up but he stayed on the SC for over 6 months. That cannot be looked at enough!
The law is black and white, you are either proven guilty or your are innocent, what Muller is doing is accusing someone without charging him, that is worse than actually doing what Ken Starr did with the whole Clinton fiasco.
Because he stated that all of the pertinent information he has to offer is in the report. He didn't say that he wouldn't testify. He said that any testimony he offered would reiterate what's in the report.
I was laughing at the statement, and the report, itself. He insinuates a person committed a crime that you say you cannot charge, and do not specifically name the incident nor charge. That's the worst type of prosecution ever in America.
Once that came to light, did Mueller fight to keep him around? Nope. He canned him. If you choose to judge Mueller for hiring someone of bad character whose career was relevant to the job to be done, shouldn't you feel the same way about Trump with respect to Manafort?
If he had his mind made up from the gitgo, why would an honorable man continue the case and spend that much of taxpayer money? Bunch of money for him and his comrades to divvy up. Very nice retirement bonus. Has a heart like Obama. It is only taxpayer money, spend, spend, spend.
As he interprets the rules, he could not charge. The possible charge is named, and possible avenues of investigation are laid out for Congress. He saw his role as an investigator of the overall scenario limited in scope to anyone but the sitting president.
I'll add that I do think the fact that no one at all was charged with obstruction makes me wonder if there is enough there to truly get obstruction against the one person Mueller thought he could not name in an indictment, sealed or otherwise. Basically, the ball is now in Congress' court, but they have work to do.
What is this "political appointees" that you speak of? You do know that this was a Repub lead investigation, right? Mueller didn't investigate collusion. Mueller didn't accuse Trump of a crime unlike you said he did.
It was an investigation not a prosecution. Prosecutors prosecute in court and this was not a court proceeding.
Mueller thought it was reasonable. So you think that Mueller should have accused Trump of a crime that he had no way to contest it? other than in the court of public opinion? that doesn't seem reasonable or fair.
You're quoting Barr?!! that's a laugh. Most corrupt AG ever. Applied for the job by stating that the prez is above the law and has been running interference for him ever since. He's mischaracterized everything the SC has done so far.
Mueller consented to the OLC opinion. What changed now?
Mueller consented to the OLC opinion. What changed now?
If Mueller did indeed make the last statement, then that alone should be clear that Mueller, while not proving the negative, knew that there was not enough there for obstruction. Otherwise he would have made the recommendation to abandon the OLC opinion.
And that's what he did. He presented the evidence of obstruction in Volume II for Congress to bring impeachment charges if they saw fit to do so.
He is the SC who hired the guy who many think actually started the whole Russian collusion fiasco! He was not "just" some guy of bad character. The original press release stated that Peter Strzok had anti Trump bias...talk about downplaying what they actually found!
You heard wrong, time for a new hearing aid battery. Why do you do this to yourself?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/mueller-full-remarks/index.html
Exactly, Mueller knew up front and stated that they would not be bringing charges against Trump.
