Posted on 05/29/2019 11:34:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, on Wednesday declined to clear President Trump of obstruction of justice in his first public characterization of his two-year-long investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.
“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mr. Mueller said, reading from prepared notes behind a lectern at the Justice Department. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”
He also said that while Justice Department policy prohibits charging a sitting president with a crime, the Constitution provides for another process to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing — a clear reference to the ability of Congress to begin impeachment proceedings.
Although his remarks closely matched statements contained in his more than 400-page report, Mr. Mueller’s portrayal of Mr. Trump’s actions was not as benign as Attorney General William P. Barr’s characterizations. While Mr. Barr has seemed to question why the special counsel investigated the president’s behavior, Mr. Mueller stressed the gravity of that inquiry.
“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,” he said.
He suggested that he was reluctant to testify before Congress, as the House Judiciary Committee has asked. “The report is my testimony,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Even our system of law doens’t find people ‘innocent’ ... our court system finds people ‘guilty or not guilty’ and even that is within the rules of our legal system.
I missed Hume’s statement. two great minds think alike
I just thought it strange Nadler answered questions from a prepared statement
Mueller should have stopped 18 months ago when he determined that there was no collusion, but he didn’t because he is corrupt.
Impeachment is NOT the only Constitutional option to Presidential misbehavior. Impeachment and removal is and has been an extreme measure, never actually implemented in our history. The usual and primary remedy is, and Constitutionally should be, for the electorate to remove.
If comes to a head in Congress, and the House does impeach, the case that obstruction occurred is so weak that an honest Senate would not convict. The incidents in Mueller’s report all strike me as Trump expressing his opinion, his concern, and even his anger at what was happening. He arguably honestly believed that Mueller had conflicts of interest, and, given that, favoring his replacement was the President’s Constitutional duty. In no incident have I seen proof that the President used the powers of his office to prevent the investigation from proceeding. With no such overt act, and with no provable underlying crime, the Senate would not convict. If there is no impeachment, the Democrats will make the cloud of obstruction a major issue in 2020. The electorate will function as a jury, as finders of fact, and I think a majority, by their votes, will find Trump not guilty.
Exactly, innuendo won't convict him and the Dems will over reach. I believe the backlash will be historic, in effect the analogy might be the Dems pushing to lynch an innocent man because they hate the color of his party card.
As if it is possible to prove a negative. Mueller divides by zero. News at 11.
If you know math, you know it is meaningless to divide by zero. It is a mathematical impossibility. By saying “we could not prove a negative that Trump did not do something”, he is basically dividing by zero.
Barr should REQUIRE Muller testify before the SENATE.
I assume Mueller dropped his gift to the Dems and quit today in part to forestall such an event.
Barr testified, under oath, that he asked Mueller if he did not charge Trump with obstruction was because DOJ policy is not to charge a sitting president. Mueller told Barr “no”. The exact opposite of what he said in today’s presser.
Mueller lied today.
Mueller is SCARED TO DEATH to be brought before a public hearing. He thought his little speech today would end his involvement, or maybe he KNEW it would cause a firestorm around him. Either way, he miscalculated today, BIG TIME!
That is wishful thinking. Mueller still has complete top cover from the GOP that can subpoena him. How nauseating for Senator Graham to be vouch for Mueller mere minutes after he publicly smeared AG Barr as a liar.
Well, who is to blame? I would say the American voters themselves. They are either apathetic/indifferent or knew what a Democrat takeover of the house would entail, yet, ALLOWED the Dems to take over the lower house in 2018.
The result is this -— No border wall, an invasion from the south, a green new deal proposal that the Dems themselves do not want to vote on, anti-semitic congresswomen, and proposals to further cut the budget of our military but increase spending on benefits for those who are here illegally.... and to top that -— impeachment talk 24X7.
We deserve the government we get.
Rush was on this today. Incumbency almost assuredly would have pulled the GOP House majority through the midterms. Instead a record number of Republicans retired due to their hatred of POTUS and the GOPe threw the House to the Dems.
That forces the demwits to impeach now, right? The demwits are walking into an unintentional trap.
I don't think he's even read the bulk of his own report!
Maybe he read the section summaries. And helped shape the wording of some critical paragraphs. And looked at parts pointed out to him by staffers.
He didn't write it! His staffers did.
Weissman & crew just handed him stuff to be rubber-stamped.
The only times he was forced to fire up the higher brain cells was when staff couldn't agree on something, and bumped it up to him to make a decision.
Can you imagine his embarrassment in front of Congress if they asked him a question that he was forced to answer with, "Uh ... I'm not familiar with that section of the report".
“Those two go Waaayyyyyyyyy back.”
How much damage have they done to Americans like us.
So how long did you spend trying to prove that Trump didn’t break the law? My guess is zero.
I would like to see The Almighty’s Hand fall on them all
NSFW
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XLwtqwnI6ko
PGR88 asked, “If you have read the Mueller report, please tell me what that (impeachable offense or offenses) is.”
Mind you *I’m* not the one saying the following are examples of “obstruction of justice”, it’s the Dems in Congress (and elsewhere) and Müller himself when he says (paraphrased and implied), “we cant clear the president of obstruction but also can’t arrest or charge him because that’s beyond our scope. So you should run with this Democrats in the House”
From the Muller report, in the section about the meeting with Comey, the Dems say that he (Trump) was asking Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, so that amounts to Trump obstructing justice.
Vol 2, page 44:
“a. Obstructive act. According to Comey’s account of his February 14, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office, the President told him, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.... I hope you can let this go.” In analyzing whether these statements constitute an obstructive act, a threshold question is whether Comey’s account of the interaction is accurate, and, if so, whether the President’s statements had the tendency to impede the administration of justice by shutting down an inquiry that could result in a grand jury investigation and a criminal charge....”
The report basically goes on from that point to answer its own questions in the affirmative, using primarily Comey’s now infamous self made memo as evidence that Comey’s account of the meeting was accurate, and in their (the special council’s opinion), the key phrase “I hope you can let this go” by Trump could “reasonably” be taken as an order from Trump to Comey to drop the investigation of Flynn. Ergo “obstruction”.
Another example (again the Dems say) is Trump’s firing of Comey. They say he did so to end the investigation of Russian interference, and thus is “obstruction” (again, according to them, the Dems and even Müller). From the report,
Vol 2, page 74, “a. Obstructive act. The act of firing Comey removed the individual overseeing the FBI’s Russia investigation. The President knew that Comey was personally involved in the investigation based on Comey’s briefing of the Gang of Eight, Comey’s March 20, 2017 public testimony about the investigation, and the President’s one-on-one conversations with Comey....”
...
Vol 2 Pages 75-76, “...the President’s final termination letter included a sentence, at the President’s insistence and against McGahn’s advice, stating that Comey had told the President on three separate occasions that he was not under investigation.
The President’s other stated rationales for why he fired Comey are not similarly supported by the evidence. The termination letter the President and Stephen Miller prepared in Bedminster cited Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, and the President told McCabe he fired Comey for that reason. But the facts surrounding Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation were well known to the President at the time he assumed office, and the President had made it clear to both Comey and the President’s senior staff in early 2017 that he wanted Comey to stay on as director....”
...
Vol 2 Page 76, “In addition, the President had a motive to put the FBI’s Russia investigation behind him. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns.”
So there are two examples of, again, *they* say are “obstruction”, (don’t think for a second that *I* say they are), that’s what they are saying these and others from the report. It’s helpful to not just listen to one “side” all the time and listen to the other. Leftists may be deranged, amoral beasts at times but they aren’t completely stupid.
Just putting this out there so you and everyone can be prepared for these and other “evidences” of “obstruction”, because this is what is being claimed. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.