Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Director Mueller Speaks in Public for the First Time...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Director Mueller Speaks in Public for the First Time...

    ...since the beginning of the investigation.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

    'Special counsel Robert Mueller is making his first public statement on the Trump-Russia investigation Wednesday, the Justice Department said.'

    'Mueller began speaking at the Justice Department at 11 a.m. He will not take any questions. His statement was expected to be relatively brief, about eight minutes, and Attorney General William Barr was given a heads-up about what he would say, according to people who were not authorized to provide details on the record and spoke on condition of anonymity.'

  • #2
    More on Mueller:

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/polit...ion/index.html

    'Special counsel Robert Mueller said in a rare and remarkable public statement Wednesday his investigation could not clear President Donald Trump and that charging the President was not an option his office could consider.'
    'In Mueller's first public comments on the investigation since he was appointed special counsel two years ago, he emphasized that Justice Department guidelines did not allow him to charge a sitting President, and as a result his office did not determine whether the President had committed obstruction of justice.'

    '"If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said. "We did not however make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."'

    The bottom line is that Mueller could not clear the president of obstruction.

    Comment


    • #3
      If, as it seems these days to be, that "obstruction of justice" means any attempt by the accused to defend themselves, any unwillingness to simply roll over and give the persecution... err... prosecution everything they demand however irrelevant or inane it may be, or simply arguing with the prosecution then I'd say everyone should be doing it in every case brought before a prosecutor.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        If, as it seems these days to be, that "obstruction of justice" means any attempt by the accused to defend themselves, any unwillingness to simply roll over and give the persecution... err... prosecution everything they demand however irrelevant or inane it may be, or simply arguing with the prosecution then I'd say everyone should be doing it in every case brought before a prosecutor.
        Obstruction of justice is the back up position when all the evidence of treason and collusion turns out to be nothing but a fraud.

        The absence of evidence is always going to be proof of some other crime.

        They are convinced trump is guilty of something, they just don't know what it is.

        It seems Mueller might be contradicting himself too

        Per Barr:
        From Barr: WE ASKED THEM A LOT ABOUT THE REASONING BEHIND THIS AND THE BASIS FOR THIS. SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER STATED THREE TIMES TO US IN THAT MEETING IN RESPONSE TO OUR QUESTIONING THAT HE EMPHATICALLY WAS NOT SAYING THAT BUT FOR THE OLP OPINION HE WOULD HAVE FOUND OBSTRUCTION.


        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Massena View Post
          More on Mueller:

          https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/polit...ion/index.html

          'Special counsel Robert Mueller said in a rare and remarkable public statement Wednesday his investigation could not clear President Donald Trump and that charging the President was not an option his office could consider.'
          'In Mueller's first public comments on the investigation since he was appointed special counsel two years ago, he emphasized that Justice Department guidelines did not allow him to charge a sitting President, and as a result his office did not determine whether the President had committed obstruction of justice.'

          '"If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said. "We did not however make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."'

          The bottom line is that Mueller could not clear the president of obstruction.
          The bottom line is not that Mueller had as mission to clear Trump,but that he had as mission to find proofs that Trump was guilty ,and, if he didn't ,to fabricate proofs .
          The result is that there are no proofs that Trump was guilty of anything . And, Trump has not to prove that he is innocent .Only in the SU,Germany, and other dictatorships must someone who is accused prove that he is innocent .
          Mueller, the Freisler / Vychinsky of the Deep State, has failed , but meanwhile has filled his pockets .

          Comment


          • #6
            And, it's totally clear that the Democrats in the House have already convicted Trump of crimes. Now they're in the determining what crimes those are phase of their witch hunt.

            https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ljadw View Post

              The bottom line is not that Mueller had as mission to clear Trump,but that he had as mission to find proofs that Trump was guilty ,and, if he didn't ,to fabricate proofs .
              The result is that there are no proofs that Trump was guilty of anything . And, Trump has not to prove that he is innocent .Only in the SU,Germany, and other dictatorships must someone who is accused prove that he is innocent .
              Mueller, the Freisler / Vychinsky of the Deep State, has failed , but meanwhile has filled his pockets .
              Exactly.
              Those who keep pointing to mueller's failure to clear trump are using a soviet standard of criminal justice.
              It was never Mueller's job to clear anyone of anything.
              He didn't recommend charges and apparently he wasn't happy about that so he feels the need to keep throwing hints out there that trump is guilty despite mueller's failure to find anything.

              Sounds more like a partisan hack than an honest man.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                And, it's totally clear that the Democrats in the House have already convicted Trump of crimes. Now they're in the determining what crimes those are phase of their witch hunt.

                https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp
                Trump won the election by beating a democRat and to people like Nadler that's a crime.
                Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  And, it's totally clear that the Democrats in the House have already convicted Trump of crimes. Now they're in the determining what crimes those are phase of their witch hunt.

                  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp
                  Democrats have nothing to do with convicting Conald. The FBI landed at that conclusion with a ton of evidence and passed it off to the proper constitutional means of impeaching a president.

                  Can't believe people here support a clearly lawless president who doesn't give a rats behind about the constitution.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBn53TL0yuc

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                    Exactly.
                    Those who keep pointing to mueller's failure to clear trump are using a soviet standard of criminal justice.
                    It was never Mueller's job to clear anyone of anything.
                    He didn't recommend charges and apparently he wasn't happy about that so he feels the need to keep throwing hints out there that trump is guilty despite mueller's failure to find anything.

                    Sounds more like a partisan hack than an honest man.
                    ^ I agree!
                    Seems the agenda and goal was "I don't like Trump as a person and don't think he should be POTUS, therefore he must have done something unethical and/or illegal to get elected. We need to find out what and get him convicted of such."

                    Basically as you and others point out; "Guilty - prove you are innocent" ~ hence the foundation of all this being a prejudicial, rigged attempt at a 'kangaroo court' that lacked objectivity, honesty, integrity, honor, or ethics. Which to apply the reasoning of some of our posters here, would suggest this two year waste of taxpayer funds was lacking in honor, the prosecutors were not honorable, and the agenda and goals look to have been un-Constitutional at the least.

                    While the following could fit other threads, especially the "investigate the investigators" sort, I'll start by presenting here;

                    Cheney on ‘Collusion’ Origins: 'Sounds an Awful Lot Like a Coup ... Could Well Be Treason'
                    ...
                    On ABC’s This Week, guest-hosted by Martha Raddatz, House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) said the “attacks and partisan investigations” launched against President Trump in 2016-17 “sound an awful lot like a coup and could well be treason.”

                    During the May 26 program, Raddatz asked Cheney about the public spats between President Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “What’s your reaction to this back and forth?” said Raddatz.

                    “[Y]ou’re looking at the Democrats who had put all their eggs in the basket of the Mueller report hoping that it would provide them evidence they needed to move to impeachment,” said Cheney. “It didn’t.”

                    “But so now what they’re doing is basically taking all the oxygen out of the room, refusing to do any of the things we were elected to do and instead continuing these attacks and partisan investigations, partisan issuance of subpoenas.”
                    ...
                    Cheney said, “I think what is crucially important to remember here is that you had [FBI officials Peter] Strzok and [Lisa] Page who were in charge of launching this investigation and they were saying things like, ‘we must stop this president,’ ‘we need an insurance policy against this president.’”

                    “That, in my view, when you have people that are in the highest echelons of the law enforcement of this nation saying things like that, that sounds an awful lot like a coup and it could well be treason,” Cheney said.
                    ...
                    In 2017, a Justice Department Inspector General investigation uncovered numerous anti-Trump text messages exchanged in 2016 between FBI counter-intelligence chief Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page. The two were having an adulterous affair and they texted about how much they detested Trump – “idiot ~… d*uche …~ loathsome human” ~– and also discussed an “insurance policy” in case Trump won the election.

                    Liz Cheney also implied the attorney general should investigate former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
                    ...
                    “Think about what happened,” she said. “Think about the fact that we had people who are at the highest levels of our law enforcement in this nation saying that they were going to stop a duly-elected president of the United States, saying that they needed an insurance policy against him. That is something that simply cannot happen.”

                    “We have to have confidence in our law enforcement and the attorney general has got to get to the bottom of what happened, how it was that people were allowed to misuse and abuse their power that way,” she said.
                    ...
                    https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/mark-je...dLU3BvZWtHMyJ9
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
                      Democrats have nothing to do with convicting Conald. The FBI landed at that conclusion with a ton of evidence and passed it off to the proper constitutional means of impeaching a president.

                      Can't believe people here support a clearly lawless president who doesn't give a rats behind about the constitution.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBn53TL0yuc
                      You'd be completely wrong. The FBI investigated whether Trump et. al., colluded with the Russians. Mueller and his rather partisan team of Democrat lawyers are the ones suggesting...suggesting… he somehow obstructed justice by applying the standard I put forward in post #3. By that standard, anyone can be charged with obstruction at any time. It's pure Kafka.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                        Exactly.
                        Those who keep pointing to mueller's failure to clear trump are using a soviet standard of criminal justice.
                        It was never Mueller's job to clear anyone of anything.
                        He didn't recommend charges and apparently he wasn't happy about that so he feels the need to keep throwing hints out there that trump is guilty despite mueller's failure to find anything.

                        Sounds more like a partisan hack than an honest man.
                        Actually that is incorrect. The standard Mueller used was to find evidence and then present the evidence to be used by congress to do its job.

                        He followed the rule that keeps him from filing charges because that what the DOJ has already said.


                        Only Trump is allowed to order someone to do something and not be accountable for it.

                        How many times have we seen people convicted for trying to hire a hit person. The standard being used by you would invalidate all these cases.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          In the US system, is a defendant "innocent until proven guilty," or is a defendant "not guilty until proven guilty"? In Scotland a jury can come back with a verdict of "not proven": insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict and any subsequent sentence, but the jury thinks the defendant guilty anyway. If the special counsel cannot recommend charges be filed due to insufficient evidence, then isn't that the end of his story? In the US, isn't "not guilty" the same as "innocent"?
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

                            Four things came out of Mueller's statement today:

                            First, that the Russians deliberately interfered with the US 2016 presidential election and attacked the US political system. And that they hurt one of the candidates.

                            Second, there was insufficient evidence found to charge the Trump campaign with a broader conspiracy (that sounds similar to Director Comey's comments on the Clinton investigation made on 5 July 2016).

                            Third, Mueller stated that if the investigators had confidence that the president did not commit a crime (ie obstruction of justice) it would have said so in the report.

                            Fourth, it is against Department of Justice policy to charge a sitting president.

                            Director Mueller's statement today contradicted the statement and four-page summary provided by AG Barr. And the inability to clear the president, based on the evidence, of obstruction of justice tends to make one believe that the president did, in fact, obstruct justice.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              We know that the Russians interfered. We've interfered. It's the status quo globally.

                              But Clinton and the demoRats only have themselves to blame.
                              ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                              BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                              BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X