Mueller Speaks

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 25, 2018
1,558
425
163
48
Boulder, CO
#21
Seriously? I mean sure Trump could have handled it better but have you listened to anything the media and Dems in DC have said over the past 2 years? And you think Trump is the one who politicized it? Man, that's just...wow, I don't know what to say to that. Just wow.
I enjoy Teachum's comments & find him reasonable (refreshing in this day & age), but yeah, to expect someone, anyone, to just play nice when the intelligence community's being used against you is crazy.
 
Nov 6, 2010
649
262
613
#22
Seriously? I mean sure Trump could have handled it better but have you listened to anything the media and Dems in DC have said over the past 2 years? And you think Trump is the one who politicized it? Man, that's just...wow, I don't know what to say to that. Just wow.
I said the dems did it as well. I challenge you to go back and count Trump's tweets about the Mueller investigation. Do you think it is more or less than 1000?
 
Nov 6, 2010
649
262
613
#23
While I cringe at a lot of what Trump tweets & says, to lay the politicization of something that was clearly political at his feet only is missing half of the equation here.

If it were you, would you take it just lying down? Would you just ignore the texts between the FBI agents/lovers whose intentions were made clear in their own words?

As for the investigation rooting out anything, like Manafort's crimes while working for Obama, I can partially agree that it somewhat lifted the veil on just how many people are career operatives in the Beltway, regardless of administration.

If you're someone concerned about a political opponent being able to pay for a dossier, pass it off to intelligence, & the intelligence community infiltrate the opponent's campaign, & conduct a limitless investigation, there's still a few things to be rooted out.

At the end of the day, this whole situation (including Mueller's limited remarks) leave both sides with enough meat on the bone to feel like they're on the right side of this, & so it goes.
Why do you say it was clearly political, the start I mean?? Who wrote the special counsel mandate?? Was it a democrat??
 
Nov 6, 2010
649
262
613
#27
The same guy who said there's no there there.

I honestly don't know how you can look at the totality of events & come to the conclusion that this wasn't politically motivated.
Because the investigation came back with a clean slate. It's like you guys got a not guilty verdict for something and want to invoke double-double jeopardy. You've lost track of how much Trump has politicized the process. He knew, or must have known, that his campaign was not guilty of "collusion", which was the focus of the mandate. And yet he continued to rail against the process. Why do you think that is??
 
May 31, 2007
795
136
1,593
Edmond, OK
#28
Seriously? I mean sure Trump could have handled it better but have you listened to anything the media and Dems in DC have said over the past 2 years? And you think Trump is the one who politicized it? Man, that's just...wow, I don't know what to say to that. Just wow.
By the way Coco, none of what I’m about to say is directed at you. It’s just my $0.02 on this whole fiasco. Like Trump, hate Trump, or anything in between. Putting yourself in his shoes, what was he to do? He knew this Russia stuff was a scam designed to drive his poll numbers so low he’d be forced to resign. He knew the FBI, IAs, Dems, the media, Mueller & his team also all knew it was a sham. It would have been a gargantuan mistake for him to treat this investigation as legitimate. He had to politicize it in order to keep his base & survive.

Also, I don’t know if people are naive or just misinformed, but Russia’s intent was never to get Trump elected. They likely “knew” just like everyone else that Hillary was going to win easily. Russia was engaging in disinformation that benefitted & hurt both sides. It was nothing more than a low volume trial run for when the time comes that they actually do want to go all-in and sway a USPE. Russia already had a very friendly administration in office with another about to come in cut from the same cloth. Why the hell would they want a wild card like Trump in there who very likely would work hard to make the US an even bigger player on the oil export stage? The lack of common sense or understanding of geopolitics (or maybe it’s just an intentional lack of understanding) is mind blowing. There are still plenty of legitimate reasons to not like Trump. Why people cling to the fake ones is beyond me.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,871
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#29
Another way to look at it, and I believe more to the truth, is that given Trump's complete lack of political background, his team made some really bad hiring choices. However, once he or those around him realized who Manafort, and to a lesser extent Flynn were, they were pretty quick to fire them to their credit. There is little doubt the Russians were putting forth a lot of effort to make inroads into the Trump administration, and to get him elected. The Mueller investigation was good for America in that it rooted out a lot of that and eliminated or at least outed some bad and/or stupid actors. It is unfortunate that Trump is so insecure he couldn't let it play out without hyper-politicizing it. As they say, the cover-up is almost always worse than the actual crime, and in this case, no crime at all. Trump made it all about him, and the dems were all too happy to play into that as well.
HUH? The cover-up got Comey, Page, Stroke and the rest of the crooks fired. The cover-up was definitely as bad, if not worse, as their initial crime of spying and lying to the FISA courts.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,548
23,902
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#32
I said the dems did it as well. I challenge you to go back and count Trump's tweets about the Mueller investigation. Do you think it is more or less than 1000?
I have no idea....I've said from day 1 that I wish someone would take his twitter account away from him. But I would imagine there's been a lot of name calling, a lot of proclaiming of innocence (is that really politicizing it), and a lot of freaking bluster...just what we'd expect....as I clearly stated, he could've handled it better. The media and the DNC on the other hand have acted almost like they have all been reading from the same script, which, IMO, is scarier, and more political, than Trump being a jerk.
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
6,791
6,309
1,743
Tulsa
#33
It is not nor has it ever been the job of a Prosecutor to prove that one is innocent. By even saying that had they found evidence Trump didn't do anything wrong they would have said that, he is being political.

Either find enough evidence to prosecute, or shut up and go play golf.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
8,112
6,202
743
Gondor
#34
Because the investigation came back with a clean slate. It's like you guys got a not guilty verdict for something and want to invoke double-double jeopardy. You've lost track of how much Trump has politicized the process. He knew, or must have known, that his campaign was not guilty of "collusion", which was the focus of the mandate. And yet he continued to rail against the process. Why do you think that is??
Who are "you guys"?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,686
49,728
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#35
It is not nor has it ever been the job of a Prosecutor to prove that one is innocent. By even saying that had they found evidence Trump didn't do anything wrong they would have said that, he is being political.

Either find enough evidence to prosecute, or shut up and go play golf.
How do you find evidence of a negative? It is all utter bullspit.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,686
49,728
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#36
From WSJ editorial page:

Robert Mueller’s Parting Shot
The special counsel gives House Democrats an impeachment nod.
By The Editorial Board
May 29, 2019 7:20 p.m. ET

Robert Mueller is an honorable man, as Marc Antony might have put it. And in his public statement Wednesday we saw a special counsel who went out of his way not to absolve Donald Trump and may have put his thumb on the scale toward impeachment.

Mr. Mueller offered no new facts about his probe at a press appearance in which he read a statement and took no questions. The event was mainly intended to deflect bipartisan requests that he testify on Capitol Hill about his 448-page report on Russia and the Trump campaign. He may have succeeded in that deflection, but not without taking revenge on the President who has criticized his probe.

The special counsel said the Russians he indicted for interfering in the 2016 election are innocent until proven guilty. About Mr. Trump he said only that “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Yet as his report shows beyond doubt, there is no evidence of a conspiracy, broad or narrow. His report recounts a series of contacts between individual Russians and Trump officials that were of no great consequence and are connected by nothing more than coincidence. Mr. Mueller should have said this clearly on Wednesday.

Regarding obstruction of justice, Mr. Mueller suggested that the reason his office reached no prosecutorial decision is because Justice Department rules don’t allow the indictment of a President while in office. “Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider,” he said Wednesday.

He thus left it hanging for everyone else to infer whether he would have indicted Mr. Trump if he were not a sitting President. And he left Attorney General William Barr to take responsibility for reaching the prosecutorial judgment that Mr. Mueller refused to make. Mr. Mueller added to this sneaky anti-Trump implication by noting that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing.” What else could he mean but Congress and impeachment?

Yet Mr. Mueller’s analysis of the obstruction evidence in his own report makes clear that no investigation was obstructed. Not the FBI’s counterintelligence probe, and not his own. No witnesses were interfered with, and Mr. Mueller was allowed over two years to issue nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants and interview anyone he wanted, including anyone in the White House.

Mr. Trump sometimes showed his exasperation, and bad judgment, in suggesting to more than one adviser that Mr. Mueller be fired, but no one acted on it. The special counsel probe rolled on without interference. Yet on Wednesday Mr. Mueller would only say that “if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Since when do prosecutors make it their job to pronounce whether someone they investigate is exonerated? Their job is to indict, or not, and if not then keep quiet.

Mr. Mueller finished his statement with an ode to “the attorneys, the FBI agents, and analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.” These individuals, he said, “were of the highest integrity.”

Does that include Andrew McCabe, the former deputy FBI director who is being investigated for lying to investigators? Does he mean Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the FBI paramours whose antipathy for Donald Trump is obvious from their text messages? Mr. Strzok was part of Mr. Mueller’s investigating team until those texts were discovered.

Does Mr. Mueller also mean the FBI officials who used the politically motivated, and since discredited, Steele dossier to persuade a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue a warrant to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page? Mr. Mueller didn’t appear to want to investigate that part of the Russia story. Was that behavior of “the highest integrity”?

Mr. Mueller would have better served the country and his own reputation if he had simply done what he claimed he wants to do and let his report speak for itself. Instead he has weighed in for the Democrats who want to impeach the President, though he doesn’t have to be politically accountable as he skips town. This is the core problem with special counsels who think they answer only to themselves.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn’t as fortunate. The media and backbench pressure will now build on her to open an impeachment inquiry to charge Donald Trump with obstructing an investigation that wasn’t obstructed into a conspiracy that didn’t exist. Unlike the honorable Mr. Mueller, House Democrats will be accountable at the ballot box in 2020.
 
Jul 22, 2011
1,569
2,267
743
#40
https://thehill.com/policy/national...nsel-say-there-is-no-conflict-on-mueller-barr

Barr stated under oath that Mueller repeatedly told him that the Report conclusion wasn't taking the OLC guidelines into account regarding indicting a sitting President.

Mueller's statement yesterday seemed to directly contradict that. Spokesman for the Special Council now backtracking, saying the two statements aren't in conflict.

We all heard what Mueller said. The damage is already done.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/robert-mueller-william-barr-1346881

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a33408-8243-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html