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.

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,541
23,899
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#41
"Mueller: 'If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so'"

Innocent until not proven un-innocent
A couple of people have already commented on this but it is important to keep repeating it. This was the most telling sentence in Mueller's entire statement. The left simply does not believe in innocent until proven guilty anymore.

They showed that with Kavanaugh and they're showing it with Trump. The investigation was always about Trump being Guilty until we can find something he's guilty of. Then when they couldn't find anything, they ended the investigation and still imply that he is guilty.

If you're a person that supports this, how do you justify in your head that you still believe in liberty, the Constitution and blind justice, because, I have news for you....you don't.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,541
23,899
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#42
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
History will remember Mueller for the embarrassment he has become rather than the widely respected person he was before this. And he has only himself to blame.
 
May 31, 2007
795
136
1,593
Edmond, OK
#45
I always knew that Comey badly wanted to get rid of the hot potato of being the one to exonerate Trump because that’s a DC lifer career killer. He successfully punted it to Mueller who probably rues the day he agreed to be SC. Mueller would have gladly indicted Trump if he had any kind of leg to stand on. He knows he doesn’t, so he’s playing this game of giving the media and left wing loons as much red meat as he can in the hopes of not becoming a pariah.
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
6,882
5,271
1,743
Edmond
#47
Does anyone anywhere, that isn't a Democrat, doubt that if Mueller had a smoking gun he would have gone after Trump with everything 6-guns blazing?
As he should have. What he said yesterday was, "We're not saying he didn't commit a crime, and we're not saying he did commit a crime." Both sides have taken each half of that statement and ran with it, riling up their bases. Nothing's changed. Round and round we go.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#48
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.
if someone were to take his twitter account away, then who would defend him? The Liberals? Lame Stream Media? the GOP? Establishment types?

Twitter is all the man has in the entire political and media spectrum. He's doing just fine, considering the magnitude of the forces opposed to him
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#49
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
...The fact that this prosecutor, unlike other prosecutors, cannot indict if he finds an indictable offense may seem to put pressure on the attorney general to share the report with Congress, which can remedy presidential misconduct through impeachment.

Read: The attorney general’s letter confirming that Mueller’s investigation is over

But this unusual situation does not somehow work a repeal of well-established traditions of confidentiality. If the House wants to consider impeachment, it needs to do its own work. It would be odd in the extreme to ask, in effect, the executive branch to become a tool of the legislative branch in a death-struggle with the only individual identified in the Constitution as the possessor and wielder of executive power: the president. That was the old way, under the old statute. Congress did away with that approach, and wisely so.

The regulations now governing Mueller were meant to restore the traditions of the Department of Justice, which were broken when Congress enacted the special-prosecutor (or, later, independent-counsel) provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Under that regime, reports became the warp and woof of the independent counsel’s work. Most provocatively, the statute required an independent counsel to refer matters to the House of Representatives for possible impeachment when a surprisingly low threshold of evidence was in hand—“substantial and credible information that an impeachable offense may have been committed.” I followed that requirement when I produced the so-called Starr Report, which then took on a controversial life of its own in the House in the dramatic months of 1998.

The architects of the current regulations saw all this unfold. Not surprisingly, the drafters of the new regime—the one under which Mueller operates—set themselves firmly against the revolutionary principle of factually rich prosecutorial reports. It might seem strange for me to say, but they were right to do so. The message emanating from the new regulations, issued by then–Attorney General Janet Reno, was this: Special counsel, do your job, and then inform the attorney general—in confidence—of the reasons underlying your decisions to prosecute and your determinations not to seek a prosecution (“declinations”).

Mueller Cannot Seek an Indictment. And He Must Remain Silent.
The unusual situation facing Robert Mueller does not justify a repeal of well-established traditions of confidentiality.
MAR 22, 2019
Ken Starr

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...-muellers-report-shouldnt-go-congress/585577/
 

ramases2112

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 28, 2008
10,340
5,400
1,743
27
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
#50
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.
if someone were to take his twitter account away, then who would defend him? The Liberals? Lame Stream Media? the GOP? Establishment types?

Twitter is all the man has in the entire political and media spectrum. He's doing just fine, considering the magnitude of the forces opposed to him
Yea anyone who wishes to take away Twitter from the president is attempting to completely silence the president and his admin. He literally has no way of getting his message out otherwise. The media are completely against him and they are conspiring with the Democrats against him. He has no voice without twitter.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
Nov 6, 2010
642
260
613
#51
Yea anyone who wishes to take away Twitter from the president is attempting to completely silence the president and his admin. He literally has no way of getting his message out otherwise. The media are completely against him and they are conspiring with the Democrats against him. He has no voice without twitter.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Well, now, pretty sure he could have a nightly 30 minute segment on Hannity's show if he wanted it. If he quit tweeting so much, folks might actually look at policy issues like the trade war, NK, etc. It has worked for and against him frankly.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#52
Well, now, pretty sure he could have a nightly 30 minute segment on Hannity's show if he wanted it. If he quit tweeting so much, folks might actually look at policy issues like the trade war, NK, etc. It has worked for and against him frankly.
bleh.... "folks" could look at those policy issues now if they were reported by the media - but they're not.

no need to pretend that lack of policy coverage it has anything to do with his direct access to the People.

case in point - Mueller. Barr said it's over. Mueller said it's over and nothing to see. Sroke said there is no there there.... but here is the President having to defend himself over that constant attacks by the left that are not being properly defended and dispelled by the media or by anybody else.

It's over - the coop failed.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,541
23,899
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#54
What he said yesterday was, "We're not saying he didn't commit a crime, and we're not saying he did commit a crime."
The problem is that it is not his job to prove a crime wasn't committed...that part is assumed unless he can prove a crime was committed. This statement does nothing but keep the water muddied....one has to wonder if that is intentional....why hold a press conference to say absolutely nothing at all.

If a crime was committed then Mueller needs to SPELL IT OUT CLEARLY so appropriate action can be taken. If he can't spell out a specific crime, then this investigation needs to be over, done, finished....because that's how our legal system works (and how we should all want it to continue working).

The Dems have the votes to impeach, if they think a crime was committed, they have a duty to stop yapping about it and do it. Impeach Trump, put your names on that vote for posterity's sake, and then let's move on to other problems facing this country.
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
6,882
5,271
1,743
Edmond
#58
Because that's what the justice department does...
The problem is that it is not his job to prove a crime wasn't committed...that part is assumed unless he can prove a crime was committed. This statement does nothing but keep the water muddied....one has to wonder if that is intentional....why hold a press conference to say absolutely nothing at all.

If a crime was committed then Mueller needs to SPELL IT OUT CLEARLY so appropriate action can be taken. If he can't spell out a specific crime, then this investigation needs to be over, done, finished....because that's how our legal system works (and how we should all want it to continue working).

The Dems have the votes to impeach, if they think a crime was committed, they have a duty to stop yapping about it and do it. Impeach Trump, put your names on that vote for posterity's sake, and then let's move on to other problems facing this country.

Yes I know. I think we’re on the same page here. He said what I quoted only of the obstruction part of the report. Of the “collusion” part he said, “our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,866
2,503
1,743
So Cal
#59
Yes I know. I think we’re on the same page here. He said what I quoted only of the obstruction part of the report. Of the “collusion” part he said, “our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.”
on the obstruction part he said it was up to the DOJ (not him). The DOJ said no obstruction.

As far as obstruction, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

But Barr said that he and Rosenstein "have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."