Trump is running in 2020 to avoid prison. If he loses this election, then he will be indicted. Mueller confirmed that today and did not have to clarify that part.
It’s Mueller Time ....running thread
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
Fox News has always been trash, but I feel like they have become way worse with Trump in charge.
Of course. They've essentially become the propaganda arm of the Trump administration. They are what state controlled media looks like (among others).
Twice, Mueller made a point to say what sounded like, "I take your question."
What does that mean, lawyers?
I agree that would be better, but there will be several ads like this:
"Question: Did your report exonerate Trump?
Mueller: No."
That's pretty effective, too.
Im assuming it’s because he was unsure if he actually committed obstruction.
He clarified it wasn’t solely because of the OLC. He made that very clear when he clarified his comments to Ted Liu. Not sure how you can claim that’s wrong. Lol.
He doesn’t have to exonerate Trump. In America, you’re innocent until proven guilty. He wasn’t proven guilty.
This is OK with me. Trump has already bragged numerous times in his campaign that he is not Presidential. He is struttingly proud that he acts this way.
Since he's consciously not trying to act Presidential, it's not disrespectful to call him Trump.
Trump's propaganda is one hell of a drug.
Mueller also confirmed that the FBI's counterintelligence investigation is STILL ongoing. Own the Libs!
An interesting exchange RE your post-
https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/24/the-mueller-testimony-was-a-disaster-for-democrats/
Mueller is trying not to provide video imagery for everybody's future campaign ads.
That's why he has repeatedly resisted reading his own language in the report.
Can you give an example of an investigation performed by a lawyer representing the U.S. gov't which explicitly exonerated the subject of said investigation?
Did you read the report?
He listed out the ample evidence and said that’s where his power ended. He wasn’t allowed to assess the evidence to reach the indictment conclusion (other than assessing if he could reach a conclusion that indictment would NOT be warranted). He couldn’t make a call on indictment because the rules don’t allow him to make that call, not because he reviewed the evidence and just threw his hands up and said, “who’s to say?”
To me, healthcare should be the only issue in 2020.
During his campaign, Trump promised to repeal and replace the ACA. He has done neither and it's been months since I can recall him him saying a single word about improving healthcare.
In addition, McConnell has said he'll block all health bills coming to him from the House of Representatives.
Let's face it -- if a family saves $1,182 in taxes (see
) plus suffers from an increased budget deficit from the TCAJA and then has an uninsured $15,000 illness or pregnancy, isn't the health insurance a bigger problem that should be fixed?
Did you listen to Mueller today? He literally said he could not make a determination on obstruction and that was NOT because of the OLC.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ump-could-be-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901
May want to read what Mueller ACTUALLY said today.
You’re mis-interpreting. He’s saying what he’s said all along.
To the extent he fumbled it a bit early in the day in a way that made it sound like he’d decided to indict but for the OLC guidance, he clarified to re-assert (as he said in his report) that he made no decision on indictment because the OLC guidance and issues of fairness precluded him from conducting that assessment (other than confirming that he could not exonerate him). He absolutely didn’t say that he just couldn’t make up his mind or that he “couldn’t” because it was simply too murky.
And his report offers a summary of all the ample evidence.
No, I'm not. You're trying to read into it what you want it to be. Again, I'm taking Mueller's words as they are. He said what Ted Lieu asked him was INCORRECT, meaning the only issue holding him back was the OLC opinion (essentially). Mueller said that was incorrect.
Here's Ted Lieu's comments/question.
"'I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?' Lieu asked"
Mueller initially said that was correct. But then came this.
"In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to 'correct the record' on his exchange with Lieu. 'That's not the correct way to say it,' Mueller said. 'We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.'"
So let's break that down. Lieu basically asked him if he would charge him if not for the OLC's opinion and Mueller said that WAS NOT CORRECT. I don't know how you can try and spin that in any other way. But, then again, Libs...
It's exactly as I said. Which is exactly as it was explained in detail in Mueller's report. Mueller's clarification today conformed completely with his report.
You've not read his report, have you?
So the OLC wasn't the reason he didn't charge him. Got it. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Not really. You're insinuating the OLC was the only thing holding Mueller back from charging Trump with obstruction. That's not what Mueller said, today. He said they weren't able to reach a conclusion on a crime.
The OLC was the reason that he COULD NOT charge him. Because of the OLC guidance and because of issues of fairness, Mueller would not allow an assessment of the ample evidence to make a formal decision about whether Trump might otherwise be indictable. His report had nothing to do with whether he thought the evidence was strong enough.
I'm sorry if you can't comprehend this.
NBC desiring the same interpretation which you desire is beside the point. The Mueller quote is what's material to the discussion.
Mueller decided not to reach a determination about whether Trump committed a crime because (1) DOJ rules prohibit the indictment of a sitting President; and (2) since he couldn't indict Trump, Mueller decided it would be unfair even to accuse him. The report itself makes this abundantly clear:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct" constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct" constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
I'm taking him at his word. You (and Ralphie) are using your Little Orphan Annie decoder ring to figure out what he really meant.
Nice of you to re-post the verbiage, but I'm sure these guys had previously consumed and carefully considered this information previously. I mean, otherwise, they're just mindlessly talking out their a-- and repeating #NewGOP talking points.
Lol. Don't be sorry. I am taking Mueller's words at face value. I know it's difficult for libs to handle this considering they put all their eggs in one basket which has been destroyed, I get it. You're upset and hoping for something, anything, to fit your narrative.
I will say, PLEASE keep trying to impeach him. After today, that's going to do nothing other than help Trump even more than it has already. LOL.
Today it was made clearer, no collusion, no obstruction. Sorry that hurts your feelings. Sad face.
