Mueller followed the rules. The rules were that he could not indict, and given that making statements (like Kenn Starr did) about guilt would have been highly unethical.
The reality is that Mueller did a great job, within the constraints that he was given. The problem has been that the Media with it’s “bothsiderism” or on FOX just one siderism, has not been convaying what Mueller actually said/did.
The democrats have not helped here, with the progressive’s wanting to impeach, period. They have probably not read the report. And Pelosi trying to hold back the hounds until there is enough public evidence to say that we need an impeachment inquiry.
Hopefully Mueller making clear what he found (a) not NO EVIDENCE, but “insufficent evidence” - as he says because some witnesses lied/were obstructed and lots of evidence was destroyed or hidden - of a “broader conspiracy” between those in the Trump campaign/orbit and the Russians, (b) evidence of obstruction, which he could not charge, and pointedly could not exonerate Trump.
What is needed is an Impeachment Inquiry/investigation. Call in witnesses, lay out the evidence for America to see. Call in witnesses to explain what this all matters. Use that to move the needle.
Mueller acting like Ken Starr did would have simply set everyone further into their position.
His statement about Barr not acting in bad faith was, in my opinion, a blemish on Mueller’s whole statement. His written on the record letter to Barr and the now known fact that it was followed up by a Barr telephone call to Mueller, the notes of which (by Barr aides present during the call) Barr refuses to turn over to Congress, all indicate Mueller’s belief that Barr misrepresented his Report while withholding it from the public and forming an exoneration narrative. This could only be termed as a Bad Faith roll out of the Report’s conclusions to the public.
Precisely. The fact that the GOP has, and has had, zero interest in election security says pretty plainly–to me, at least–that they don’t care because they figure if it keeps happening, it will keep being to their advantage. It’s like gerrymandering, only easier, and without all those pesky court battles. As usual, they have zero foresight into the fact that a) Russia is about sowing discord rather than favoring a particular party and b) it could be used just as easily against them.
Unfortunately, the Dems haven’t picked up the mantle, either.
I disagree. All these Law Enforcement Officials are waffling. Laying it in the hands of congress without giving a direct opinion. Mueller won’t say if he thinks Trump committed a crime. Hiding behind Dept of Justice rules. Even if impeached if Senate GOP won’t turn on Trump. Trump stays Prez…
It is up to the voters in this country to stand up and remove Trump. Josh pointed out the poll models from the past on the election. 538 has Trumps poll numbers at 54-42 disapproval. With a sitting President up for election and where the economy is as a whole. Unemployment low etc… I would argue any other President would have poll numbers in the high 50’s regardless of Party.
This is why right now I am backing Biden. These other DEM candidates have reasonable ideas about better healthcare, climate change, student debt etc… The economy (which could change) is covering up all these issues. Think if we were heading into a recession what Trumps polling would look like. So the issue is Trump. The voters need to back up the above polling and vote Trump out.
He is not legally prohibited. It is a justice department policy that they will not indict a sitting president. If he recommended indictment then he would have had to get it approved by Rosenstein who would not have done so.
Far more important, as a retired special counsel he is free to offer his opinion as to whether he thinks that policy is correct and if he he would indict any other individual under the same set of facts.
Further he can give his opinion as to what evidence the Congress would need in order to formulate counts of impeachment and if he thinks the evidence in the redacted report is all they would need to make a case.
Last, If Mueller was the one being obstructed, then how is he not a fact witness in Congress’ case?
I agree that we need to see the unredacted report. I disagree that it was, or is, Mueller’s responsibility to make the case for impeachment, based on the written parameters of the investigation at the outset and based on his need to protect the integrity of the investigation now. In any case, corroboration will come from witnesses, not the investigators. I reiterate that there is now plenty of evidence, all public, of both obstruction and corrupt acts, enough to warrant an impeachment inquiry.
I’m not a lawyer, just a simple country mathematician. I have no appetite for verbal dueling.
And Barr continues to act in bad faith by running an investigation into the propriety of Mueller’s probe. He may not attack Mueller personally, but he will stand by while others do so.
the investigators are the one’s who were obstructed, so they are witnesses to at least some of the acts of obstruction.
2.The investigators can and should be required to direct the congress to the evidence they collected that is necessary to consider articles of impeachment. If they think no evidence other than that which appears in the redacted report is necessary they should say so.
The problem, to me, is that the Democratic Leadership is trying to come up with a way to get McConnell to not pull a Merrick Garland on an Impeachment of the President of the United States. I mean, if the House forwards an Impeachment to the Senate can he really ignore that order and not conduct a trial?
Maybe they’re trying to flip a few Senators from dark to Light?
The reason no one is running down the street screaming about this revelation is that he is directly quoting a passage from the report itself. A passage that, in case you forgot, generated extensive press coverage at the time the report was released, weeks ago.
Having said that, I would be ecstatic if Rep Nadler forced Mueller to repeat, verbatim, passages like that from the report in a congressional hearing on live TV.
your sentiments are on the money. mueller was the obvious choice, a straight arrow who would do a thorough job, without letting it turn into a circus. i disagree with your impeachment now assertion. i think it may well come to that. before using the “i word”, the larger public needs to get clued in to what is really going on.let the multiple, simultaneous investigations educate the masses to where they are onboard. the walls are closing in on trumpworld.
now, if it was just up to me, i’d throw the fucker in jail yesterday.
Just so that I am clear, I am NOT in favor of submitting articles of impeachment. That is crazy talk. However, once can open an investigation sans articles of impeachment. That is what happened with Nixon, and would be helpful as it adds a constitutional authority to the current efforts to obtain documents, witnesses, etc.
But the democrats needs to say (a) we have been attempting to obtain information and Trump is stonewallling, so we need a more major investigation, and (b) Mueller has told us that we need to follow up, so are.
The Justice Department policy regarding charging a President has no basis in the law or the constitution. It certainly does not apply to an illegitimate president who i) was and continues to an agent of a foreign power, i.e., a Putin whore, ii) conducted multiple criminal acts during the campaign, and iii) the vote tally and election outcome were rigged and manipulated by an foreign enemies. Mueller has written a nice sounding report but put party over country. He did not even interview the targets of his investigation.
I’d missed that, but there’s a reason for that, and it’s because they’re just not making enough damn noise about it. Unfortunately, until they manage to get the media’s attention about it, they might just as well be doing nothing, because it doesn’t register in the public consciousness until it gets serious press. One line in one response isn’t going to cut it.
