Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve said:
Did "this place" suggest that you have that impression? Or was it just one poster here?
Click to expand...

It was a frustrated utterance at how many times recently I've had to go to some length to refute some presumed position I have rather than maybe just ask if I have that position.

Its perfectly fine if someone wants to point out where I might not be saying something in a way that gives the impression I'm going for, but another to say I was affirmatively meaning something else and my attempts to clarify the error are all lies(!). It permeates outside this forum, too, though. I'm on the spectrum a bit and I've grown accustomed to that over my life. My sociology sense tells me its a rise in people's willingness to consider that another person is hostile to them. In communications theory, it's part of the "interference" cloud. The way society views itself colors the way individuals decode a received signal. But I digress.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The value of avoiding that dodge is to not have built this hearing up only to walk away with 90 minutes of Mueller saying "I can't speculate on hypotheticals." That will play right into the "no there there", "political witch hunt" narrative.
Click to expand...
So you don't really have a clue. OK.
 
theprestige said:
If his reputation as a straight shooter is for sale to his country club, then he's not really a straight shooter, is he?
Click to expand...

I find it hard to reconcile Mueller's reputation with his handling of the investigation: the benefit of the doubt that was given to individuals in the Trump orbit, and the reluctance to indict given the evidence is astonishing: multiple times, Mueller says they didn't charge individuals, not because they couldn't get a conviction, but because they might lose on appeal.
Mueller prioritized the reputation of Trump and his associates over the thoroughness of the probe, as exemplified by his disinterest to have an actual interview with Trump or pursue the many cases on which members of Trump's team lied to the FBI or Congress.

Mueller clearly wants to wash his hands of the whole thing and go back into retirement. Given that he is the only one many people see has somewhat impartial, his abdication of responsibility doesn't strike me as particularly patriotic.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I find it hard to reconcile Mueller's reputation with his handling of the investigation: the benefit of the doubt that was given to individuals in the Trump orbit, and the reluctance to indict given the evidence is astonishing: multiple times, Mueller says they didn't charge individuals, not because they couldn't get a conviction, but because they might lose on appeal.
Mueller prioritized the reputation of Trump and his associates over the thoroughness of the probe, as exemplified by his disinterest to have an actual interview with Trump or pursue the many cases on which members of Trump's team lied to the FBI or Congress.

Mueller clearly wants to wash his hands of the whole thing and go back into retirement. Given that he is the only one many people see has somewhat impartial, his abdication of responsibility doesn't strike me as particularly patriotic.
Click to expand...

I remember feeling a similar way when the report was first released. I was actually shocked at how Mueller defined the terms of the investigation and seemed to treat everyone involved with kid gloves. Specifically, that pretty much anything short of Trump directly being on the payroll of the Russian government for the purposes of election interference didn't count as coordination, excusing attempts to try to work with Russian operatives because they weren't successful, refusing the indict people (like Don Jr.) because they didn't know they were committing crimes, and not even interviewing the primary target of the investigation. At the time, I remember thinking Mueller basically came to a non-conclusion about a crime no one was actually accusing Trump of (ie, working directly for the Russian government), ignored provable things Trump actually did, and that the findings about obstruction were influenced by a similar kind of credulity. A number of op-eds published at the time also echoed a lot of the same sentiments (for example: https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-report-obstruction-trump/).

More than anything else, I'm interested in questions during the hearing aimed at issues like the ones above. There's reason to have concerns with Mueller's methods and conclusions (or lack thereof), and a straight shooter like him really should address them.
 
I am quite appalled by Mueller's reluctance to publicly promote his report: it's almost as if he is trying to distance himself from his own work product.
 
Not calling Mueller to testify would have been a mistake: it's just what you do in these important cases.
Not doing so would have been the same as declaring the report irrelevant.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Not calling Mueller to testify would have been a mistake: it's just what you do in these important cases.
Not doing so would have been the same as declaring the report irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I'm much in agreement there... much as it remains to be seen what Democrats will actually ask and what Mueller will actually answer. The report leaves one with lots of open questions about a number of important things, after all, but just getting Mueller to publicly repeat some of the deeply concerning highlights does have value... and that fairly certainly plays into Trump's panic distractions of the last couple weeks, alongside the fact that he's made it pretty clear that he was aware of and enabled Epstein preying on young girls. Anyways, my question before about Mueller's total failure when it came to even getting campaign finance laws right in the first place is one of the larger things that I'd be rather interested in getting an answer on.

The Republicans, of course, will fairly certainly be trying their best to de-legitimize the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
Trump Tweets

So Democrats and others can illegally fabricate a crime, try pinning it on a very innocent President, and when he fights back against this illegal and treasonous attack on our Country, they call It Obstruction? Wrong! Why didn’t Robert Mueller investigate the investigators?

It was NEVER agreed that Robert Mueller could use one of his many Democrat Never Trumper lawyers to sit next to him and help him with his answers. This was specifically NOT agreed to, and I would NEVER have agreed to it. The Greatest Witch Hunt in U.S. history, by far!

Why didn’t Robert Mueller & his band of 18 Angry Democrats spend any time investigating Crooked Hillary Clinton, Lyin’ & Leakin’ James Comey, Lisa Page and her Psycho lover, Peter S, Andy McCabe, the beautiful Ohr family, Fusion GPS, and many more, including HIMSELF & Andrew W?

So why didn’t the highly conflicted Robert Mueller investigate how and why Crooked Hillary Clinton deleted and acid washed 33,000 Emails immediately AFTER getting a SUBPOENA from the United States Congress? She must have GREAT lawyers!

It has been reported that Robert Mueller is saying that he did not apply and interview for the job of FBI Director (and get turned down) the day before he was wrongfully appointed Special Counsel. Hope he doesn’t say that under oath in the we have numerous witnesses to the.....

....interview, including the Vice President of the United States!

NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION!

KEEP AMERICA GREAT!
 
Last edited:
This moron making a speech is disgusting. Collins should be in jail for telling lies in congress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom