Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Belz...]

Seriously, why are you bothering with this dishonest apologetics?

"Dishonesty" is not defined as "disagreeing with Skeptic Ginger". I would appreciate if you didn't throw around that accusation so trivially. Your frustration, which I really don't give a **** about, is no license to be rude.

He did exactly what his job required. That IS NOT DISLOYAL.

 

[smartcooky]

"Dishonesty" is not defined as "disagreeing with Skeptic Ginger". I would appreciate if you didn't throw around that accusation so trivially. Your frustration, which I really don't give a **** about, is no license to be rude.

He did exactly what his job required. That IS NOT DISLOYAL.

100%. Mueller had no choice but to turn over his report to Barr; not to do so would have been illegal.

If anyone was disloyal it was Barr himself. The Attorney General of the United States owes his loyalty to the US Constitution, and therefore, to the People of the United States, not the Criminal-in-Chief in the White House. The AG is the People's lawyer, not the President's lawyer!

I, (name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”​

Barr then proceeded to break that oath almost the moment to took office!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Dishonesty" is not defined as "disagreeing with Skeptic Ginger". I would appreciate if you didn't throw around that accusation so trivially. Your frustration, which I really don't give a **** about, is no license to be rude.

He did exactly what his job required. That IS NOT DISLOYAL.

Disloyal to whom? If you want to imagine Nixon was right, "if the President does it, it's not illegal," go right ahead.

It's not about disagreeing with me, it's about claiming Mueller's job was to investigate Trump then turn the findings over to a Trump lackey.

I think that is bull ****.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

100%. Mueller had no choice but to turn over his report to Barr; not to do so would have been illegal.

If anyone was disloyal it was Barr himself. The Attorney General of the United States owes his loyalty to the US Constitution, and therefore, to the People of the United States, not the Criminal-in-Chief in the White House. The AG is the People's lawyer, not the President's lawyer!

I, (name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”​

Barr then proceeded to break that oath almost the moment to took office!

If you were Mueller, you would have known Barr had joined the "criminal enterprise" the minute he misrepresented the report before releasing a redacted copy. Congress requested Mueller testify and release the report to them. Was that an illegal request? No. So why was it breaking his oath to do so?

Instead what did he do? Voluntarily limited his testimony and refused to expose Barr.

We both agree Barr did not uphold his oath.

 

[Belz...]

Disloyal to whom?

Huh? You're the one who brought it up! You said Mueller looked like a traitor for giving the report to Trump, which he didn't even do. He gave it to Barr.

If you want to imagine Nixon was right, "if the President does it, it's not illegal," go right ahead.

What are you babbling about? Nixon has a boss, too: the American people. Mueller's boss is Barr. Would you rather he acted illegally and leaked his own full report to the press? On what grounds?

It's not about disagreeing with me, it's about claiming Mueller's job was to investigate Trump then turn the findings over to a Trump lackey.

Mueller's job was to investigate allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to influence US elections in 2016, and allegations of obstruction of justice, and report his findings to his superior, which happens to be AG Barr. No amount of rewording by you will change that.

Now, I would appreciate an apology for your accusation of dishonesty. It was completely uncalled for.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Mueller tried to do nothing unprecedented - which for a Special Counsel is itself something new: Starr certainly decided to paint outside the lines even though he had far fewer restrictions.
Mueller could have taken the position that a Court needed to decide critical issues such as whether Trump needed to testify or whether the Administration should have any say in how an investigation into itself was to be made public.
Mueller was unusual reticent about questioning the validity of the immunities the Executive Branch has given itself.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Mueller limited his testimony in order to prevent either the left OR the right using it to score partisan points. And to avoid compromising ongoing investigations.

If you watched his testimony or read a transcript, you'll know that not only did his limited testimony impede the talking points of the questioners on the right more than those of the questioners on the left, but that it made clear that Trump and those around him had acted illegally - both by soliciting help from a hostile foreign government and then lying to cover it up, but also by committing perjury. He also expressed his personal disapproval.

His testimony wasn't the be-all-and-end all of the matter, just as his report wasn't. But nobody should have been expecting it to be. That he did his job while sticking strictly to the limits and parameters of that job should come as no surprise to anybody, given that the one thing that everybody agreed on about Mueller was that he was the most by-the-book guy that it's possible to be.

 

[Segnosaur]

Mueller limited his testimony in order to prevent either the left OR the right using it to score partisan points.

But here's the thing... laws were broken, and those that broke the laws were republican. And those that were disparaging Mueller's work or lying about the results were also republican.

Addressing those legal transgressions properly will involve a certain amount of 'partisan points' being presented.

And to avoid compromising ongoing investigations.

I think there were still things he could have said that didn't compromise ongoing investigations.

A direct statement that "Trump is lying when he said my report exonerates him" is 1) accurate, 2) makes things completely clear with no way to misinterpret what he said, and 3) doesn't compromise investigations.

If you watched his testimony or read a transcript, you'll know that not only did his limited testimony impede the talking points of the questioners on the right more than those of the questioners on the left, but that it made clear that Trump and those around him had acted illegally - both by soliciting help from a hostile foreign government and then lying to cover it up, but also by committing perjury. He also expressed his personal disapproval.

The fact that he was... subtle... in the whole 'They acted illegally'

His testimony wasn't the be-all-and-end all of the matter, just as his report wasn't.

The fact that his report was handed to Barr, who is doing everything he can to suppress any sort of investigation into illegal activities by the president, then he should have realized that for the most part, his report and testimony would be the be-all-and-end-all of the matter.

But nobody should have been expecting it to be. That he did his job while sticking strictly to the limits and parameters of that job should come as no surprise to anybody, given that the one thing that everybody agreed on about Mueller was that he was the most by-the-book guy that it's possible to be.

He had limits and parameters; some of us just think that he could have done more, even while sticking within the limits and parameters.

 

[Belz...]

A direct statement that "Trump is lying when he said my report exonerates him" is 1) accurate, 2) makes things completely clear with no way to misinterpret what he said, and 3) doesn't compromise investigations.

It also sounds rather partisan rather than impartial.

 

[Segnosaur]

A direct statement that "Trump is lying when he said my report exonerates him" is 1) accurate, 2) makes things completely clear with no way to misinterpret what he said, and 3) doesn't compromise investigations.

It also sounds rather partisan rather than impartial.

Once again... the republicans were engaging in illegal activity. They were attempting to cover up their activities, and engaging in deception to do so (the whole "Report exonerates Trump" as an example.)

In this case, the truth has a left-wing bias.

Directly calling out Trump by stating he is 'lying' might have been the only way to actually get the Republicans to pay attention.

Instead, his statement that "report neither condemns or clears trump" is so bland, so non-commital that its easy for the republicans to sweep the results under the rug and continue working with Putin to fix further elections.

 

[Belz...]

Directly calling out Trump by stating he is 'lying' might have been the only way to actually get the Republicans to pay attention.

No, it would've further discredited Mueller in the eyes of Republicans.

 

[Segnosaur]

Directly calling out Trump by stating he is 'lying' might have been the only way to actually get the Republicans to pay attention.

No, it would've further discredited Mueller in the eyes of Republicans.

And just where did Mueller's "credit" get him? A report that was heavily redacted? A bunch of investigations that were quashed by Barr and other Trump minions? More obstruction by McConnell over any attempts to improve election security?

The republicans already weren't paying attention. Mueller had no 'credit' to lose with republican congress critters because they knew that the report would go nowhere.

Have him call out the president, point out that "He's lying", and maybe the voters will listen, forcing the republicans to react to the voter's demands.

 

[plague311]

And just where did Mueller's "credit" get him? A report that was heavily redacted? A bunch of investigations that were quashed by Barr and other Trump minions? More obstruction by McConnell over any attempts to improve election security?

The republicans already weren't paying attention. Mueller had no 'credit' to lose with republican congress critters because they knew that the report would go nowhere.

Have him call out the president, point out that "He's lying", and maybe the voters will listen, forcing the republicans to react to the voter's demands.

This is all true. For all the credit Mueller got for being by the book it sure didn't take long for the Republicans to **** all over him the moment they felt he was a threat. His report be damned.

 

[Belz...]

And just where did Mueller's "credit" get him? A report that was heavily redacted? A bunch of investigations that were quashed by Barr and other Trump minions? More obstruction by McConnell over any attempts to improve election security?

That's got nothing to do with his credibility.

Have him call out the president, point out that "He's lying", and maybe the voters will listen, forcing the republicans to react to the voter's demands.

That's what you would've wanted, but that doesn't mean that Mueller could have reasonably be expected to do that.

 

[ArchSas]

And just where did Mueller's "credit" get him? A report that was heavily redacted? A bunch of investigations that were quashed by Barr and other Trump minions? More obstruction by McConnell over any attempts to improve election security?

The republicans already weren't paying attention. Mueller had no 'credit' to lose with republican congress critters because they knew that the report would go nowhere.

Have him call out the president, point out that "He's lying", and maybe the voters will listen, forcing the republicans to react to the voter's demands.

This. I also have to take issue with the idea that Mueller saying that Trump was lying would be/sound too partisan. It's not like he would have been sharing an opinion of a political talking point, or a value judgement of Trump, it would have been a simple, accurate statement of fact to point out the Trump was misrepresenting the conclusions of the report. That's what was actually happening, and it's a fact that was easily verified. If someone thinks that's too partisan, they have a problem with the idea of truth itself.

All Mueller accomplished was making it easy for Trump to keep lying, and for his supporters to keep acting like the report actually did exonerate Trump. And in the end, like others have said, it got Mueller nowhere. At the time, I remember hearing several spokespeople on reputable news outlets claiming that Mueller was acting immorally and trying to sidestep the judicial process (because people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty) by improperly trying to prove a negative.

 

[Belz...]

This. I also have to take issue with the idea that Mueller saying that Trump was lying would be/sound too partisan. It's not like he would have been sharing an opinion of a political talking point, or a value judgement of truth, it would have been a simple, accurate statement of fact to point out the Trump was misrepresenting the conclusions of the report.

He did say that, actually.

 

[ArchSas]

He did say that, actually.

Eventually, yes. But the first time he effectively did so was during the judiciary committee hearing and it went like so:

“The president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and it completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?” Nadler asked.

“Correct, not what the report said,” Mueller replied.

“The report did not conclude he did not commit obstruction of justice? Is that correct?” Nadler asked a moment later.

“That is correct,” Mueller said.

That was months after the report was released, and it had to be prompted during questioning. What I and (from what I can tell) Segnosaur are talking about is idea that Mueller should have made a direct public statement right after Trump started lying about his conclusions. He ultimately said that, yes, but, IMO, he should have done so sooner, and in a better way.

 

[Belz...]

What I and (from what I can tell) Segnosaur are talking about is idea that Mueller should have made a direct public statement right after Trump started lying about his conclusions. He ultimately said that, yes, but, IMO, he should have done so sooner, and in a better way.

And I'm saying that his neutral response was far more credible than flat-out calling Trump a liar. Now he can say he did his job dispassionately and failed to be drawn into a game of political point-scoring.

 

[Segnosaur]

What I and (from what I can tell) Segnosaur are talking about is idea that Mueller should have made a direct public statement right after Trump started lying about his conclusions. He ultimately said that, yes, but, IMO, he should have done so sooner, and in a better way.

And he could have tied it back to Trump in a more direct way. Instead of 'The report did not say that', say something along the lines of "yes, the statement by Trump that the report clears him is a lie."

 

[Segnosaur]

And just where did Mueller's "credit" get him? A report that was heavily redacted? A bunch of investigations that were quashed by Barr and other Trump minions? More obstruction by McConnell over any attempts to improve election security?

That's got nothing to do with his credibility.

What's the point of 'credibility' if nobody listens to what you say?

If every republican congress critter says "That Mueller is sure credible" and then decides to vote to make Trump god-emperor, what has Mueller's credibility done?

We consider credibility important because it means you are generally seen as an accurate source of information or opinion, and people will listen to you (giving you the ability to affect the course of events.). But if people aren't listening to you in the first place, credibility becomes moot.

In this case, it becomes worse, because Mueller's credibility was already under attack and he was doing nothing to stand up for himself.

Have him call out the president, point out that "He's lying", and maybe the voters will listen, forcing the republicans to react to the voter's demands.

That's what you would've wanted, but that doesn't mean that Mueller could have reasonably be expected to do that.[/QUOTE]
It would have been within his legal right to do so (ie. point out "trump is lying"). It would have fallen within his mandate to do so. It would not have affected any ongoing investigations.

Your only argument seems to be "Its partisan", but as I pointed out, its a simple statement of fact.