Mueller Investigation pt 6

[plague311]

As a fan of football, I'd love to know what that is in reference to, or what it means beyond a literal interpretation.

Grandpa Simpson, but it was mostly because it was the style at the time.

 

[Segnosaur]

The coaches both have onions tied to their belts.

As a fan of football, I'd love to know what that is in reference to, or what it means beyond a literal interpretation.

Probably The Simpsons.

Grandpa Simpson tends to tell these stories that basically have no point and wander aimlessly. One of the stories he told was about when he went to Shelbyville "with an onion tied to my belt" (but it was a yellow onion because they didn't have white ones because of the war.)

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/lists/grampa-stories

 

[Segnosaur]

If a football player makes a spectacular 99 yard run from one end of the field to the other, and drops the ball before he crosses the goal line, you will be frustrated (despite how impressive the run was). So Mueller's failure to finish things is going to be frustrating because in the end, he dropped the ball.

To continue your football analogy, Mueller only failed to score the touchdown because Barr executed an illegal "horse collar "tackle on the 1 yard line.

To continue the analogy further...

Mueller knew Barr was coming. He knew he was a dirty player. He knew it would be a dirty hit. He could have avoided the hit and still scored. But he decided "Nah, its more honorable if I take the hit and fumble the ball on the first yard line."

 

[Delphic Oracle]

To continue the analogy further...



Mueller knew Barr was coming. He knew he was a dirty player. He knew it would be a dirty hit. He could have avoided the hit and still scored. But he decided "Nah, its more honorable if I take the hit and fumble the ball on the first yard line."

Sure, just make **** up.

 

[theprestige]

I feel like this analogy just makes it harder to understand what actually happened and what it actually means.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wow, certain posters here need to stfu and go and learn who Mueller is before continuing to demand what he should have done by projecting what they think they would have done.

The actions they keep wanting him to have taken are the very antithesis of the man in question, a man that speaks on the facts, presenting them for others to draw conclusions, rather than giving those conclusions to them. A man who was well liked and known by both parties previous to the whole Trump thing as being extremely impartial to a fault. A man who plays it to the letter of the book.

He showed exactly that in his forced testimony, a testimony that he had stated previously that he was unwilling to do, and that would be no more than the Report.

He was never going to give the Democrats, nor the Republicans the sound bytes they wanted. Just go and watch what the media was saying about him prior to the testimony. They knew exactly what to expect from him.

And in the end what he said wouldn't really matter anyways. Those that don't want to hear what was in the report would still be ignoring it like they are now.

Heck, he did go off script when talking Russian interference, declaring not only that they did it, but that they were still doing it and that other countries were developing the techniques too. He couldn't have given a clearer warning, and what did Moscow Mitch do that same day?

It's time to stop shooting the messenger, he did his job to the letter, he has given the facts, and the facts are damning. Those you should be after are the ones who have the facts and refuse to look at them or act on them.

 

[PhantomWolf]

delete dupe

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's take a look at another angle.

Mueller claimed he didn't want to present all the evidence against because without charging Trump, Trump would have no avenue to defend himself against the charges.

Sounds honorable enough if one didn't consider the fact there's a crook in the WH and Mueller knew it.

What law prevented Mueller from passing more information on to the House who Mueller also designated as the proper authority to prosecute Trump?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Let's take a look at another angle.

Mueller claimed he didn't want to present all the evidence against because without charging Trump, Trump would have no avenue to defend himself against the charges.

Sounds honorable enough if one didn't consider the fact there's a crook in the WH and Mueller knew it.

What law prevented Mueller from passing more information on to the House who Mueller also designated as the proper authority to prosecute Trump?

That's not what he claimed at all.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Let's take a look at another angle.

Mueller claimed he didn't want to present all the evidence against because without charging Trump, Trump would have no avenue to defend himself against the charges.

Sounds honorable enough if one didn't consider the fact there's a crook in the WH and Mueller knew it.

What law prevented Mueller from passing more information on to the House who Mueller also designated as the proper authority to prosecute Trump?

Adding to what PW just said. Meuller didn't say he suppressed any evidence. He said he couldn't indict a sitting president.

 

[Cavemonster]

Wow, certain posters here need to stfu and go and learn who Mueller is before continuing to demand what he should have done by projecting what they think they would have done.

We've been hearing the kind of guy he is for a long time.

I don't think having a certain kind of personality or set of preferences changes one's obligations or the judgement of one's actions.

Trump's personality and preferences seem to be all about lying and cheating, but that doesn't mean we can't judge any particular time he acts wrongly.

Mueller had a unique platform and access to unique information. His choice to present everything buried dryly in legallese empowered some really awful people to get away with spinning and continuing to get away with crimes.

I don't think that's adherence to law and order and the rules not in any sense that sees the forest for the trees. And I don't think that's in service of the best interests of the people, regardless of whether it's in line with his personal preferences or temperment.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Adding to what PW just said. Meuller didn't say he suppressed any evidence. He said he couldn't indict a sitting president.

To expand further, he stated that had the evidence exonerated the President, he would have done, but since the evidence was unable to so, they could not. However, because a sitting President is unable to be indited, they did not make a determination as to whether the evidence was enough to prosecute because doing so would have left the President accused, but unable to defend that accusation in a Court of Law.

There was nothing about suppressing evidence or not presenting it all.

There was part where he noted that some evidence was not available to them due to the inability to speak with witnesses, the destruction of evidence, or the withholding it by the Whitehouse under Executive Privileges meaning that it was possible that there was evidence that went beyond what they knew in links between the Trump Campaign and the Russian attacks, but that was not evidence that Mueller himself withheld, but rather evidence that was withheld from him.

 

[PhantomWolf]

We've been hearing the kind of guy he is for a long time.

And you keep on ignoring it

I don't think having a certain kind of personality or set of preferences changes one's obligations

He met the obligations that he was required to.

or the judgement of one's actions.

Judgement by people that have an agenda and little clue what they're talking about.

Trump's personality and preferences seem to be all about lying and cheating, but that doesn't mean we can't judge any particular time he acts wrongly.

Lying and cheating tend to be considered wrong by most people

Mueller had a unique platform and access to unique information. His choice to present everything buried dryly in legallese

He is a Lawyer. Who wrote a legal document. For another lawyer. Why would you expect it to be anything else?

empowered some really awful people to get away with spinning and continuing to get away with crimes.

No, those that are empowering those criminals are the ones that are refusing to take action on the facts that have been presented to them.

I don't think that's adherence to law and order and the rules not in any sense that sees the forest for the trees. And I don't think that's in service of the best interests of the people, regardless of whether it's in line with his personal preferences or temperment.

No, it was not his job to make allegations and partisan sound bytes for TV. It was his job to collect the facts, make determinations of whether to prosecute or not, the create a report for the AG explaining the legal decisions that were made. With the sole exception of prosecution of the President where he explained their reasoning for not making a decision, that is exactly what he did.

You are complaining that he didn't go beyond his mandate and act in a Partisan manner, something he was never going to do.

 

[Cavemonster]

And you keep on ignoring it

Not ignoring his temperment. It just doesn't change a judgement of his actions.

He met the obligations that he was required to.

He met his legally outlined obligations. Humans can still fail or be ****** while adhering to the legal letter of their obligations.

Judgement by people that have an agenda and little clue what they're talking about.

This just seems to be an insult with no substance.

Lying and cheating tend to be considered wrong by most people

Yes. Even if it's someone's temperment, their actions will still be judged.

He is a Lawyer. Who wrote a legal document. For another lawyer. Why would you expect it to be anything else?

You've never seen a lawyer make a case to the public? Ken Starr was a lawyer too. Granted, his mandate was different, but there's absolutely nothing in being a lawyer that precludes understanding who the audience really is and acting on it.

No, those that are empowering those criminals are the ones that are refusing to take action on the facts that have been presented to them.

More than one person or group can share responsibility for something.

No, it was not his job to make allegations and partisan sound bytes for TV. It was his job to collect the facts, make determinations of whether to prosecute or not, the create a report for the AG explaining the legal decisions that were made. With the sole exception of prosecution of the President where he explained their reasoning for not making a decision, that is exactly what he did.

Just following orders is not much of a moral ideal. We established that at Nuremberg. I'm not comparing Mueller to a Nazi soldier, I just think we as a society have made it pretty clear that's a poor baseline for acceptable action.

You are complaining that he didn't go beyond his mandate and act in a Partisan manner, something he was never going to do.

If the idea was that he had to get Trump because he's a dirty Republican, THAT would be partisan. Caring about justice being done over looking impartial would not be partisan. It would open him up to accusations of partisanship, but so will anything that makes Trump look bad. It is not worth caring about.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Not ignoring his temperment. It just doesn't change a judgement of his actions.

Judgement made about things you think he should have done without any standard other than that you are inventing

He met his legally outlined obligations.

Exactly, which is all he had to do.

Humans can still fail or be ****** while adhering to the legal letter of their obligations.

Any failure here though is because he didn't reach a goalpost that you are creating out of thin air based on your own beliefs of what he should and should not have done, rather then the goals established by the law he was working under.

This just seems to be an insult with no substance.

No it's a statement of fact.

Yes. Even if it's someone's temperment, their actions will still be judged.

Judging people because they don't do what you think that they should without regard to what they were actually supposed to merely shows your own agendas and prejudices, not theirs.

You've never seen a lawyer make a case to the public? Ken Starr was a lawyer too. Granted, his mandate was different, but there's absolutely nothing in being a lawyer that precludes understanding who the audience really is and acting on it.

We're not talking about a lawyer acting in public, and his audience was the USAG, another lawyer. You are complaining that confidential legal document is to dry and legalese for the public. Do you even actually read your arguments and consider if they make sense?

More than one person or group can share responsibility for something.

This may be true, but Mueller did his job as specified. It's not his job to go on the TV circuit and cast allegations because the politicians and AG won't do their jobs.

Just following orders is not much of a moral ideal. We established that at Nuremberg. I'm not comparing Mueller to a Nazi soldier, I just think we as a society have made it pretty clear that's a poor baseline for acceptable action.

If the idea was that he had to get Trump because he's a dirty Republican, THAT would be partisan. Caring about justice being done over looking impartial would not be partisan. It would open him up to accusations of partisanship, but so will anything that makes Trump look bad. It is not worth caring about.

You are still demanding things of him that were never in his job description. It was never his mandate to go after Trump at all. His mandate was to investigate the extent of the of the Russian interference and any criminal actions arising from that investigation and then to report to the AG on it. That's it, that was his job. Making the Dems look good, or the Republicans or Trump look bad wasn't he responsibility.

You keep on inventing obligations you demand he should have done, and accusing him of failure because he didn't met your made up standards. This is not being a Critical thinker, and it certainly isn't Mueller's fault that he didn't live up to your fantasy world of expectations you are projecting onto him.

 

[ArchSas]

You are still demanding things of him that were never in his job description. It was never his mandate to go after Trump at all. His mandate was to investigate the extent of the of the Russian interference and any criminal actions arising from that investigation and then to report to the AG on it. That's it, that was his job.

That's not correct. The scope of Mueller's investigation wasn't just "Russian interference," that was already being looked into by intelligence agencies (because it's their job, not the FBI's). Mueller was specially tasked with investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and other criminal matters arising from that investigation.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Let's take a look at another angle.



Mueller claimed he didn't want to present all the evidence against because without charging Trump, Trump would have no avenue to defend himself against the charges.



Sounds honorable enough if one didn't consider the fact there's a crook in the WH and Mueller knew it.



What law prevented Mueller from passing more information on to the House who Mueller also designated as the proper authority to prosecute Trump?

The relevant portions of the Code of Federal Regulations have been cited twice in this thread today already.

 

[Cavemonster]

You are still demanding things of him that were never in his job description.

Do you believe that a person can be criticized for the choices they make even if they fullfill their job description and stay within the law?

Can an action possibly be wrong if it is within the confines of the law and the expectations of a job?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Do you believe that a person can be criticized for the choices they make even if they fullfill their job description and stay within the law?



Can an action possibly be wrong if it is within the confines of the law and the expectations of a job?

Speaking for myself, I have about zero patience for attacking someone because of what another person did based on captain hindsight logic.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you believe that a person can be criticized for the choices they make even if they fullfill their job description and stay within the law?

Can an action possibly be wrong if it is within the confines of the law and the expectations of a job?

I don't believe that it is fair or just to make up goalposts that were not part of a person's job and then criticize them because they didn't meet those invented criteria.