• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is simply false of Mueller to claim that he couldn't have indicted Trump - of course he could have.
There is no law that would have stopped him, just a DOJ memo that has been successfully challenged in the past.
Mueller didn't want the hassle of going after Trump, hoping that others would do it for him.
 
You're wrong PW. Believe whatever you want, that doesn't make you right. We are at an impasse.

Because Mueller had more than one reason doesn't mean he didn't say what I heard him say. Oh look, you were wrong, what a surprise!

He also said it would be "unfair" to even suggest Trump had committed a crime, because it would deprive him of the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law.... given Mueller felt he couldn't indict a sitting POTUS. Keep in mind not charging a sitting POTUS is merely a DoJ opinion, not something in the law or tested in court.

You realise that the link you just posted actually agrees with what RecoveringYuppy and I posted, not what you did.

Or have you conveniently forgotten that your claim was that Mueller "didn't want to present all the evidence against [Trump]" not that he declined to determine if a prosecution should occur or not.

Mueller could have challenged that DoJ opinion.

I am sure that was a consideration, and the it seems that decision was that it take a lot of time and litigation and would likely hold up Constitutionally, so they didn't. It also wasn't a requirement of their job to do so. Again, you are creating requirements out of thin air rather than bothering to fine out what the actual mandate was and what requirements that resulted in.
 
It is simply false of Mueller to claim that he couldn't have indicted Trump - of course he could have.
There is no law that would have stopped him, just a DOJ memo that has been successfully challenged in the past.
Mueller didn't want the hassle of going after Trump, hoping that others would do it for him.

Well the memo is based on the wording in the Constitution which specifies that a President can only be removed by impeachment. Since an Indictment would effectually remove him from Office, then it would an end run around the Constitution and a usurping of Congressional powers by a Prosecutor.

You could argue otherwise, but consider what Mueller was up against to do that with a President that would fight it to the very top, a Supreme Court stacked 5-4 in Trump's favour and an AG who would not back the play.
 
You realise that the link you just posted actually agrees with what RecoveringYuppy and I posted, not what you did.

Or have you conveniently forgotten that your claim was that Mueller "didn't want to present all the evidence against [Trump]" not that he declined to determine if a prosecution should occur or not.



I am sure that was a consideration, and the it seems that decision was that it take a lot of time and litigation and would likely hold up Constitutionally, so they didn't. It also wasn't a requirement of their job to do so. Again, you are creating requirements out of thin air rather than bothering to fine out what the actual mandate was and what requirements that resulted in.
If you think that link agrees with you guys, I repeat what I said earlier, you're reading **** into my post that wasn't there.

I don't have time to spoon feed you.
 
If you think that link agrees with you guys, I repeat what I said earlier, you're reading **** into my post that wasn't there.

I don't have time to spoon feed you.

I highlighted exactly what you said, you were wrong, but instead of say "I got it wrong" you are trying to make it seem that it never happened and we just misread you. Sorry it doesn't fly. You stated that Mueller "didn't want to present all the evidence against [Trump]." It was incorrect, it's still incorrect, and it will be incorrect in the future.
 
I highlighted exactly what you said, you were wrong, but instead of say "I got it wrong" you are trying to make it seem that it never happened and we just misread you. Sorry it doesn't fly. You stated that Mueller "didn't want to present all the evidence against [Trump]." It was incorrect, it's still incorrect, and it will be incorrect in the future.

Give it up, you misread my post. I don't know what your problem is but you have one.
 
Those who are 'disappointed' in Mueller are basically bemoaning the fact that nearly half the nation is stupid and/or media silo'd.

Not me! But then, my complaints about him have more to do with distinct mistakes that he made when it came to, for example, getting campaign finance law right. I'm not faulting Mueller for the actions of others.
 
Last edited:
1) Why did he not make a point earlier on that he'd be turning all this over to Trump.

Are you asking why he didn't make a public statement explaining to people what laws and rules he was bound by?

Why should he? If you thought the laws were something different to what they actually are that's on you, not on him.

2) He was legally required to testify before Congress when they subpoenaed him. He resisted and then when he did testify, it was clear he wasn't saying all he could have, and that includes testifying behind closed doors.

Again, he was avoiding the politicising of the report.
 
What have either of those posters got to do with my post?

You seem to think Mueller was clear in accusing Trump of perjury, rather than forcing people to "read between the lines". I'm asking if you think noted Trump supporters (and also noted Presidential Perjurists should be impeached-ers, iirc) would agree with your assessment.

I think it's clear that Mueller was not as clear and direct about such claims as you seem to be implying.
 
You seem to think Mueller was clear in accusing Trump of perjury, rather than forcing people to "read between the lines". I'm asking if you think noted Trump supporters (and also noted Presidential Perjurists should be impeached-ers, iirc) would agree with your assessment.

I think it's clear that Mueller was not as clear and direct about such claims as you seem to be implying.

I was answering a specific post by another poster. I'm not going to pretend to mind-read two completely unrelated posters, and I've no idea why you're trying to goad me into doing so.
 
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.

Precisely.
 
You seem to think Mueller was clear in accusing Trump of perjury, rather than forcing people to "read between the lines". I'm asking if you think noted Trump supporters (and also noted Presidential Perjurists should be impeached-ers, iirc) would agree with your assessment.

I think it's clear that Mueller was not as clear and direct about such claims as you seem to be implying.

He was clear enough for a thousand past and present prosecutors to put their name to a statement saying the evidence is well sufficient to indict (anyone not the sitting POTUS.)

And one need not be a lawyer to understand Mueller's work product.
 
I was answering a specific post by another poster. I'm not going to pretend to mind-read two completely unrelated posters, and I've no idea why you're trying to goad me into doing so.

I'm not trying to goad you into anything. I'm pointing out that despite your claims, people who are well-versed in the situation do not think Mueller was clearly saying what you claim he was. I think Mueller needed to be more direct and clear to take away the wiggle room that those two participating posters, as well as Fox News, Trump, Barr, et al, have used to claim the opposite of what you think was clearly stated.

He was clear enough for a thousand past and present prosecutors to put their name to a statement saying the evidence is well sufficient to indict (anyone not the sitting POTUS.)

And one need not be a lawyer to understand Mueller's work product.

No, but one needs to have a decent amount of understanding of the law. Mueller should have been more clear and direct in his statements. He held back to avoid the appearance of partisanship, with the result being that he was still accused of partisanship anyway but provided cover for the crimes that he documented by being less clear and direct than he could have been.
 
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.

Mueller refused to consider indicting a sitting POTUS because removing him is the job of Congress. Mueller's audience was not only the USAG, but the body that he knew was the only one to handle the case: Congress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom