Mueller Investigation pt 6

[smartcooky]

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]

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.

This isn't entirely true. They had an idea that parts might be released, and so created summaries for that, but the mandate and law required a confidential report to be given to the AG. From there the response to the report is in the hands of the AG based on the following....

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action—

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to
the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.​

(b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.
(c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

Some posters need to read section (c) a number of times until they understand it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm not trying to goad you into anything.

Good, because I'm not going to bite.

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.

Leaving aside you again trying to get me to comment on two posters on this forum and instead making the following remark only about the other people you mentioned, I don't think "partisan pundits and Trump's allies misrepresent the truth" is quite the newsflash you seem to think it is.

 

[wareyin]

Good, because I'm not going to bite.



Leaving aside you again trying to get me to comment on two posters on this forum and instead making the following remark only about the other people you mentioned, I don't think "partisan pundits and Trump's allies misrepresent the truth" is quite the newsflash you seem to think it is.

Good because I'm not presenting it as a news flash. If people in the very discussion you are having hear Mueller's words to mean the opposite you do, then Mueller wasn't as clear as you claim. That's not supposed to be a newsflash, it's pointing out that your claims of clarity are wrong, with pertinent examples that you should have been aware of.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't see how Mueller had a good argument not to read from his own report in front of Congress.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't see how Mueller had a good argument not to read from his own report in front of Congress.

Because it was a waste of time after Mueller made it clear roughly a bajillion times that everything he had to say was in the report and that he wasn't going to get baited/tricked into saying something that wasn't in it.

The biggest issue is that so many people think Mueller was eventually going to get around to either saying something that wasn't in his report (which he was always adamant just wasn't going to happen) or phrase something in some political doublespeak "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" way which, again, he wasn't going to do.

 

[Belz...]

Because it was a waste of time after Mueller made it clear roughly a bajillion times that everything he had to say was in the report and that he wasn't going to get baited/tricked into saying something that wasn't in it.

The biggest issue is that so many people think Mueller was eventually going to get around to either saying something that wasn't in his report (which he was always adamant just wasn't going to happen) or phrase something in some political doublespeak "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" way which, again, he wasn't going to do.

Mueller is a traitor to our expectations!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Mueller is a traitor to our expectations!

Basically. "Mueller how dare you not gift wrap impeachment for us to a degree that we literally can't fail in doing it?"

 

[Beelzebuddy]

or phrase something in some political doublespeak "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" way which, again, he wasn't going to do.

Do you mean not phrase something in doublespeak? Because that's how all of his conclusions were phrased. "I'm not allowed to call Trump a crook, but I'd tell you if he wasn't. *crickets*"

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you mean not phrase something in doublespeak? Because that's how all of his conclusions were phrased. "I'm not allowed to call Trump a crook, but I'd tell you if he wasn't. *crickets*"

No those were all in response to various Democrats and Republicans basically begging Mueller to just come outright and say which side "won" his investigation which is not how Mueller was framing things.

Legalese isn't the same thing as political doublespeak.

 

[wareyin]

Do you mean not phrase something in doublespeak? Because that's how all of his conclusions were phrased. "I'm not allowed to call Trump a crook, but I'd tell you if he wasn't. *crickets*"

Triplespeak: "I'm not allowed to call Trump a crook, but I'd tell you if I found incontrovertible proof of his complete innocence. *Crickets*".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Good because I'm not presenting it as a news flash. If people in the very discussion you are having hear Mueller's words to mean the opposite you do, then Mueller wasn't as clear as you claim. That's not supposed to be a newsflash, it's pointing out that your claims of clarity are wrong, with pertinent examples that you should have been aware of.

That other people have misunderstood or are misrepresenting something (again, speaking generally rather than getting drawn into an argument you seem determined to start between me and a couple of other posters) doesn't imply that the thing that is being misunderstood or misrepresented wasn't clear. Your logic is flawed.

If you want to make the case that what Mueller said wasn't clear, then make that case. What you are doing is not that.

 

[theprestige]

Do you think theprestige or Ziggurat agree with you? I don't think they do.

Please leave me out of this. I'm not a stick for you to beat other members with.

With which to beat other members.

Anyway, leave me out of this.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Because it was a waste of time after Mueller made it clear roughly a bajillion times that everything he had to say was in the report and that he wasn't going to get baited/tricked into saying something that wasn't in it.

I don't see how you made a point on this:

If Mueller was worried about being misquoted, quoting the Report would have been the safest option.

No,. Mueller was worried about being too clear in the hearing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1167077560301379584

JUST OUT: The DOJ's Inspector General report on
@Comey's handling of "sensitive investigative" information. DOJ declined prosecution, as has been reported, but faults Comey for disseminating his memos about his interactions with Trump in 2017. https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o1902.pdf …

Document embedded in tweet.

https://twitter.com/Comey/status/1167074854757163009

DOJ IG "found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media." I don’t need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a “sorry we lied about you” would be nice.

 

[wareyin]

That other people have misunderstood or are misrepresenting something (again, speaking generally rather than getting drawn into an argument you seem determined to start between me and a couple of other posters)

Is this supposed to be a clever ploy to show that no matter how clearly something is stated, if someone is determined to "misunderstand" a statement they will find a way to do so? Because if so, you'd need to show Mueller speaking as clearly as I was. Pretending to misunderstand a clear point doesn't refute a claim that a different point wasn't as clear as you claim it was.

doesn't imply that the thing that is being misunderstood or misrepresented wasn't clear. Your logic is flawed.

That people misunderstand something doesn't mean it wasn't clear? Are you sure that's what you meant to say? It's not as if Trump Mueller was clear, the man used legalistic double and triple speak. At no point did he plainly state "Trump committed perjury" or "Trump lied."

If you want to make the case that what Mueller said wasn't clear, then make that case. What you are doing is not that.

Meh, I did that in the post directly above this one of yours that I'm quoting.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't see how you made a point on this:

If Mueller was worried about being misquoted, quoting the Report would have been the safest option.

No,. Mueller was worried about being too clear in the hearing.

Again because Mueller was speaking legalese to an audience that was demanding Realpolitik.

A lawyer is someone who never says anything directly, a politician is someone who says a plus at the beginning of the sentence and a minus at the end so he never actually says anything. It's a miracle they can communicate at all. The Mueller Hearing should have started with them playing that Star Trek: TNG Episode Darmok to let everyone know what they were in store for.

 

[wareyin]

Please leave me out of this. I'm not a stick for you to beat other members with.

With which to beat other members.

Anyway, leave me out of this.

I apologise for using your claims in this thread as a point of discussion. I was unaware of the new "we can't talk about what theprestige said in this thread" rule.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is this supposed to be a clever ploy to show that no matter how clearly something is stated, if someone is determined to "misunderstand" a statement they will find a way to do so? Because if so, you'd need to show Mueller speaking as clearly as I was. Pretending to misunderstand a clear point doesn't refute a claim that a different point wasn't as clear as you claim it was.

I don't know what you think you have to gain by trying this tack, but I'm not going to bite.

That people misunderstand something doesn't mean it wasn't clear? Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

What I said was that if some people misunderstand or misrepresent something, that doesn't imply that that thing wasn't clear. And, yes, that's what I intended to say.

Some people are stupid and misunderstand simple things. Some people are partisan and are therefore driven to try to imply that there is ambiguity where there isn't - particularly if they're disseminating information to people who they believe will not check primary sources and will instead believe whatever they are told by the secondary source.

It's not as if Trump Mueller was clear, the man used legalistic double and triple speak. At no point did he plainly state "Trump committed perjury" or "Trump lied."

DEMINGS:
Thank you so much Mr. Chairman and Director Mueller, thank you so much for being a person of honor and integrity. Thank you for your service to the nation, we are certainly better for it.
Director Mueller, I too want to focus on the written responses that the president did provide and the continued efforts to lie and cover up what happened during the 2016 election. Were the president answers submitted under oath?

MUELLER:
Yes, yes.

[...]

DEMINGS:
He did not. In fact, there were many questions that you asked the president that he simply didn't answer, isn't that correct?

MUELLER:
True.

DEMINGS:
And there were many answers that contradicted other evidence you had gathered during the investigation, isn't that correct Director Mueller?

MUELLER:
Yes.

He doesn't use the word "lie", but he says that Trump's written answers were made under oath and that they are contradicted by the facts. That is a clear statement that Trump committed perjury, and characterising coming to that conclusion as necessitating "read[ing] between the lines" is to stretch that phrase to a degree as to render it meaningless.

 

[wareyin]

<snipped pointless bickering about your own misunderstanding despite clear explanations>


He doesn't use the word "lie", but he says that Trump's written answers were made under oath and that they are contradicted by the facts. That is a clear statement that Trump committed perjury, and characterising coming to that conclusion as necessitating "read[ing] between the lines" is to stretch that phrase to a degree as to render it meaningless.

No. "Trump committed perjury" is a clear statement that Trump committed perjury. "Trump spoke under oath but was contradicted by the facts" leaves plenty of wiggle room between committing perjury and being wrong, unaware of the whole truth, or some other explanation.

We agree that Trump committed perjury, and that a reasonable way to read Mueller's statement was that Trump had committed perjury. We disagree about how unambiguous Mueller's statement was.