Mueller's report and word only makes sense if he knew there was a Prosecutor ready to pick up his findings and start charging Trump.

But since he started out on the premise that Trump can only be Impeached, he should have made his report to support Impeachment in clear terms.
 
Mueller's report and word only makes sense if he knew there was a Prosecutor ready to pick up his findings and start charging Trump.

How so?

But since he started out on the premise that Trump can only be Impeached, he should have made his report to support Impeachment in clear terms.

As I said, it was not his position to support or not support impeachment. It was his job to present the facts and it was Congress' job to decide on bringing impeachment charges based on those facts. From McLean's:

So, when the president’s new Attorney General William Barr issued a two-page summary of the Mueller report, and cleared the president of any wrongdoing, the media, the Democrats, the 54 per cent of Americans who disapprove of Trump, all gasped. In the words of the recently disgraced Game of Thrones writers, expectations were… subverted.

Even when the report was released, and it was revealed Barr had shamelessly misrepresented its findings—Mueller had found overwhelming evidence of Russian interference, of cooperation with the Trump campaign, and of obstruction of justice—it was too late. The momentum was gone. The mob of townspeople chanting for justice had already dispersed. Trump had gotten away with it. Democratic leaders explained impeachment was too politically unpalatable. Pundits stopped speculating about Trump’s arrest and began speculating about his second term.
Then Mueller spoke.

He read a short prepared statement. It was simple and blunt. After two years, he was done. His investigation was over. It found that the Russians had made “multiple, systematic efforts to subvert” American democracy. That attack was meant to hurt Trump’s rival. And that if his team “had confidence the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Furthermore, charging the president was not an option for them because the U.S. constitution required a different path—an impeachment trial.
Mueller’s message was clear: I was never going to bring you justice—I was only going to give you the facts. You should never have waited for me to determine if the president is guilty. That is up to you and the people you have elected to represent you. Justice can be done—but only by the American people. I did my job—go do yours.
Then Mueller walked away from the podium and retired.
 
A bit of perspective of the role of Independent Counsel / Special Council shows that Mueller could have pushed much harder, and follow more leads than he did.
He also could have called out Barr publicly for his influencing and lying.

The only reason for not doing to was not to taint a future jury pool - which would be impossible to avoid in any case involving a President; so that was no good reason at all.

Both Patrick Fitzgerald and Ken Starr saw their role to also include briefing the Press on their findings and their importance.
Mueller on the other hand didn't even let anyone else on his team speak with the Press.
 
Both Patrick Fitzgerald and Ken Starr saw their role to also include briefing the Press on their findings and their importance.
Mueller on the other hand didn't even let anyone else on his team speak with the Press.

Trying to compare Starr and Muller is a bit of a fallacy as they were operating under totally different rules because of the fact that many people and politicians felt that Starr had gone too far and so the powers were reigned in.
 
Trying to compare Starr and Muller is a bit of a fallacy as they were operating under totally different rules because of the fact that many people and politicians felt that Starr had gone too far and so the powers were reigned in.

Starr had sweeping powers that he pushed even further.

Mueller had constraints on his power that he further constraint himself by choice.
 
I agree and I don't think it would have been beyond his position to interpret the findings of his investigation, or to make a conclusion or recommendation on his findings, especially when specifically asked about it. He purposefully avoided doing that.

Knowing it was being sent to a Congress that had no intention of ever pursuing the criminal activity in the findings and that criminal activity directly prevented him from doing a proper and thorough investigation, I find that to be a strange choice. To later have his report deliberately misinterpreted or lied about and still not correct the record on it, even more strange.

I think that surely he must have realized that if the truth about his report, and even more importantly the activities he was investigating, were to ever reach the American public in time for something to be done about it, it would have had to come from him. But he did something else. His choice to make, but he should be criticized for doing it.
 
Actually I think that's part of the problem... Mueller didn't tell us that Trump obstructed justice. Instead, he always phrased his statements along the lines of "My report didn't exonerate Trump", which muddied the waters.

If he came right out and said "Trump broke the law", it would have been much harder for the republicans to sweep things under the rug. But Mueller's weak phrasing allowed the republicans to spin things dishonestly.
While I agree with you in spirit, I think Mueller was caught between a rock and a hard place. It was not Mueller's job nor his place to say "Trump broke the law". He did say that was Congress's job.
It is true that ultimately it is Congress's job to determine guilt/innocence. But, Mueller did have a lot more flexibility that he could have used, while still staying within the bounds of "let congress decide".

For example, he could have stated that "as a former prosecutor I would have no problems laying charges based on the evidence" (or something along those lines). And when Trump claimed he was exonerated, instead of saying "the report does not exonerate", he could have explicitly said "Trump is lying".

Its like he was bringing a pool-noodle to a gun fight.

I think the most revealing incident came during one of the hearings, when he was asked to read from a portion of the report. (It wouldn't have been bringing any new information up, but hearing from Mueller, using his own voice, would have been useful in setting public perception, perhaps putting more pressure on republicans to act.) Instead, he got the Democrat who had asked the question to read that part of the report. Which would have had little to no impact.
 
A bit of perspective of the role of Independent Counsel / Special Council shows that Mueller could have pushed much harder, and follow more leads than he did.
He also could have called out Barr publicly for his influencing and lying.

The only reason for not doing to was not to taint a future jury pool - which would be impossible to avoid in any case involving a President; so that was no good reason at all.

Mueller basically did call out Barr for his lying when he issued his rare statement contradicting what Barr had said. That he did so without coming right out and calling Barr a liar being seen as insufficient by some is just too bad. Mueller behaved in accordance with his well earned reputation for decorum, restraint, and class. It had nothing to do with "tainting a future jury pool".

Both Patrick Fitzgerald and Ken Starr saw their role to also include briefing the Press on their findings and their importance.

How they saw their roles is irrelevant; how Mueller saw his role is what was relevant. Whether Mueller gave press conferences or not, he would have been criticized. Fitzgerald was accused of becoming a 'media darling' due to his press conferences during the Libby investigation.
Starr approved of the choice of Mueller as Special Counsel and defended Mueller’s integrity as a nonpartisan prosecutor.

Mueller on the other hand didn't even let anyone else on his team speak with the Press.

Which was a damn wise decision. If anyone was going to speak to the press, it should have been Mueller.
 
It is true that ultimately it is Congress's job to determine guilt/innocence. But, Mueller did have a lot more flexibility that he could have used, while still staying within the bounds of "let congress decide".

For example, he could have stated that "as a former prosecutor I would have no problems laying charges based on the evidence" (or something along those lines). And when Trump claimed he was exonerated, instead of saying "the report does not exonerate", he could have explicitly said "Trump is lying".

Its like he was bringing a pool-noodle to a gun fight.

I think the most revealing incident came during one of the hearings, when he was asked to read from a portion of the report. (It wouldn't have been bringing any new information up, but hearing from Mueller, using his own voice, would have been useful in setting public perception, perhaps putting more pressure on republicans to act.) Instead, he got the Democrat who had asked the question to read that part of the report. Which would have had little to no impact.

There seems to be an expectation that Mueller personally should have acted more forcefully to push for an indictment or impeachment as if that was his job. It wasn't.

Mueller didn't need to say "Trump is lying". He didn't need to say "Barr lied". What Mueller did say, "the report does not exonerate" and "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," clearly states his position. If anyone is too dense to understand that and needs to have the word "lie" or "liar" spelled out for them, then they probably wouldn't care what the report said because they'd vote for Trump anyway.

All this whinging about Mueller is nothing more than trying to shift blame onto him for the failure of Congress to act. He did his job and he did it well. Stop trying to blame him and focus your anger where it belong: on Barr and Congress for failing to hold Trump responsible for his crimes.
 
There seems to be an expectation that Mueller personally should have acted more forcefully to push for an indictment or impeachment as if that was his job. It wasn't.

Mueller didn't need to say "Trump is lying". He didn't need to say "Barr lied". What Mueller did say, "the report does not exonerate" and "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," clearly states his position. If anyone is too dense to understand that and needs to have the word "lie" or "liar" spelled out for them, then they probably wouldn't care what the report said because they'd vote for Trump anyway.

All this whinging about Mueller is nothing more than trying to shift blame onto him for the failure of Congress to act. He did his job and he did it well. Stop trying to blame him and focus your anger where it belong: on Barr and Congress for failing to hold Trump responsible for his crimes.

Poor Mueller. He had to operate in a country having too many skeezy politicians, too much dishonest media and too many citizens who are too stupid or don't care.
 
There seems to be an expectation that Mueller personally should have acted more forcefully to push for an indictment or impeachment as if that was his job. It wasn't.

Mueller didn't need to say "Trump is lying". He didn't need to say "Barr lied". What Mueller did say, "the report does not exonerate" and "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," clearly states his position. If anyone is too dense to understand that and needs to have the word "lie" or "liar" spelled out for them, then they probably wouldn't care what the report said because they'd vote for Trump anyway.

All this whinging about Mueller is nothing more than trying to shift blame onto him for the failure of Congress to act. He did his job and he did it well. Stop trying to blame him and focus your anger where it belong: on Barr and Congress for failing to hold Trump responsible for his crimes.

This.

There is nothing Mueller could've said to convince the GOP to convict. Trump was right when he said he could commit murder and lose no vote.
 
There seems to be an expectation that Mueller personally should have acted more forcefully to push for an indictment or impeachment as if that was his job. It wasn't.

Mueller didn't need to say "Trump is lying". He didn't need to say "Barr lied". What Mueller did say, "the report does not exonerate" and "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," clearly states his position. If anyone is too dense to understand that and needs to have the word "lie" or "liar" spelled out for them, then they probably wouldn't care what the report said because they'd vote for Trump anyway.

All this whinging about Mueller is nothing more than trying to shift blame onto him for the failure of Congress to act. He did his job and he did it well. Stop trying to blame him and focus your anger where it belong: on Barr and Congress for failing to hold Trump responsible for his crimes.

I wonder what the current DOJ thinks about the crimes IDed by Mueller, especially given the danger of Trumpism.
 
Mueller didn't say that, I did. And it wasn't Mueller's job to say that Trump broke the law: he was not a court of law nor a judge. It was his place to present the facts in the report and that alone. This speculation that he 'intentionally dropped the ball' is based on no evidence at all. I understand the disappointment in the results of the report but I think you're projecting that onto Mueller. As are several of the other posters here.
I didn't think you were quoting him.

That "Muelller could and should have said clearly that what Trump did was grounds for Impeachment" and "He didn't make it clear that Congress had to take over from him and continue" is nonsense. What are grounds for impeachment is up to Congress, not Mueller and what Congress "has" to do is equally not up to Mueller. If Mueller had done either, it would seriously have undermined his position of neutrality as the Special Counsel. Can you imagine the apoplectic fits of screaming coming from the Republicans if he had done either? There were enough accusations of 'witch hunt' as it was.

If you want to know why Mueller did what he did, read the following:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ump-could-be-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901
I also don't think it was Mueller's job to assert Dump should be impeached. It was Mueller's job to say he found Russia acted to get Dump elected, there was a connection to the Dump campaign, and Dump took multiple actions favoring Russia before and after he was elected. There was strong circumstantial evidence Dump was directly involved.

That's what Mueller obviously found yet he allowed Barr to lie about the report. Mueller owed this country the duty to speak up about his report.

It wasn't Mueller's job to say Dump should be impeached. That's where Congress' job started.

And whether or not the GOP legislators already decided to acquit, the American public was who Mueller owed a duty to.

Saying what was found doesn't mean Mueller was no longer neutral. This from NBC is a red herring
Former special counsel Robert Mueller testified Wednesday that he did not indict President Donald Trump on obstruction of justice charges because of Department of Justice guidelines barring a sitting president from being indicted — but later clarified his remarks.
And I think it's more bull ****. Mueller could of said that: he would have indicted Dump except for this policy belief.

Mueller was under no ethical mandate not to say Dump was guilty but can't be indicted. He could have tempered it by saying probably guilty or was guilty enough to be tried, and should be presumed innocent without a trial. That is up to the Congress.

Why was it ethical to hide what he found?
 
Last edited:
There seems to be an expectation that Mueller personally should have acted more forcefully to push for an indictment or impeachment as if that was his job. It wasn't.
Not the same thing I or some others are saying.

Mueller didn't need to say "Trump is lying". He didn't need to say "Barr lied". What Mueller did say, "the report does not exonerate" and "If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," clearly states his position. If anyone is too dense to understand that and needs to have the word "lie" or "liar" spelled out for them, then they probably wouldn't care what the report said because they'd vote for Trump anyway.
Bunch of wishy washy excuses for Mueller. Mueller's comments about Barr lying was pretty weak. Should have been much stronger: "Barr is misrepresenting my report."

All this whinging about Mueller is nothing more than trying to shift blame onto him for the failure of Congress to act. He did his job and he did it well. Stop trying to blame him and focus your anger where it belong: on Barr and Congress for failing to hold Trump responsible for his crimes.
I don't think those are mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
This.

There is nothing Mueller could've said to convince the GOP to convict. Trump was right when he said he could commit murder and lose no vote.

Not the goal. The goal of Mueller's should have been an address to the public: "This is what I found".
 
There is nothing Mueller could've said to convince the GOP to convict. Trump was right when he said he could commit murder and lose no vote.
You are probably right about that but if he had spoken more forcefully at least the full weight of their failure to convict would be more obvious.
 
Poor Mueller. He had to operate in a country having too many skeezy politicians, too much dishonest media and too many citizens who are too stupid or don't care.

Mueller allowed skeezy politicians to dictate the terms and ultimately the outcome of his investigation despite his ability, authority, and opportunity to do more to change that. He had as much a duty to the US Constitution and democracy as he did a corrupt Congress, DOJ, and President. He deserves criticism for that.
 
I didn't think you were quoting him.

That was rather difficult to discern from your post when you wrote
"Mueller had the choice between standing up for principles of democracy and some copout it wasn't his place or his job," and "Pretty easy to just claim it wasn't your job as opposed to taking a stand on principles."

I also don't think it was Mueller's job to assert Dump should be impeached. It was Mueller's job to say he found Russia acted to get Dump elected, there was a connection to the Dump campaign, and Dump took multiple actions favoring Russia before and after he was elected. There was strong circumstantial evidence Dump was directly involved.

NO, that would be Mueller having gone into the investigation with a foregone conclusion. It was Mueller's job to investigate and to report what he found. Which he did. Which he laid out in a clear and succinct manner.

That's what Mueller obviously found yet he allowed Barr to lie about the report. Mueller owed this country the duty to speak up about his report.

No, he did not allow Barr to lie about the report. He did speak up on May 29 when he issued his statement "As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.: and “Under long-standing department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view – that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.” He spoke up again on July 24 when he testified before Congress.

It wasn't Mueller's job to say Dump should be impeached. That's where Congress' job started.

And whether or not the GOP legislators already decided to acquit, the American public was who Mueller owed a duty to.

And he did that duty. Again, you are shifting blame onto Mueller because you do think it was his job to outright accuse Trump regardless of the fact that he was hindered by DOJ policy and that he worked directly for the DOJ.

Saying what was found doesn't mean Mueller was no longer neutral. This from NBC is a red herringAnd I think it's more bull ****. Mueller could of said that: he would have indicted Dump except for this policy belief.

I refer you to Mueller's bolded quote of May 29, 2019 above again. Also:

“So that was Justice Department policy, those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position. And we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.”

Mueller was under no ethical mandate not to say Dump was guilty but can't be indicted. He could have tempered it by saying probably guilty or was guilty enough to be tried, and should be presumed innocent without a trial. That is up to the Congress.

OH, come on SG. Mueller couldn't say Trump was guilty. Don't be ridiculous. Can you imagine the uproar from the Right? Not only was that not his place, it would have given the Right and Trump absolute fodder for their accusations of the investigation being a witch hunt and Mueller being biased from the beginning.

Why was it ethical to hide what he found?

Exactly what are claiming he hid?
 
Mueller allowed skeezy politicians to dictate the terms and ultimately the outcome of his investigation despite his ability, authority, and opportunity to do more to change that. He had as much a duty to the US Constitution and democracy as he did a corrupt Congress, DOJ, and President. He deserves criticism for that.

And exactly what " ability, authority, and opportunity" did he have to do more?

Did he have the ability to indict Trump? Or the authority? Or the opportunity? Or to impeach Trump? I'd like the details, please.
 
And exactly what " ability, authority, and opportunity" did he have to do more?

Did he have the ability to indict Trump? Or the authority? Or the opportunity? Or to impeach Trump? I'd like the details, please.
We should note that these questions are a bit off kilter because he said he made no determination that Trump had committed a crime. So his ability to do more would still have been short of an indictment. Basically he could have used stronger language when fighting the misrepresentations of his report.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom